Quantcast

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

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

RevKev

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
4,891
Reaction score
2,411
Location
Western NY
I just read in a post that TH growlers say they are naturally carbonated? I'm now wondering if the T-58 like yeast is added along with a dose of fermentable sugar under pressure. They could dry hop at this time and get bio transformation as well along with O2 scavenging. This would possibly suggest they use a less complicated yeast blend for primary.

Anyone thoughts or personal experience with something like this in a NE IPA?
I don't believe they are... I did purchase four last time I went. Unless they add the yeast and sugar mix into their keg.

All that is possible, but the beer would be very vegetal if heavy keg dry hop, I don't remember that. Maybe a hopback is used.
 

robopp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
135
Reaction score
48
Where did you read that? It's the first I've heard that they naturally carbonate their beers.
 

skibb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
606
Reaction score
113
Location
Lexington
I highly doubt they are naturally carbonating their IPAs - I'm not sure any brewery would want their fresh/hoppy beer 'aging' just to get carbonation into it. I've never heard or met any brewery who naturally carbonates their super hoppy IPAs.

I have recently analyzed two more TH cans (Julius and Alter Ego). I only looked at 10-12 colones each (realized it would take way too long to run gels if I analyzed 50+ colonies/can). All colonies were either the blue triangle (S-04), red square (mystery) or green circle (T-58). The ratios were 14 (S-04), 5 (mystery) and 3 (T-58). Propagating the blend over several generations and then reanalyzing might provide some insight into why some people's starters from can dregs "turn" Belgiany. It could be that that strain grows faster than the others? I haven't analyzed any other breweries dregs (I live in KS, so difficult to get the NE IPAs).
So you have determined that these strains are S-04 and T-58? If so, maybe the third mystery strain is also a dry yeast from Fermentis too? Doing yeast blends would be substantially easier with dry yeast and not terribly expensive.

Since it's nearly impossible to maintain yeast blend proportions throughout subsequent generations, I don't think this is too much of a stab in the dark. I mean, practically speaking, this just makes sense to me that it would be another dry yeast strain, and more likely than not, a Fermentis one to boot.
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
Where did you read that? It's the first I've heard that they naturally carbonate their beers.
On a post from Mike Strassers blog: https://strasserbrewing.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/6-1-2017-creamsicle-milkshake-ipa/

I highly doubt they are naturally carbonating their IPAs - I'm not sure any brewery would want their fresh/hoppy beer 'aging' just to get carbonation into it. I've never heard or met any brewery who naturally carbonates their super hoppy IPAs.



So you have determined that these strains are S-04 and T-58? If so, maybe the third mystery strain is also a dry yeast from Fermentis too? Doing yeast blends would be substantially easier with dry yeast and not terribly expensive.

Since it's nearly impossible to maintain yeast blend proportions throughout subsequent generations, I don't think this is too much of a stab in the dark. I mean, practically speaking, this just makes sense to me that it would be another dry yeast strain, and more likely than not, a Fermentis one to boot.
I can't say I'm an expert on brewery practices, but I'd think it would actually be an efficient process and help lower DO in the final product.

I found this comment in an old thread:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showpost.php?p=465869&postcount=9

RE dry yeasts, I agree with you and have had discussions with others in a similar vein. Keep in mind that the genetic fingerprint doesn't conclusively "say" the yeast I've isolated is S-04 or T-58, just that they're closely related. I am thinking S-33 could be the red square mystery strain. That is supposedly an old English strain. I wouldn't be surprised if they were pitching heavy ratios towards the English yeasts and trying to get elevated glycerol/bubblegum esters from the Belgian strain. Would be an easy test on the home brew scale...
 

TheHairyHop

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
221
Location
Boulder
I highly doubt they are naturally carbonating their IPAs - I'm not sure any brewery would want their fresh/hoppy beer 'aging' just to get carbonation into it. I've never heard or met any brewery who naturally carbonates their super hoppy IPAs.
I disagree. If you hop with some extract left, naturally carbing is the logical next step. The whole process of hopping during fermentation and naturally carbing takes about a week.
 

skibb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
606
Reaction score
113
Location
Lexington
I disagree. If you hop with some extract left, naturally carbing is the logical next step. The whole process of hopping during fermentation and naturally carbing takes about a week.
My comment was more-so on adding another strain of yeast to naturally carbonate. If they were adding a conditioning strain it would not be in a primary/uni-tank, and the beer would not be still fermenting.

