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

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.
Spring is crafted with our house yeast, coaxed to be slightly less estery to allow the individual hop character to shine in conjunction with subtle but prevalent fruity esters of peach & pineapple.

Peach and pineapple sounds like one of those Conan and Sacc Trois blends, like Imperial A24 Dry Hop etc. Wouldn't surprise me if they've moved on from dry yeast now that they have better facilities.
 
That’s the second hoppy beer they’ve done with some hefe yeast. I believe they did a colab with Cloudwater where they split a batch and did two different ferments and blended them back. They’re not trying to hide the Hefe yeast character though.

Yes, they are definitely not trying to hide the hefe yeast. I had one of these tonight. It tasted like a 10% ABV hoegarden with a touch of hop.
 
Can it be a dry yeast like this - https://www.erbsloeh-craft-brewing.com/en/products/detail/id/18 I wonder?

Aroma profile:
Maracuja/passion fruit and pineapple aroma components.

I have a hard time believing the description and believing that is not one of the dry yeast already on the market. Probably a re-packaging or something. But interesting to find out what yeast are they hyping this to be: good flocculation, english, can be fermented between 17 – 32 °C, ideal 16 – 24 °C and has this for aroma description: " Maracuja/passion fruit and pineapple aroma components. " --- sounds sooo good. Just throw some Denali and Galaxy in there, you'll have straight-up sweet, tropical juice.
 
Update on my batches, no overcarbing issues, but it’s only been 10 days at ambient temp.

So the 1318/NEEPAH blend tastes as expected (not quite as pungently hoppy as normal, could be from bottling, 1 gal batch process, etc).

The rest of the batches are excessively floral, with the solo S-04 batch the most offensive. I have picked up on this note in a previous S-04 IPA I made, but had (erroneously?) attributed it to a large Centennial dry hop.

The blended batches are better, especially cold, but not anything I would try again. Disappointing, but that’s life!

Going to keep the bottles at ambient to track gravity/color changes over time (nothing better to do with them haha).
 
Yes, they are definitely not trying to hide the hefe yeast. I had one of these tonight. It tasted like a 10% ABV hoegarden with a touch of hop.

Not that it’s even at the same level, but New Belgium Voodoo Ranger Juice uses an American hef yeast. I don’t taste the hef though, it’s a pretty clean yeast to me.
 
Update on my batches, no overcarbing issues, but it’s only been 10 days at ambient temp.

So the 1318/NEEPAH blend tastes as expected (not quite as pungently hoppy as normal, could be from bottling, 1 gal batch process, etc).

The rest of the batches are excessively floral, with the solo S-04 batch the most offensive. I have picked up on this note in a previous S-04 IPA I made, but had (erroneously?) attributed it to a large Centennial dry hop.

The blended batches are better, especially cold, but not anything I would try again. Disappointing, but that’s life!

Going to keep the bottles at ambient to track gravity/color changes over time (nothing better to do with them haha).

So no conclusive yeast that you would say is worth doing again? What do you mean when you say the s-04 is offensive? Is it really not drinkable?
 
Not that it’s even at the same level, but New Belgium Voodoo Ranger Juice uses an American hef yeast. I don’t taste the hef though, it’s a pretty clean yeast to me.

If it’s an American hefe yeast that means it’s not POF+. Wyeast 1010 is an example. Not sure of another American hefe yeast that is sold to homebrewers at least.
 
WLP320 is another variant of American hef, never tried it though, so not sure what it is all about besides the description online.
 
So no conclusive yeast that you would say is worth doing again? What do you mean when you say the s-04 is offensive? Is it really not drinkable?

I can’t comment on what others have gotten out of this approach, but unless I were to drastically change my process, I would expect something similar if I tried this again. The 1318 blend is quite enjoyable.

The floral component is in the taste, not as strong in the aroma. I can drink the beers, just isn’t something I’d share with anyone I respected, haha.
 
I can’t comment on what others have gotten out of this approach, but unless I were to drastically change my process, I would expect something similar if I tried this again. The 1318 blend is quite enjoyable.

The floral component is in the taste, not as strong in the aroma. I can drink the beers, just isn’t something I’d share with anyone I respected, haha.

So the staggered WB06 pitch wasn't very promising huh?
 
So the staggered WB06 pitch wasn't very promising huh?

I’m not confident something unknown didn’t occur. I can tell apart the S-04 and S-04/T-58 batches, but neither batch with WB-06 seems to be very different from the S-04/T-58 batch. Final gravities were all very similar too.
 
After hearing your results, I’m wondering if these are not the yeasts TH uses anymore? Wonder what the results would be using the liquid equivalent of s-04, t-58 and wb-06?
 
After hearing your results, I’m wondering if these are not the yeasts TH uses anymore? Wonder what the results would be using the liquid equivalent of s-04, t-58 and wb-06?

There are no liquid equivalents of those yeasts
 
After hearing your results, I’m wondering if these are not the yeasts TH uses anymore? Wonder what the results would be using the liquid equivalent of s-04, t-58 and wb-06?

Way too many unknowns to make a statement like that (regarding TH). They may have never been using these strains to begin with.

I didn’t like the beers made with these yeasts, that’s about all I can take away from the process.
 
It’s probably going to be an unknown unless someone gets inside info? Would be great to finally find out though.
 
After hearing your results, I’m wondering if these are not the yeasts TH uses anymore? Wonder what the results would be using the liquid equivalent of s-04, t-58 and wb-06?
I think they’re absolutely still using these three strains. I’ve been pitching the dry yeast blend (92/5/3) into unoxygenated wort and my fermentation chamber smells like walking into TreeHouse and the final beer is very similar to TreeHouse. They’re able to coax out more esters than a I can, but I don’t have many iterations so it’s still a work in progress.
 
