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

[JohnConnor]

For what it's worth, I emailed fermentis a while ago asking them about S-04. Everytime I've used it, I get nothing but yeast bread notes. Their suggestion was to increase pitch rate and temperature. Increased pitch rate produces more esters due to the availability of acetyl CoA. Haven't had a chance to give this a try.

 

[tld6008]

Really curious what Nate would think of this thread. I guess he feels honored people put so much time in cloning his beers. Who knows one day they will open source a recipe.
Till then the myth continues and this thread will maybe one day crack the code.
3600+ posts in. Is this the largest HBT thread?

Northeast IPA thread has 12,888 posts as of yesterday

 

[brewpharm Hill]

Based on looking at the temp panel they could be pitching at lower temps and raising the temp slightly each day similar to a saison fermentation. Wouldn't hurt trying to pitch S04 with a small amount of T58 and WB06 at like 59-60 and letting it increase each day up to about 66.

I brewed a batch a month or two ago with a new scale and using the Mr. malty calculator. I did the referenced blend percentages from the Trinity clone. Pitched at 70 and then down to 62-63 for the remainder. The samples that I pulled were the closest I've come until I naturally carbonated with CBC1. I was away for the weekend so my apartment was easily in the mid 90s and I'm pretty sure it woke up some yeast still in suspension because after that I could taste the WB06/T58 coming through more. Probably happened as the CBC1 was waking up before it could suppress it.

The aroma of the beer was definitely reminiscent of TH but not quite there.

My Grainfather's cord melted into the control box, so until they send a replacement I'll be out of the experimenting game.

 

[Clyde McCoy]

Could be something “similar” to s04. I’m not sure if these tests are an exact match, @Clyde McCoy and @isomerization know better. There are some yeast that look similar in these genetic tests.

Certainly possible, but I doubt it. Isomerization tested ~two dozen strains. Nothing looked identical to S-04. Whatever's in Julius, jjjuliusss, and Very Green is an exact match to S-04.

I will test 71B and F-2 in a few weeks.

 

[Sawhorse-Josh]

Has this been discussed?

from;

https://fermentis.com/en/yeast-to-brew-a-neipa/

 

[HopsAreGood]

I had a can of gggreennn on Sunday night and I noticed absolutely zero hint of the typical yeast esters that this entire thread is based on. My friend who shared the can with me said he’s had a lot of treehouse lately and has barely been noticing it at all. Take it for whatever it’s worth.

 

[Clyde McCoy]

Has this been discussed?

View attachment 697388


from;

https://fermentis.com/en/yeast-to-brew-a-neipa/

That post is a result of this thread

 

[Sawhorse-Josh]

That's what it seemed like!

So, has anything S-33 or k-97 'like' ever showed up in analysis? any possibility that either of those could resemble T-58 and/or Wb-06?

If the hottest craft brewer on the planet is(or was) using their yeast, you'd think Fermentis would want to tell the world about it. (I'm sure they are somewhat limited legally but I think they would still hint at it...)

of course TH has said that their 'house yeast blend' is 'irreplicable', whatever that means.

"we wanted to see how it would work with our House yeast blend..." -Curiosity 99
" utilizes our irreplicable House yeast. " Curiosity 100

 

[Sawhorse-Josh]

Of those strains, I've only tested S-33. Definitely did not see see anything matching that profile in this can.

Bumping this (from July) for context.

 

[Clyde McCoy]

That's what it seemed like!

So, has anything S-33 or k-97 'like' ever showed up in analysis? any possibility that either of those could resemble T-58 and/or Wb-06?

If the hottest craft brewer on the planet is(or was) using their yeast, you'd think Fermentis would want to tell the world about it. (I'm sure they are somewhat limited legally but I think they would still hint at it...)

of course TH has said that their 'house yeast blend' is 'irreplicable', whatever that means.

"we wanted to see how it would work with our House yeast blend..." -Curiosity 99
" utilizes our irreplicable House yeast. " Curiosity 100

So far, the answer to both of your questions is no. Irreplicable means "we're really good at marketing."