It's not as logical as you would think. Nearly every FV jacket is rated to 14.9 PSI. You cannot get 2.5-2.8 volumes of CO2 (2.8 being the usual target for a beer going into a can) into a beer under 15 psi unless the beer is ~45 F (i.e. not still fermenting). That being said, they could have 30 PSI rated tanks, but it's unlikely.

Capping a fermenter after dry-hopping while fermentation finishes (something I personally do) does end up providing close to 1.5 volumes of CO2 in my beer. I then cold crash and force carbonate.
 

Ruckusz28

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
317
Reaction score
66
Location
Southgate
Where did you read that? It's the first I've heard that they naturally carbonate their beers.
It's printed on their growlers.

I had a reader reach out a few months ago and was discussing the possibility for natural carbonation of the tree house beers. Going by their word, I would suspect that the beer would be transferred to a bright tank a few points north of terminal gravity where it is dry hopped and sealed to allow the final period of fermentation to carbonate the beer. Depending on what yeast is used for primary fermentation, a secondary yeast that is more attenuative could be used to finish the beer. Being under pressure would force the dissolved aromas from the yeast esters and the dry hops into the beer as opposed to allowing them to escape through the airlock.

My last batch demonstrated an improvement in this area, however it was not done to the best of my ability. I used a strange experimental yeast and my fermentation keg had a stuck poppit that was leaking some pressure.

This is my best guess to their process.

Thanks @isomerization for your work here. This is one of the best threads I've read.
 

TheHairyHop

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
221
Location
Boulder
I believe that S-04 is 5% more attenuative than T-58. I have also thought of this terminal OG -> dry hop + more attenuative strain. It seems a bit of trouble to do as generations change in attenuation and you could just transfer with gravity left, or add sugar after terminal and before/during transfer
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
It's printed on their growlers.

I had a reader reach out a few months ago and was discussing the possibility for natural carbonation of the tree house beers. Going by their word, I would suspect that the beer would be transferred to a bright tank a few points north of terminal gravity where it is dry hopped and sealed to allow the final period of fermentation to carbonate the beer. Depending on what yeast is used for primary fermentation, a secondary yeast that is more attenuative could be used to finish the beer. Being under pressure would force the dissolved aromas from the yeast esters and the dry hops into the beer as opposed to allowing them to escape through the airlock.

My last batch demonstrated an improvement in this area, however it was not done to the best of my ability. I used a strange experimental yeast and my fermentation keg had a stuck poppit that was leaking some pressure.

This is my best guess to their process.

Thanks @isomerization for your work here. This is one of the best threads I've read.
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed reading it, I should say that I enjoy your blog posts as well!

What are your thoughts on glycerol production. This is a somewhat elusive trait to find information on with specific strains, but it seems that saison yeasts are known for making more glycerol than others (helpful when your FG is below 1.006!). I'm assuming that's why the T-58 like yeast is in the cultures (albeit at what looks like a low ratio). This raises a good question though, "Is T-58 a saison yeast?" From NB's website: "A specialty ale yeast selected for its estery, somewhat peppery and spicy flavor." That sounds like a Saison yeast description to me!

My plan for my next NE IPA is to ferment in my conical, dry hop on day 2 (high krausen) and then say 2-3 days later once fermentation is slowing down, rack to a CO2-purged corny with the second dry hop already in there, attach the spunding and (hopefully) fully carb. I think 30 psi is needed at RT.

Its possible that one could use their standard NE IPA yeast in primary, rack to the keg, add a more attenuative Saison strain (T-58?) along with the keg hop and a spunding valve. In theory the Saison yeast would get to FG, carbonate and scavenge any residual O2.

