Quantcast

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

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

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

NJGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
303
Reaction score
95
A few days. The first two beers from the hand delivered package are bursting with flavor.

Ever notice the coloring in the foam from their beers with house yeast? This pic is from Juice Project, which is amazing.
Wow probably sludge from the bottom of the can. Can be hoppy yeast and proteins
 

TBryerton

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
126
Reaction score
63
Wow probably sludge from the bottom of the can. Can be hoppy yeast and proteins
Yes, agree. It seems to be common in the ‘house yeast’ beers, but from what I remember you don’t get this in the Bright beers. Drinking C104 as I write this, no yeast in the bottom of the glass, no coloring in the foam. C104 does not use ‘house yeast’. Wouldn’t this point to a different process for ‘house yeast’ beers? I suppose low floc yeast could play a part, but to see beer A with so much yeast, and beer B extremely clean, make me wonder.
 

beervoid

Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
938
Reaction score
187
Location
Europe
A few days. The first two beers from the hand delivered package are bursting with flavor.

Ever notice the coloring in the foam from their beers with house yeast? This pic is from Juice Project, which is amazing.
Thats probably a bit of sediment that was in the bottom. Looks like hop oil or perhaps very fine particles?
 

NJGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
303
Reaction score
95
Yes, agree. It seems to be common in the ‘house yeast’ beers, but from what I remember you don’t get this in the Bright beers. Drinking C104 as I write this, no yeast in the bottom of the glass, no coloring in the foam. C104 does not use ‘house yeast’. Wouldn’t this point to a different process for ‘house yeast’ beers? I suppose low floc yeast could play a part, but to see beer A with so much yeast, and beer B extremely clean, make me wonder.
How’s that 104? Wonder what yeast they used in that one.
 

chieftain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
134
Reaction score
34
Location
Boston
Last can I had from them I poured, the rotten veggie fruit taste was too much
So I managed to score a 4 pack of MC2 at my local beer store, and wow the overripe fruit taste was overwhelming. They were packaged on 10/13, so they have not been sitting long. Very glad I didn't end up buying a case as planned.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
I’ve been doing a lot of research into anything Nate and co. have ever put out in terms of interviews, beer descriptions, pictures, etc. Take a look at the attached pictures (some have been posted here before, I’m sure) and chime in on if you agree with my lone of thinking. 1) his cellar setup circa 2012 with 3 Blichman 14 gallon fermenters also has 2 kegs turned fermenters, as evidenced by the blowoff hoses running out of them. Why buy/make these when you are already purchasing what was at the type the top of the line fermenters? This leads me to believe he needed an FV with the capability to pressurize while fermenting. If he changed the 4” TC cap he could pressurize while fermentation is completing (ie some small natural carbonation, for that soft mouthfeel). This leads me to number 2)... he has 2 flasks with starters going right next to the 2 keg-menters, almost like he’s preparing to pitch a 2nd yeast in each after fermentation has been going. This leads us towards pitching dry S04 first with no starter, then waiting until some/most of fermentation is done to pitch a starter of T58 and/or WB06 that’s already ready to go and capping the FV to finish fermenting. 3) the final variable here is when would dry hopping be performed? The biotransformation campy would say it’s pitched with the starter before the FV is capped. This would be similar to how @echoALEia arrived at his almost-there beer that’s been discussed. If capped, there should be no “blowing-off” of important oils and flavor/aroma compounds, as well. 4) Nate’s use of brite tanks is well known, so perhaps he’s fermenting in a typical FV until 5-10 points before final gravity, transferring to the brite, pitching the starter and dry hopping, and capping the beer for good. He’d add necessary CO2 to get the carbonation level needed and cold crash out the hop material before canning from the brite. This would explain some of the trub/hop residue in cans that people occasionally get.
 