This is from a different can of Julius (July 2, 2020):

Those small dark green and medium green colonies (almost everything on the plate) are S-04-like. Still accounting for the rest.

A few members have asked why it isn't all F-2/CBC-1. My guess is that those strains take over only in the presence of carbohydrates, oxygen and other nutrients.

 

[Sawhorse-Josh]

Thanks for all your (and other's) work on this topic. so interesting and fun!

Its a bit of a detective story! While trying to clone their beers I try to remind myself that they were at their best when they were very new and small and financially limited. I think 'simpler' is more likely than 'complex' but craftsmanship and attention to detail required is very high.

 

[beervoid]

So far, the answer to both of your questions is no. Irreplicable means "we're really good at marketing."

This is from a different can of Julius (July 2, 2020):

View attachment 697398

Those small dark green and medium green colonies (almost everything on the plate) are S-04-like. Still accounting for the rest.

A few members have asked why it isn't all F-2/CBC-1. My guess is that those strains take over only in the presence of carbohydrates, oxygen and other nutrients.

There is research that showed the haze in neipa has no yeast. So now im wondering how can we find it in the cans? Do they not centrifuge it out? And how do they fight hop creep?
There is only 2 ways, you work with the creep and let it it fermenr out, which with big dry hops can take a long time. Or you make sure you get all the yeast out before the enzymes have a chance to work, for this you need a centrifuge.
For product stability I would guess TH does the latter so im wondering how much yeast is there still in suspension. Is there really that little needed to find it on a plate?
Are you taking it from the bottom dreg?

 

[Clyde McCoy]

There is research that showed the haze in neipa has no yeast. So now im wondering how can we find it in the cans? Do they not centrifuge it out? And how do they fight hop creep?
There is only 2 ways, you work with the creep and let it it fermenr out, which with big dry hops can take a long time. Or you make sure you get all the yeast out before the enzymes have a chance to work, for this you need a centrifuge.
For product stability I would guess TH does the latter so im wondering how much yeast is there still in suspension. Is there really that little needed to find it on a plate?
Are you taking it from the bottom dreg?

I'm not sure that Tree House is centrifuging their beers (someone correct me if I'm wrong). When I centrifuge the last ~30 ml of their beer, the vast majority of the pellet is hop material. When I centrifuge a can of Heady Topper, the pellet is nothing but yeast (the Alchemist recirculates their beer through hops in pantyhose, so no hop material).

There is a ton of yeast left in Tree House beers. I have to plate a very small amount otherwise it's just a lawn and there are no isolated colonies to pick. I use serial dilutions so I can control the density and get a better sense for composition (which is harder in streaks/smears where most of the plate won't be single colonies). Whatever is in the can is making it onto the plate. I plate the beers immediately after centrifuging. The composition of what's alive in the can will change over time.

 

[beervoid]

I'm not sure that Tree House is centrifuging their beers (someone correct me if I'm wrong). When I centrifuge the last ~30 ml of their beer, the vast majority of the pellet is hop material. When I centrifuge a can of Heady Topper, the pellet is nothing but yeast (the Alchemist recirculates their beer through hops in pantyhose, so no hop material).

There is a ton of yeast left in Tree House beers. I have to plate a very small amount otherwise it's just a lawn and there are no isolated colonies to pick. I use serial dilutions so I can control the density and get a better sense for composition (which is harder in streaks/smears where most of the plate won't be single colonies). Whatever is in the can is making it onto the plate. I plate the beers immediately after centrifuging. The composition of what's alive in the can will change over time.

Thats interesting, I would bet hey are definately dry hopping during fermentation as that results in more yeasty bears in my experience.
Do fresh TH beers have hopburn?
The cans I tried had 0 sludge at bottom and no hopburn at all. Little over a month old.

 

[TBryerton]

Thats interesting, I would bet hey are definately dry hopping during fermentation as that results in more yeasty bears in my experience.
Do fresh TH beers have hopburn?
The cans I tried had 0 sludge at bottom and no hopburn at all. Little over a month old.