I think they’re absolutely still using these three strains. I’ve been pitching the dry yeast blend (92/5/3) into unoxygenated wort and my fermentation chamber smells like walking into TreeHouse and the final beer is very similar to TreeHouse. They’re able to coax out more esters than a I can, but I don’t have many iterations so it’s still a work in progress.

So no phenolics huh?
 
So no phenolics huh?
I used to get clove really bad, but my eureka moment was when I got lazy/frustrated and just dumped the dry yeast blend into the fermented without rehydrating or oxygenating the wort. I want to start messing with the ratios now that I’m getting good results.
 
I think they’re absolutely still using these three strains. I’ve been pitching the dry yeast blend (92/5/3) into unoxygenated wort and my fermentation chamber smells like walking into TreeHouse and the final beer is very similar to TreeHouse. They’re able to coax out more esters than a I can, but I don’t have many iterations so it’s still a work in progress.

This is reassuring! If you don't mind me asking - what does your malt bill look like?
 
I may have missed it, but has anyone tried to do a comparison of the yeast blend at second or third generation vs first? Might be hard to do with dry yeast?
 
I think the key takeaway from it is aim for 30 - 50 ppm calcium, 350 - 400 ppm sulfate, 300 - 400 ppm chloride starting water profile.

Literally not that.

A good part of that article is talking about how final beer has a different mineral composition to the starting liquor, so Ca 163, Cl 262, SO4 90 in the water of one of Mike Tonsmeire's beers saw changes of -59, +186, +228 to end up at 104, 448, 318 in the beer.

If you were to take their numbers for Julius beer of 64/299/474 and assume the same changes, that would imply water of Ca 123, Cl 113, SO4 248.

Assume the same changes for Alter Ego ending at 34/421/336, and it implies the Alter Ego water starts at Ca 93, Cl 235, SO4 108.

Now of course you can't assume that the Tree House grists contribute the same minerals as Mike's beer, it _will_ be different but it gives you a feel for where they might be starting. Not having had either beer, I can't comment on what their mineral profiles might taste like, and there's always the caveat that the Julius and Alter Ego samples might have come from different sites (although from what one hears of Nate, one assumes he would be control-freaking about consistency for this kind of thing).
 
Literally not that.

A good part of that article is talking about how final beer has a different mineral composition to the starting liquor, so Ca 163, Cl 262, SO4 90 in the water of one of Mike Tonsmeire's beers saw changes of -59, +186, +228 to end up at 104, 448, 318 in the beer.

If you were to take their numbers for Julius beer of 64/299/474 and assume the same changes, that would imply water of Ca 123, Cl 113, SO4 248.

Assume the same changes for Alter Ego ending at 34/421/336, and it implies the Alter Ego water starts at Ca 93, Cl 235, SO4 108.

Now of course you can't assume that the Tree House grists contribute the same minerals as Mike's beer, it _will_ be different but it gives you a feel for where they might be starting. Not having had either beer, I can't comment on what their mineral profiles might taste like, and there's always the caveat that the Julius and Alter Ego samples might have come from different sites (although from what one hears of Nate, one assumes he would be control-freaking about consistency for this kind of thing).

Yes you are correct. I incorrectly copied the wrong sentence from my blog. Updated the original post accordingly. Good catch!
 
I've come the closest to Treehouse mouthfeel and softness by using soft water - low calcium and magnesium levels. I've also noticed that my beer drops clear quickly if the calcium gets too high. I'm no brewing water expert or brewmaster for that matter I'm just speaking from experience. Also, the Trinity Julius clone makes me believe softer water profiles may be at play which explains the lower levels in the lab results.
 
How do you achieve high levels of chloride without increasing Ca?
 
Hmm
 

Attachments

  • A4E552BD-9AC1-4C85-AC56-14CE97D98076.png
    A4E552BD-9AC1-4C85-AC56-14CE97D98076.png
    1 MB · Views: 236
So they are either using liquid yeast or building a starter with a prior yeast dump. Either way, it would be nice to know what’s in these flasks.
 
So they are either using liquid yeast or building a starter with a prior yeast dump. Either way, it would be nice to know what’s in these flasks.
That pic is from a long time ago so things could have changed. But what’s with the two little flasks and one big one??
 
That pic is from a long time ago so things could have changed. But what’s with the two little flasks and one big one??

Nope— if you flip through that issue you’ll see that the cover photo is from the Bruery—not Tree House. They didn’t make the cover!
 
Nope— if you flip through that issue you’ll see that the cover photo is from the Bruery—not Tree House. They didn’t make the cover!
Oh crap! Oh well disregard then. I did however read on BA someone saying they saw a big flask at Monson that said house yeast on it fwiw.
 
Holy crap. When I made the KeyMaster reference I’d forgotten that he posted this today. He’s totally in my head!
 

Attachments

  • 060B35D4-C055-4ACF-BDCE-9F93B76DF589.png
    060B35D4-C055-4ACF-BDCE-9F93B76DF589.png
    877.3 KB · Views: 213
I think it is just a matter of time before someone successfully reverse engineers the yeast, we know a lot have been trying...
 
Last edited:
NaCl or KCl. Their Potassium is pretty high that I wouldn't doubt they're using KCl.

Forgive me if I missed this, but how much KCL would you add? More than 10ppm can be bad for yeast health and become a potential laxative no? The reason I ask is because I cannot keep the Ca at 100 and bring the CaCl up to 150ppm. I also read that 2g of KCL in 5 gallons of wort is something like 50.2ppm... I'm confused...
 
Back
Top