I believe that S-04 is 5% more attenuative than T-58. I have also thought of this terminal OG -> dry hop + more attenuative strain. It seems a bit of trouble to do as generations change in attenuation and you could just transfer with gravity left, or add sugar after terminal and before/during transfer
I think the key here (to this hypothetical situation we have created) is that TH would be using dry yeasts, therefore, they wouldn't need to harvest yeast. Also on a brewery scale, imagine how much money would be wasted on priming sugar.
 

quijiba

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Messages
64
Reaction score
31
I feel dumb now. Lol it is right on there.
Not gonna lie, that blows my mind. Does that mean all of their products are naturally carbonated? That seems mildly insane/impressive that they are naturally carbonating that much beer!
 

stpug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,821
Reaction score
765
Not gonna lie, that blows my mind. Does that mean all of their products are naturally carbonated? That seems mildly insane/impressive that they are naturally carbonating that much beer!
Actually, natural carbing is both easier and faster than force carbing with canned co2 - plus you get the added benefit of no additional O2 introduction (given a solid process) as well as the natural oxygen scavenging behavior of live yeast. Spunding with residual extract is probably the most effective method, but keg/fermenter priming is acceptable as well. That natural benefit of near-zero packaged oxygen is stability of the beer.
 

TheHairyHop

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
221
Location
Boulder
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed reading it, I should say that I enjoy your blog posts as well!

What are your thoughts on glycerol production. This is a somewhat elusive trait to find information on with specific strains, but it seems that saison yeasts are known for making more glycerol than others (helpful when your FG is below 1.006!). I'm assuming that's why the T-58 like yeast is in the cultures (albeit at what looks like a low ratio). This raises a good question though, "Is T-58 a saison yeast?" From NB's website: "A specialty ale yeast selected for its estery, somewhat peppery and spicy flavor." That sounds like a Saison yeast description to me!

My plan for my next NE IPA is to ferment in my conical, dry hop on day 2 (high krausen) and then say 2-3 days later once fermentation is slowing down, rack to a CO2-purged corny with the second dry hop already in there, attach the spunding and (hopefully) fully carb. I think 30 psi is needed at RT.

Its possible that one could use their standard NE IPA yeast in primary, rack to the keg, add a more attenuative Saison strain (T-58?) along with the keg hop and a spunding valve. In theory the Saison yeast would get to FG, carbonate and scavenge any residual O2.



I think the key here (to this hypothetical situation we have created) is that TH would be using dry yeasts, therefore, they wouldn't need to harvest yeast. Also on a brewery scale, imagine how much money would be wasted on priming sugar.
I've also wondered about glycerol. It would be cool to apply a similar technique towards finding strains that produce an abundance of it. I've read that some white wine yeasts are good producers.

T-58 isn't particularly attenuative (I think it's around 70%). I would imagine it's not the yeast that they finish with, if they're also using S-04. At least, they aren't finishing with only T-58.

As far as dropping the hops into a keg to be spunded, I've definitely thought of that! I was considering giving it a try, but was worried about keeping hops in a warmish tank for so many days. Since hop flavor extraction seems to occur more rapidly than previously thought, I was think of my last hopping being at like 4 or 5 points from terminal gravity, and then racking to the carbonation/serving keg at 3 points from terminal.

By adding sugar, you're also bumping ABV. I wouldn't call that a waste. By no means do I operate a brewery, but when considering the cost of sugar vs entirely new yeast, I'd imagine sugar is less expensive. Trillium has sugar listed as an ingredient in basically every beer that they make. My hypothesis was that they may be using a continuous drip of sugar to keep the the environment continuously low O2 during dry hopping.
 

StinkyBeer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
58
Reaction score
25
Hello everyone! What an ace thread...so cool.

We are packaging 2800litres of a Citra IPA today. Combined 2 FV's in to 1 BBT. Exact same recipe except one was fermented with S-04 and one with T-58.

The signs are that this is an absolute banger of a beer. Opaque, juicy, fruit bomb. Sweetshop and sherbet on the nose and huge mango flavour with bread malts. Thick and creamy.

Next experiment is pitching S-04/S-33/T-58 at a ratio of 40/35/25 in another IPA.

Regarding natural carbonation...I seem to remember Hill Farmstead saying their beers were naturally carbed (which isn't the case)...but what I think is happening is that brewers are partially carbonating through spunding and then finishing off the process via a stone (or possibly head pressure) in the same tank. That way they can indeed say the beer is 'naturally carbonated'...and they get to emblazon the word 'naturally' on their growlers!

So cynical.

S-33 sounds interesting. Looking to add some apricot and a little banana bubblegum with this to the tart, juicy fruity T-58. S-04 is fairly restrained IMO...a little tangy fruit but mainly quite doughy.

T-58 absolutely is adding considerable mouthfeel.
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
I've also wondered about glycerol. It would be cool to apply a similar technique towards finding strains that produce an abundance of it. I've read that some white wine yeasts are good producers.