Every can of TH I’ve had has a very noticeable amount of yeast. Although Nate claims there is very little yeast left in the finished product. Occasionally hop burn but not very often. I don’t believe they centrifuge. They don’t DH during fermentation with their Bright beers, I’m still hoping someone can show us proof one way or another with their core beers. But I don’t believe the amount of yeast left would point towards active fermentation DH.

 

[beervoid]

Every can of TH I’ve had has a very noticeable amount of yeast. Although Nate claims there is very little yeast left in the finished product. Occasionally hop burn but not very often. I don’t believe they centrifuge. They don’t DH during fermentation with their Bright beers, I’m still hoping someone can show us proof one way or another with their core beers. But I don’t believe the amount of yeast left would point towards active fermentation DH.

How do you conclude they had a noticeable amount of yeast?

 

[brewpharm Hill]

How do you conclude they had a noticeable amount of yeast?

In my experience Ive had some beers with notable yeasty looking sludge at the bottom and others that have not. This is probably just due to where it was in the packaging line. Also, Ive been to TH a lot and also do my best to study their setup to get insight and more so admiration. Ive never seen a centrifuge but it doesnt mean they dont have one. . With their larger batch sizes now they may be centrifuging to speed up production and conditioning times but who knows.

 

[mcoman]

Thats interesting, I would bet hey are definately dry hopping during fermentation as that results in more yeasty bears in my experience.
Do fresh TH beers have hopburn?
The cans I tried had 0 sludge at bottom and no hopburn at all. Little over a month old.

Most cans that I have had have what appears to be a yeasty slurry at the bottom. I did get one beer that had a decent amount of hop material in the can, that can had noticeable hop burn, but I would say it not normal.

I really doubt Tree House was using a centrifuge in their Brimfield brewery. If they are using one today I don't think its critical in achieving their signature flavor.

Google was able to dig up this old photo of what Tree House was working with in Brimfield:

 

[couchsending]

They were brewing on a 5bbl system in Brimfield. A centrifuge would cost more than their whole system + tanks. There was no centrifuge in Monson nor is there one at Charlton, or wasn’t that I could see anywhere the three times I’ve been.

Bright beers are dry hopped after fermentation. Non Bright beers have (or had at the time of the post) one “biotransformation” dry hop addition, that’s it. That could mean a lot of things.

If there’s that much So4 in these cans then there is no way they’re using a conditioning yeast to carbonate. It would definitely be the largest population in the can.

 

[brewpharm Hill]

They were brewing on a 5bbl system in Brimfield. A centrifuge would cost more than their whole system + tanks. There was no centrifuge in Monson nor is there one at Charlton, or wasn’t that I could see anywhere the three times I’ve been.

Bright beers are dry hopped after fermentation. Non Bright beers have (or had at the time of the post) one “biotransformation” dry hop addition, that’s it. That could mean a lot of things.

If there’s that much So4 in these cans then there is no way they’re using a conditioning yeast to carbonate. It would definitely be the largest population in the can.

Agreed. Maybe they are no longer naturally carbonating.

 

[couchsending]

Agreed. Maybe they are no longer naturally carbonating.

I’m positive they still are. There are many ways to do it without adding a completely different yeast strain....Spunding, krausening... Plus these beers are so young there’s really no need to add more yeast, you just need a sugar source.

 

[beervoid]

I’m positive they still are. There are many ways to do it without adding a completely different yeast strain....Spunding, krausening... Plus these beers are so young there’s really no need to add more yeast, you just need a sugar source.

Grain to glass 21 days. Sounds like a week of conditioning to me.

 

[NJGeorge]

Thats interesting, I would bet hey are definately dry hopping during fermentation as that results in more yeasty bears in my experience.
Do fresh TH beers have hopburn?
The cans I tried had 0 sludge at bottom and no hopburn at all. Little over a month old.

I had one of the storm beers last year, I think it was hurricane and it literally had hop particles at the bottom of the can including a lot of sludge

 

[savylemons]

I’m positive they still are. There are many ways to do it without adding a completely different yeast strain....Spunding, krausening... Plus these beers are so young there’s really no need to add more yeast, you just need a sugar source.