Attachments

TBryerton

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
126
Reaction score
63
I’ve been doing a lot of research into anything Nate and co. have ever put out in terms of interviews, beer descriptions, pictures, etc. Take a look at the attached pictures (some have been posted here before, I’m sure) and chime in on if you agree with my lone of thinking. 1) his cellar setup circa 2012 with 3 Blichman 14 gallon fermenters also has 2 kegs turned fermenters, as evidenced by the blowoff hoses running out of them. Why buy/make these when you are already purchasing what was at the type the top of the line fermenters? This leads me to believe he needed an FV with the capability to pressurize while fermenting. If he changed the 4” TC cap he could pressurize while fermentation is completing (ie some small natural carbonation, for that soft mouthfeel). This leads me to number 2)... he has 2 flasks with starters going right next to the 2 keg-menters, almost like he’s preparing to pitch a 2nd yeast in each after fermentation has been going. This leads us towards pitching dry S04 first with no starter, then waiting until some/most of fermentation is done to pitch a starter of T58 and/or WB06 that’s already ready to go and capping the FV to finish fermenting. 3) the final variable here is when would dry hopping be performed? The biotransformation campy would say it’s pitched with the starter before the FV is capped. This would be similar to how @echoALEia arrived at his almost-there beer that’s been discussed. If capped, there should be no “blowing-off” of important oils and flavor/aroma compounds, as well. 4) Nate’s use of brite tanks is well known, so perhaps he’s fermenting in a typical FV until 5-10 points before final gravity, transferring to the brite, pitching the starter and dry hopping, and capping the beer for good. He’d add necessary CO2 to get the carbonation level needed and cold crash out the hop material before canning from the brite. This would explain some of the trub/hop residue in cans that people occasionally get.
My understanding is that Nate was brewing an absurd amount to perfect his recipes/process - I believe something like 10 beers a week. On a home brewers budget it’s usually not reasonable to get 10 conicals. That would be my guess on why we see a variety of equipment. That’s not to say his process doesn’t play a part as well.
 

beervoid

Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
938
Reaction score
187
Location
Europe
I’ve been doing a lot of research into anything Nate and co. have ever put out in terms of interviews, beer descriptions, pictures, etc. Take a look at the attached pictures (some have been posted here before, I’m sure) and chime in on if you agree with my lone of thinking. 1) his cellar setup circa 2012 with 3 Blichman 14 gallon fermenters also has 2 kegs turned fermenters, as evidenced by the blowoff hoses running out of them. Why buy/make these when you are already purchasing what was at the type the top of the line fermenters? This leads me to believe he needed an FV with the capability to pressurize while fermenting. If he changed the 4” TC cap he could pressurize while fermentation is completing (ie some small natural carbonation, for that soft mouthfeel). This leads me to number 2)... he has 2 flasks with starters going right next to the 2 keg-menters, almost like he’s preparing to pitch a 2nd yeast in each after fermentation has been going. This leads us towards pitching dry S04 first with no starter, then waiting until some/most of fermentation is done to pitch a starter of T58 and/or WB06 that’s already ready to go and capping the FV to finish fermenting. 3) the final variable here is when would dry hopping be performed? The biotransformation campy would say it’s pitched with the starter before the FV is capped. This would be similar to how @echoALEia arrived at his almost-there beer that’s been discussed. If capped, there should be no “blowing-off” of important oils and flavor/aroma compounds, as well. 4) Nate’s use of brite tanks is well known, so perhaps he’s fermenting in a typical FV until 5-10 points before final gravity, transferring to the brite, pitching the starter and dry hopping, and capping the beer for good. He’d add necessary CO2 to get the carbonation level needed and cold crash out the hop material before canning from the brite. This would explain some of the trub/hop residue in cans that people occasionally get.
In the last photo he seems to be transferring from the conical to the keg. My guess, he dry hops in conical so he can dump hops and yeast then blends the batch with whatever he put in the keg.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
Along with my previous lengthy post, a few other observations:
1) Nate has spoken a lot about how recipes have evolved and specifically his processes. It’s possible the pictures from 2012 no longer even apply because the process is so vastly different. For example it’s well documented Julius in Monson was less hazy and maltier than now, and Nate has admitted as such.
2) has anyone experimented with adding grains late in mash? All signs point to Julius containing some caramel malt (10 lovibond to keep color from getting too dark?), a carafoam or carapils, and 2-row. I’m not sure how this might affect the fermentability of sugars or efficiency of extraction, but it’s a process I haven’t seen much experimentation with on this thread or others.
3) the fullness and softness of TH beers leads everyone to think mashing high (156-158) is crucial to the mouthfeel, but the attached picture Nate has tweeted (and a video I chose not to attach) show the vorlauf at 152, so there’s a real chance his beers aren’t mashed high and body is from elsewhere. Many experiments have shown mash temp doesn’t change mouthfeel anyway, but Julius still finishes at 1.014-1.015 FG.
 