T-58 isn't particularly attenuative (I think it's around 70%). I would imagine it's not the yeast that they finish with, if they're also using S-04. At least, they aren't finishing with only T-58.

As far as dropping the hops into a keg to be spunded, I've definitely thought of that! I was considering giving it a try, but was worried about keeping hops in a warmish tank for so many days. Since hop flavor extraction seems to occur more rapidly than previously thought, I was think of my last hopping being at like 4 or 5 points from terminal gravity, and then racking to the carbonation/serving keg at 3 points from terminal.

By adding sugar, you're also bumping ABV. I wouldn't call that a waste. By no means do I operate a brewery, but when considering the cost of sugar vs entirely new yeast, I'd imagine sugar is less expensive. Trillium has sugar listed as an ingredient in basically every beer that they make. My hypothesis was that they may be using a continuous drip of sugar to keep the the environment continuously low O2 during dry hopping.
I don't think that's an apples-to-apples comparison. If they are using multiple yeasts, then that's already part of the equation. So, the sugar is indeed an extra cost.

Hello everyone! What an ace thread...so cool.

We are packaging 2800litres of a Citra IPA today. Combined 2 FV's in to 1 BBT. Exact same recipe except one was fermented with S-04 and one with T-58.

The signs are that this is an absolute banger of a beer. Opaque, juicy, fruit bomb. Sweetshop and sherbet on the nose and huge mango flavour with bread malts. Thick and creamy.

Next experiment is pitching S-04/S-33/T-58 at a ratio of 40/35/25 in another IPA.

Regarding natural carbonation...I seem to remember Hill Farmstead saying their beers were naturally carbed (which isn't the case)...but what I think is happening is that brewers are partially carbonating through spunding and then finishing off the process via a stone (or possibly head pressure) in the same tank. That way they can indeed say the beer is 'naturally carbonated'...and they get to emblazon the word 'naturally' on their growlers!

So cynical.

S-33 sounds interesting. Looking to add some apricot and a little banana bubblegum with this to the tart, juicy fruity T-58. S-04 is fairly restrained IMO...a little tangy fruit but mainly quite doughy.

T-58 absolutely is adding considerable mouthfeel.
Well this is an interesting post.

2800 Liters each!? That's a lot of beer on an experiment. Or have you done this before?

I have a lot more questions if so, but what temp did you ferment the T-58 at? The lower attentuation of T-58 and/or increased mouthfeel could easily balance another yeast that finished at a lower FG. I'm very intrigued to try this for sure, could easily do two 3 gallon ferments with different yeast and combine in the keg!
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
***DNA Fingerprint Update***

I have some new yeast to analyze, courtesty of @suregork and @robopp, thank you both!

In the first gel, I am showing you the 4 strains that have been found so far in various TH cans (Julius, Green, Alter Ego and Doppleganger). Next to that gel (same DNA reference ladder) is a gel with WLP644, F1, F1/C4 and Conan (TYB), see this thread for more info: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=577066. You can clearly see common bands between F1 and Conan, and that F1/C4 is quite different than F1. WLP644 doesn't seem to match up too well with either hybrid though?

Third gel to the right has 5 new dry yeasts provided by @robopp. You can see that S-33, Windsor and London ESB are all pretty darn similar. I believe all 3 are British in origin? WB-06 (a Hefe yeast I believe) looks pretty similar to the gold star yeast from TH, could possibly be a match. Unfortunately, no match yet for the red square strain, the search continues!



I've also included the previous DNA gel that has the other 17 yeast strains I've analyzed, for reference:



Strain key:
1 - WY1056
2 - WY1272
3 - WY1332
4 - WY1318
5 - WY1968
6 - WLP670 (saison isolate)
7 - WLP802
8 - TH Julius isolate (single colony)
9 - The YeastBay Vermont Ale
10 - WY3944
11 - TH Double Shot isolate (single colony)
12 - S-04 (Fermentis)
13 - S-05 (Fermentis)
14 - S-23 (Fermentis)
15 - Munich (Danstar)
16 - W-34/70 (Fermentis)
17 - T-58 (Fermentis)
 

suregork

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
92
Reaction score
117
Location
Helsinki, Finland
***DNA Fingerprint Update***

I have some new yeast to analyze, courtesty of @suregork and @robopp, thank you both!