Curiosity 44 was the first beer they utilized spunding on according to the description. Prior to that I specifically remember Nate stating on his Twitter they don't spund when asked about that and another time he stated that they carb to specific co2 volumes in the brite when someone had complained about an undercarbed can of Julius. Is there something specific that makes you think they are naturally carbonating besides the texture? In fact there are multiple posts on the Tree House Twitter page of canning runs running late on schedule due to "carbonation being stubborn". Certainly sounds like they carbonate immediately prior to packaging to me....

 

[couchsending]

Curiosity 44 was the first beer they utilized spunding on according to the description. Prior to that I specifically remember Nate stating on his Twitter they don't spund when asked about that and another time he stated that they carb to specific co2 volumes in the brite when someone had complained about an undercarbed can of Julius. Is there something specific that makes you think they are naturally carbonating besides the texture? In fact there are multiple posts on the Tree House Twitter page of canning runs running late on schedule due to "carbonation being stubborn". Certainly sounds like they carbonate immediately prior to packaging to me....

I looked... 44 doesn’t specifically mention spunding. Says naturally carbonating while conditioning but that could be any number of techniques. When I read the description I actually think of krausening. Yes you spund when you krausen but spunding is generally referring to capping the tank at the end of primary fermentation.

I remember him saying they tried fermenting under pressure once but don’t do it. Didn’t know he said anything about spunding.

Their growlers specifically mention “naturally carbonated”. I don’t think you get that combo of texture, foam formation, and head retention without it.

Most of the time beers aren’t naturally carbonated to their final volume of Co2. They’re often adjusted in the bright tank by force carbing slightly to achieve target volumes. Easy and quick to do.

 

[beervoid]

I looked... 44 doesn’t specifically mention spunding. Says naturally carbonating while conditioning but that could be any number of techniques. When I read the description I actually think of krausening. Yes you spund when you krausen but spunding is generally referring to capping the tank at the end of primary fermentation.

I remember him saying they tried fermenting under pressure once but don’t do it. Didn’t know he said anything about spunding.

Their growlers specifically mention “naturally carbonated”. I don’t think you get that combo of texture, foam formation, and head retention without it.

Most of the time beers aren’t naturally carbonated to their final volume of Co2. They’re often adjusted in the bright tank by force carbing slightly to achieve target volumes. Easy and quick to do.

Always been wondering about that. To hit 2.4 volumes on temps that yeast still work you need alot of pressure, more then most yeast can handle. So they have to be force carbing some of it. Especially since with canning you loose some carbonation as well.

 

[NJGeorge]

If you really want to know, someone ask the brewer that just left Fox Farm in CT

 

[savylemons]

I looked... 44 doesn’t specifically mention spunding. Says naturally carbonating while conditioning but that could be any number of techniques. When I read the description I actually think of krausening. Yes you spund when you krausen but spunding is generally referring to capping the tank at the end of primary fermentation.

I remember him saying they tried fermenting under pressure once but don’t do it. Didn’t know he said anything about spunding.

Their growlers specifically mention “naturally carbonated”. I don’t think you get that combo of texture, foam formation, and head retention without it.

Most of the time beers aren’t naturally carbonated to their final volume of Co2. They’re often adjusted in the bright tank by force carbing slightly to achieve target volumes. Easy and quick to do.

Makes sense! So possibly prior to c44 they just capped the tank at the end of fermentation to get a bit of "free co2" and so they could throw that silly "naturally carbonated" marketing term on their growler, and c44 they experimented with krausening?

Either way, it has nothing to do with their house character from a flavor standpoint as that has remained intact throughout all of their process changes, albeit it does continue to dwindle as they really ramped up production in Charlton.

There would be no way you can get an 18 day grain to glass beer on commercial scale that's naturally carbonated outside of utilizing spunding or krausening for partial carbonation, and as mentioned before hop aroma isn't nearly as bright if doing full natural carbonation involving dextrose + an additional conditioning yeast strain after the dry hop.

I primarily brew German lagers these days, sometimes I spund and other times I don't and I've never noticed a lick of difference in foam formation or stability between the two. There are many other process variables at play to achieve long lasting dense foam.