In the first gel, I am showing you the 4 strains that have been found so far in various TH cans (Julius, Green, Alter Ego and Doppleganger). Next to that gel (same DNA reference ladder) is a gel with WLP644, F1, F1/C4 and Conan (TYB), see this thread for more info: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=577066. You can clearly see common bands between F1 and Conan, and that F1/C4 is quite different than F1. WLP644 doesn't seem to match up too well with either hybrid though?
Cool, didn't realize you were in the latest send-out :)

What primer pair did you use for these? Here is my gel with delta12 and delta21 with the isolates of WLP644 and Conan that I used as the parent strains:



Edit: Hybrid H1 = F1
 

StinkyBeer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
58
Reaction score
25
One FV was fermented with S-04 pitched at 19 let rise to 21. The other FV was fermented with T-58 pitched and held at 25. Both had about 16HL of wort and we lose about 200 after dry hopping and transfer to bright. So combined they form 28HL ready to package. This is showing excellent promise thus far.

We regularly use: US-05, S-04, WY1318, Conan (BTW expect this in dry form very soon sshhhhhhhhhhhhh).

I remember reading somewhere that Treehouse use Fermentis yeasts and pitch fresh each brew. So I would say your red square strain will come from Fermentis. Strains from them you are yet to test:

F-2
BE-256
S-189

My hunch is possibly F-2. If however the red square doesn't show up from Fermentis...then I'm certain it will be from a dry yeast from another company. It makes no financial sense to be co-pitching wet and dry yeasts each brew.

Have you tested a can of Bright yet? To me that was very similar to Alchemist profile. Bready, peachy, bitter and clean. Don't think it is Conan but something slightly less estery. Wasn't so sure it was US-05 either.

Anyway...yeast is so much fun!
 

melville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2016
Messages
422
Reaction score
335
Love to hear your thoughts on how this blend turned out? Was it fruit forward as far as esters go? Did you notice any spice? Was it soft like Tree House beers tend to be, and how'd it compare to 1318?

Oh and any pics!?
One FV was fermented with S-04 pitched at 19 let rise to 21. The other FV was fermented with T-58 pitched and held at 25. Both had about 16HL of wort and we lose about 200 after dry hopping and transfer to bright. So combined they form 28HL ready to package. This is showing excellent promise thus far.

We regularly use: US-05, S-04, WY1318, Conan (BTW expect this in dry form very soon sshhhhhhhhhhhhh).

I remember reading somewhere that Treehouse use Fermentis yeasts and pitch fresh each brew. So I would say your red square strain will come from Fermentis. Strains from them you are yet to test:

F-2
BE-256
S-189

My hunch is possibly F-2. If however the red square doesn't show up from Fermentis...then I'm certain it will be from a dry yeast from another company. It makes no financial sense to be co-pitching wet and dry yeasts each brew.

Have you tested a can of Bright yet? To me that was very similar to Alchemist profile. Bready, peachy, bitter and clean. Don't think it is Conan but something slightly less estery. Wasn't so sure it was US-05 either.

Anyway...yeast is so much fun!
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
Cool, didn't realize you were in the latest send-out :)

What primer pair did you use for these? Here is my gel with delta12 and delta21 with the isolates of WLP644 and Conan that I used as the parent strains:



Edit: Hybrid H1 = F1
Yep, I am planning on using F1/C4 in a Pineapple Berliner soon, hope the descriptions from others are accurate!

I used delta2 and delta12 primers, so should be pretty similar to what you used. My gel isn't as nice, so could be some visual error there. Also, my strain of Conan might be from a different source (the Yeast Bay) than yours. WLP644 was obtained in a yeast share, so I can't 100% say it is WLP644, could have been a mistake on either end of shipping/receiving.

To clarify, the first hybrid in your gel is F1? What lane is F1/C4 then?

One FV was fermented with S-04 pitched at 19 let rise to 21. The other FV was fermented with T-58 pitched and held at 25. Both had about 16HL of wort and we lose about 200 after dry hopping and transfer to bright. So combined they form 28HL ready to package. This is showing excellent promise thus far.

We regularly use: US-05, S-04, WY1318, Conan (BTW expect this in dry form very soon sshhhhhhhhhhhhh).

I remember reading somewhere that Treehouse use Fermentis yeasts and pitch fresh each brew. So I would say your red square strain will come from Fermentis. Strains from them you are yet to test:

F-2
BE-256
S-189

My hunch is possibly F-2. If however the red square doesn't show up from Fermentis...then I'm certain it will be from a dry yeast from another company. It makes no financial sense to be co-pitching wet and dry yeasts each brew.

Have you tested a can of Bright yet? To me that was very similar to Alchemist profile. Bready, peachy, bitter and clean. Don't think it is Conan but something slightly less estery. Wasn't so sure it was US-05 either.

Anyway...yeast is so much fun!
I will have to check out those dry yeasts then, their descriptions don't sound expected, but then again I would have never guessed T-58. Speaking of that yeast, I can't believe you are able to ferment that high and have the final product fit with the NE IPA flavor profile! It must not be a "traditional" Belgian yeast, maybe something closer to a Witbier strain? I seem to come across tart, fruity and bubblegum descriptors a lot when looking a yeasts to use for Witbiers (e.g. Wyeast Forbidden Fruit WY3463).

I haven't come across a can of Bright since I started harvesting yeast, but will keep that in mind.

To your observation that the gold star could be WB-06 hefeweizen (?!), others have reported excellent results using just hef yeast:

http://trinitybrewers.com/brews/ipa/julius-clone-treehouse-brewing-ipa/
That was my first thought after I had opened the link! This is weird, but my email notification of posting on this thread said @StinkyBeer had posted this link, did that get deleted? Or rather, is TrinityBrewers a user posting in this thread?
 

marshallb

Yonder Peasant
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
54
Reaction score
51
...

I haven't come across a can of Bright since I started harvesting yeast, but will keep that in mind.



That was my first thought after I had opened the link! This is weird, but my email notification of posting on this thread said @StinkyBeer had posted this link, did that get deleted? Or rather, is TrinityBrewers a user posting in this thread?
Hello guys. I've read through this thread twice now as I'm so geeked out on what you're doing here. Trinity Brewers is my website, I haven't posted in here.
I just went through a good amount of TH beers and left Bright out of the sampling because to me, it tasted very clean like an American Ale (thoughts were 001 or 05). I will say that Bright is where I finally was able to make the Biscuit and Victory combo of grains in my recipe.
What's up @Ruckusz28 haha, haven't talked to you in a while!
 

Ruckusz28

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
317
Reaction score
66
Location
Southgate
Hi Marshall! @marshallb

I stopped up at adventures in homebrewing today and picked up every fermentis dry ale yeast I could find. Tomorrow I'll brew a mainstay pale ale of mine and substitute the yeast so I can reflect on the new vs. the standard California ale V. Hooray for birthday brewing.

I picked up us04 us05 w33 t58 wb06 k97 packets.

I will pitch ratios of 50%us04, 25%w33, 25%t58 to get this rolling.
 

marshallb

Yonder Peasant
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
54
Reaction score
51
Hi Marshall! @marshallb

I stopped up at adventures in homebrewing today and picked up every fermentis dry ale yeast I could find. Tomorrow I'll brew a mainstay pale ale of mine and substitute the yeast so I can reflect on the new vs. the standard California ale V. Hooray for birthday brewing.

I picked up us04 us05 w33 t58 wb06 k97 packets.

I will pitch ratios of 50%us04, 25%w33, 25%t58 to get this rolling.
Lots of awesome here! You guys have me wanting to try a variant of these yeasts next brew. :mug:
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
Hi Marshall! @marshallb

I stopped up at adventures in homebrewing today and picked up every fermentis dry ale yeast I could find. Tomorrow I'll brew a mainstay pale ale of mine and substitute the yeast so I can reflect on the new vs. the standard California ale V. Hooray for birthday brewing.

I picked up us04 us05 w33 t58 wb06 k97 packets.

I will pitch ratios of 50%us04, 25%w33, 25%t58 to get this rolling.
I look forward to reading it! Just to clarify, the mystery red square isn't S-33, or any other Fermentis yeast that I've tested.

I am propagating my harvested blend from Doppleganger and will try to follow the yeast strains as they change in ratios. I'm also going to try and do some test ferments with the red square strain to try and narrow in on a yeast strain family.
 