 

[troxerX]

Makes sense! So possibly prior to c44 they just capped the tank at the end of fermentation to get a bit of "free co2" and so they could throw that silly "naturally carbonated" marketing term on their growler, and c44 they experimented with krausening?

Either way, it has nothing to do with their house character from a flavor standpoint as that has remained intact throughout all of their process changes, albeit it does continue to dwindle as they really ramped up production in Charlton.

There would be no way you can get an 18 day grain to glass beer on commercial scale that's naturally carbonated outside of utilizing spunding or krausening for partial carbonation, and as mentioned before hop aroma isn't nearly as bright if doing full natural carbonation involving dextrose + an additional conditioning yeast strain after the dry hop.

I primarily brew German lagers these days, sometimes I spund and other times I don't and I've never noticed a lick of difference in foam formation or stability between the two. There are many other process variables at play to achieve long lasting dense foam.

With my 3-batch blending proposal you could dry hop up to 7 individual times (3 days each DH) and krausen with a final ultra fresh hopped batch and have it ready in 18 days (or less) if timed properly. If you can beat that hop saturation with a single wort you’re full of manure. But since we like to speculate too much and keep trying to fit a square in a circle, this thread will keep going on and on and still with no results...

 

[TBryerton]

With my 3-batch blending proposal you could dry hop up to 7 individual times (3 days each DH) and krausen with a final ultra fresh hopped batch and have it ready in 18 days (or less) if timed properly. If you can beat that hop saturation with a single wort you’re full of manure. But since we like to speculate too much and keep trying to fit a square in a circle, this thread will keep going on and on and still with no results...

If you’re using x # of hops why do you think it matters if it’s divided into 3 batches and blended, or used in one larger batch? You think using 5 ounces of hops in three vessels and blending them together will magically produce more oil than using 15 ounces in one batch? If you’re so convinced you have the answer and know more than everyone that’s been involved in this research for years, why don’t you give it a shot and show us how it’s done?

 

[beervoid]

If you’re using x # of hops why do you think it matters if it’s divided into 3 batches and blended, or used in one larger batch? You think using 5 ounces of hops in three vessels and blending them together will magically produce more oil than using 15 ounces in one batch? If you’re so convinced you have the answer and know more than everyone that’s been involved in this research for years, why don’t you give it a shot and show us how it’s done?

Dry hopping in stages gets you better hop absorption on a small scale. Split that over seperate batches you can maybe optimize the dryhop utilization.

 

[TBryerton]

Dry hopping in stages gets you better hop absorption on a small scale. Split that over seperate batches you can maybe optimize the dryhop utilization.

Depending on vessel size and amount of hops I agree. On a homebrew scale I’ve never experienced this. To be this is just more opportunities to introduce oxygen. Dividing or adding in one dry hop always has the same result for me.

 

[beervoid]

Depending on vessel size and amount of hops I agree. On a homebrew scale I’ve never experienced this. To be this is just more opportunities to introduce oxygen. Dividing or adding in one dry hop always has the same result for me.

That's what the research showed. Cant remember which, Janish wrote on it too I believe.
But yes DO is a consideration, when dryhopping during fermentation or krausening it might be easyer to control.

 

[TBryerton]

That's what the research showed. Cant remember which, Janish wrote on it too I believe.
But yes DO is a consideration, when dryhopping during fermentation or krausening it might be easyer to control.

Agree, Janish definitely talks about this in his book.

 

[troxerX]

If you’re using x # of hops why do you think it matters if it’s divided into 3 batches and blended, or used in one larger batch? You think using 5 ounces of hops in three vessels and blending them together will magically produce more oil than using 15 ounces in one batch? If you’re so convinced you have the answer and know more than everyone that’s been involved in this research for years, why don’t you give it a shot and show us how it’s done?