TheHairyHop

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
221
Location
Boulder
The growth rate of each strain will be different, right? It sounds like you may have to analyze your own batches once you've identified all the strains in order to see if you're hitting the "correct" final ratios
 

melville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2016
Messages
422
Reaction score
335
Love this thread. Ordered some S04, T58, and WB-06 and gonna give them a whirl this weekend 60/20/20. Does T58 have a known liquid equivalent? Just saying it is possible that they are using WLP007 and other white labs equivalents and we/you might be going down a rabbit hole with the dry yeast.
 

melville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2016
Messages
422
Reaction score
335
I do wish the other unconfirmed strain/s were ones that made more sense. I keep getting stuck on the T-58 — most accounts I read about it do seem to confirm some spice, and as a somewhat frequent Tree House drinker, I don't get any spice at all in there, nor is spice mentioned in any of their descriptions (well one does "spicy grapefruit"). Maybe it really is there just for the natural carbonation (some say T-58 is used to bottle condition Tank 7)
 

melville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2016
Messages
422
Reaction score
335
Just poking around the internet to see what Nate's influences were:

"Nate Lanier: My a-ha beer was Rochefort 8. It blew my mind at the time, and I still love it today. Several others followed… Rodenbach, Supplication, Old Rasputin… dozens of other gateway beers.

My first Heady. Coming in gassed off of the slopes at Stowe and having a rip of Heady fresh at the pub is something I wish everyone could experience.

My first Hill Farmstead. I had a Harlan at Three Penny Taproom, served by the one and only Scott Kerner. It was transcendent."

https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...-brewing-talks-malt-the-black-market-and.html

If one were going to clone Rochefort 8, one might use T-58 (or BE-256). One of the other strains could be in Hill Farmstead (yes, I know we think it's 1318, but we also all assumed Tree House was 1318 or Conan, etc.)
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
The growth rate of each strain will be different, right? It sounds like you may have to analyze your own batches once you've identified all the strains in order to see if you're hitting the "correct" final ratios
That's a great point (RE pitching specific ratios and seeing what comes out in the end). I was hoping that I could get a feel for what the starting ratio was by seeing how the dregs propagated, but w/o knowing when the yeasts were introduced, that is probably not going to work. I wanted pure cultures of each isolate anyways, so not a waste of time hopefully!
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
Love this thread. Ordered some S04, T58, and WB-06 and gonna give them a whirl this weekend 60/20/20. Does T58 have a known liquid equivalent? Just saying it is possible that they are using WLP007 and other white labs equivalents and we/you might be going down a rabbit hole with the dry yeast.
Anything is really possible, but I do hang my hopes on the dry yeast angle for a variety of reasons, primarily its cheaper on a commercial scale (e.g. plausibility) and it creates less yeast strains to try and screen (genetically or in test batches) on our end.

RE: T-58, I'm not sure anyone can agree what type of Belgian yeast strain it is, could be witbier, saison or something else. I've never used it in primary, but I plan on taking the TH isolate and fermenting small starters at different temps, then taste testing. I don't really have the setup right now at home to bother with anything less than 5 gallons. So, hopefully some insight will come out of this approach.
 

TheHairyHop

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
221
Location
Boulder
I know that I get large amounts of bubblegum from Julius if my brain is in the right place or it's less than fresh. It's probably a bit of mental bias, but since the first time I tasted it, I can pick it up each time now. I wouldn't be surprised if T-58 is used in such a way to minimize spice and accentuate some of the more fruity byproducts. Who knows, perhaps the yeast does odd things in the presence of super fruit hops like Citra and Moasaic?
 

StinkyBeer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
58
Reaction score
25
T58 at 25 degs is fruity and tart. Bubblegum too.
WB-06 gets fruity and bubble gummy above 23.
S-04 I always find has a slight sherbet/bubblegum character plus bread

Don't be afraid to experiment!

I would highly recommend a 20 litre batch of:

50% S-04
25% T-58
25% WB-06

Pitch and ferment at 25 degs. I've pushed S-04 to 26 with no ill effects.

Don't oxygenate.

Another option is simultaneously ferment 3 identical brews bar the yeast then combine the beers at different ratios in to cornies and force carb/test and reassess.

The red square yeast puzzles... Does it seem to resemble a group of strains at all? Could you narrow down the style of yeast?

It could be that they are using a single wet strain for certain brews (red square) and cutting this strain in to some of their other brews i.e. Julius etc. They will be harvesting so much yeast that throwing some in with the dry blend and then down the drain is not a financial concern.

You need to test all the Lallemand strains too.

I can't find the thread but basically someone in 'the know' said he has it on good authority Treehouse use Safale/Fermentis yeast and pitch fresh each time.
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
I'm certainly going to try that, as well as an equal blend (25% each) of the 4 strain isolates, separately propagated. I figure an even blend might enable an easier time figuring out which strain is over represented in flavor profile and then I can also monitor the dregs as well.

On the red strain, I have tested several Lallemand dry strains, but not BRY-97. I bring those two up because BRY-97 is mentioned in the fruity yeast section in this article: http://www.thebeerfiles.com/american-yeast-strains-part-2-ale-yeasts/?cb=04830155076515602

The WY1272 profile was clearly not a match, but it makes a great NE IPA on its own.

This is interesting, maybe WY3944 (https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8022874&postcount=97), which is strain 10 in the lower gels could be close? That's a witbier strain as well, which would be weird given the presence of T-58. I will look into how to assign phylogeny from the DNA patterns, but I'm sure Suregork knows more about this than me.

Just need to get some more dry yeast to test!!
 

RevKev

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
4,891
Reaction score
2,411
Location
Western NY
BRY-97 in my opinion suppresses hop flavor, I used it in what I guess would classify as an india red ale and honestly would never use it again. Had nice esters but the character I thought I would get was completely different.
 
OP
isomerization

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,408
Reaction score
865
BRY-97 in my opinion suppresses hop flavor, I used it in what I guess would classify as an india red ale and honestly would never use it again. Had nice esters but the character I thought I would get was completely different.
Well that's disappointing!
 

dcbw

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
322
Reaction score
37
Location
Minneapolis
Here's another thought...

Tree House cans their stuff.

Cans by definition allow more dissolved oxygen during the canning process because the lid is larger in diameter than a bottle neck.

Tree Houses stuff has great aroma and flavor. Oxygen destroys those things.

So they decide to counteract that by adding a specific small amount of yeast at canning time. Not for carbonation, just for O2 scavenging due to the worse DO characteristics of cans.

At HomeBrewCon the oxygenation presentation on Friday described exactly that process at New Belgium.

Even if Tree House doesn't filter their beer like NB does, and thus if yeast is still present, maybe not enough of a dose to scavenge O2 quickly enough is present and thus they add more.

And if that is a different strain than primary fermentation, , you now have another strain in the isolation tests.
 

couchsending

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,734
Reaction score
1,696
The T-58 is either for natural carbonation or has to be blended in after ferment. I have a hard time believing that they would be copitching yeasts that benefit from such wide range of ferm temps. T-58 fermented cold is definitely spicy and while I've never tried S-04 warm everything I've read says it gets really messy. Maybe start the ferment wit T-58 and when it stalls (which it notoriously will) pitch in some S-04 at a lower temp to finish it out. Not sure if droppin the temp would produced Diacetyl or not and if it did would the S-04 clean it up...

I'm convinced that both HF and Treehouse naturally carbonate their beers. I just don't think there is any way you can get that soft feel without it. Everyone thinks it's not good for hoppy beers but that usually refers to bottle conditioning. In a keg (or bright tank) it makes much more sense and if you think about it, it pulls any available oxygen out of the beer. I've got two beers on tap now. One fermented with 007 and then naturally carbonated with T-58 and dextrose. The other one is 75% S-04 and 25% T-58 then naturally carbonated with bagged hops in the keg. Just used Dextrose for carbonation and it didn't quite get there. Next round I'm going to try carbonating with highly hopped Gyle and T-58 to see affect that might have on the aroma...

I also built up some HF yeast harvested from a growler of S&S9. Willing to bet there are a few different yeasts in there too. It's doesn't smell as phenolic as the starter I built from the growler of Sap but it has a distinct Saison aroma to it. Pitched it in a 5g batch of fresh 2017 Galaxy hopped IPA this afternoon. Interested to see what happens.

One other suggestion I might have for the mystery yeast is 1450. Whatever was in that Sap harvest produced the thickest mouthfeel Of any beer I've ever made. Nothing I did was different than normal and I've never had that type of mouthfeel in any beer I've made even a 158 mashed 1.024 FG Porter. FG of that beer was 1.016. One of the biggest descriptors of 1450 is mouthfeel.
 
Top