It does matter, but don’t take my word, the only thing that matters now is if something doesn’t work you try something else, always leading with the evidence in front - I already explained how this works but I can’t be the only one brewing, and it may not be the answer after all, but we have to keep trying. I don’t know more than everyone else and never will in a thousand years as the most important thing is the collective, everyone working as a team. We are trying to clone beers that were conceived when ‘homebrewing’ +10 years ago using probably lesser sophisticated tools and ingredients than what we have today. Blending is a very unknown topic by most (myself included), but just the fact that the best liquids in this planet; whiskeys, rums, wines, beers, even drinking water are all blends, that is more than sufficient to lead any ideas in that direction with high confidence; primarily when everything else fails.

I just noticed other Julius clone recipe threads have been watched almost 40,000 times which means there are plenty of people following this subject, but unfortunately most of them are sitting waiting for someone to give them the answer so they can start brewing it (shame on those who are doing this intentionally). And affirmative, I will be brewing very soon and posting results but will not share details until I see others jumping in... just like everything else, blending has risks so keep your batches as small as possible.

and yes, this post feels like ‘President Thomas Whitmore’s’ Independence Day speech LOL...

 

[troxerX]

Makes sense! So possibly prior to c44 they just capped the tank at the end of fermentation to get a bit of "free co2" and so they could throw that silly "naturally carbonated" marketing term on their growler, and c44 they experimented with krausening?

Either way, it has nothing to do with their house character from a flavor standpoint as that has remained intact throughout all of their process changes, albeit it does continue to dwindle as they really ramped up production in Charlton.

There would be no way you can get an 18 day grain to glass beer on commercial scale that's naturally carbonated outside of utilizing spunding or krausening for partial carbonation, and as mentioned before hop aroma isn't nearly as bright if doing full natural carbonation involving dextrose + an additional conditioning yeast strain after the dry hop.

I primarily brew German lagers these days, sometimes I spund and other times I don't and I've never noticed a lick of difference in foam formation or stability between the two. There are many other process variables at play to achieve long lasting dense foam.

@savylemons Bud, my reply to your post wasn’t directed to you, was for everyone in general

 

[TBryerton]

It does matter, but don’t take my word, the only thing that matters now is if something doesn’t work you try something else, always leading with the evidence in front - I already explained how this works but I can’t be the only one brewing, and it may not be the answer after all, but we have to keep trying. I don’t know more than everyone else and never will in a thousand years as the most important thing is the collective, everyone working as a team. We are trying to clone beers that were conceived when ‘homebrewing’ +10 years ago using probably lesser sophisticated tools and ingredients than what we have today. Blending is a very unknown topic by most (myself included), but just the fact that the best liquids in this planet; whiskeys, rums, wines, beers, even drinking water are all blends, that is more than sufficient to lead any ideas in that direction with high confidence; primarily when everything else fails.

I just noticed other Julius clone recipe threads have been watched almost 40,000 times which means there are plenty of people following this subject, but unfortunately most of them are sitting waiting for someone to give them the answer so they can start brewing it (shame on those who are doing this intentionally). And affirmative, I will be brewing very soon and posting results but will not share details until I see others jumping in... just like everything else, blending has risks so keep your batches as small as possible.

and yes, this post feels like ‘President Thomas Whitmore’s’ Independence Day speech LOL...

I’ve temporarily put a hold on my TH experiments, mostly because I’ve never made anything remotely close. Last brew day was inspired by Trillium, which is much, much easier to replicate. It’s still conditioning but very close. My mistake was underestimating how well Columbus carries through. DH was 85% Citra and the Columbus is dominating so far. Hoping the Citra starts to shine after some time in the keg.

Anyway, my plan is to slowly transition this beer into something closer to TH. Make one more with 007, then move to S04, experiment with under pitching, then start moving the other expected yeasts into the equation one way or another.

 

[The_Dirty_Spring]

Nate is watching and laughing...

 

[NJGeorge]

@Clyde McCoy @isomerization that have tested cans. We’re the cans kept cold the whole time or shipped across the US in the summer heat? Maybe this has something to do with what’s showing up in the cans? Maybe some yeast are dying due to heat?

 

[NJGeorge]

Also, what if Nate isolated a yeast from his yard or farm to use in their beers and throw other yeast in to protect it? It’s possible..