Attachments

echoALEia

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
72
Reaction score
47
Location
Philadelphia
Did some interdelta fingerprints (delta12/delta21 and Phusion polymerase) of some Escarpment and White Labs strains at work today. I'm not sure if they are of any help in IDing the strains . One observation is that the fingerprints of WB06, WLP570 and WLP644 are identical (and genome data suggests they are very close). The UK ale strains also have quite similar profiles, they can be quite difficult to tell apart on an agarose gel (these are run on a ZAG capillary electrophoresis device). The bands at 75bp and 20kbp are markers added to each sample. Clyde McCoy, what polymerase and extension time are you running? Taq and 30s? You barely have any bands above ~500-700 bp. If you extend to one minute you could better range.
View attachment 702224
I haven't followed this thread very closely, but it seems most of the focus has been on dry strains. Do we know they certainly use dry strains? Based on the fingerprints it could be WLP644 (POF- is the key here) and almost any UK ale strain. If one wants to stick to S-04 or similar, maybe a dark horse could be WLP540 (i.e. the Rochefort strain) which is closely related. Wasn't there some interview posted where Rochefort 8 was named as an "a-ha beer".
Per this, I decided to try a separate ferment of t-58 and iyo citrus (the same strain as 644) and so far it smells amazing. No off phenols like wb06 produces. I’ll dry hop it in a couple of days
 

Attachments

TBryerton

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
126
Reaction score
63
Along with my previous lengthy post, a few other observations:
1) Nate has spoken a lot about how recipes have evolved and specifically his processes. It’s possible the pictures from 2012 no longer even apply because the process is so vastly different. For example it’s well documented Julius in Monson was less hazy and maltier than now, and Nate has admitted as such.
2) has anyone experimented with adding grains late in mash? All signs point to Julius containing some caramel malt (10 lovibond to keep color from getting too dark?), a carafoam or carapils, and 2-row. I’m not sure how this might affect the fermentability of sugars or efficiency of extraction, but it’s a process I haven’t seen much experimentation with on this thread or others.
3) the fullness and softness of TH beers leads everyone to think mashing high (156-158) is crucial to the mouthfeel, but the attached picture Nate has tweeted (and a video I chose not to attach) show the vorlauf at 152, so there’s a real chance his beers aren’t mashed high and body is from elsewhere. Many experiments have shown mash temp doesn’t change mouthfeel anyway, but Julius still finishes at 1.014-1.015 FG.
Third hand info, but someone told me they had a conversation with Nate in the early TH days and he mention Julius had a touch of Munich for sweetness. Not 100% sure if that’s accurate, and as you pointed out, their grain bills have almost certainly changed.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
The short answer is I don’t know haha.

In the past, when I pitched t58 and wb06 together in a 5 gallon batch I used about 11g of each. No phenols, all bready aromas.

When I recently did a single s04 underpitched it was beautiful - super tangerine aroma with a hint of vanilla.

Just pitched the three last night. I’ll post updates soon.
How many grams of S04 do you pitch in 5 gallons for it to be “underpitched?” And what fermentation temp?
 

echoALEia

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
72
Reaction score
47
Location
Philadelphia
How many grams of S04 do you pitch in 5 gallons for it to be “underpitched?” And what fermentation temp?
It was about 4g. I pitched at 72F with over pitched t58 and wb06. It was completely different from my usual t58/wb06 which gives off nice bready aromas at that temp. This one had fusels with a nice fruit character in the background. I dry hopped it anyway and added it to my main s-04 ferment and I’m happy to report it’s my best attempt yet. I’ll post results soon.

I like your observations about the old pics! I like the idea of doing t58/wb06 starters separately and adding as needed.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
It was about 4g. I pitched at 72F with over pitched t58 and wb06. It was completely different from my usual t58/wb06 which gives off nice bready aromas at that temp. This one had fusels with a nice fruit character in the background. I dry hopped it anyway and added it to my main s-04 ferment and I’m happy to report it’s my best attempt yet. I’ll post results soon.

I like your observations about the old pics! I like the idea of doing t58/wb06 starters separately and adding as needed.
Awesome, I look forward to seeing your results! Another thing to think about is the following chart from Fermentis that shows attenuation over time for different SG wort (they use Plato). Looking specifically at the 18* Plato wort because it’s close to the SG that most treehouse beers must have to, it shows that T58 gets out of the gate fastest and finishes up at 70% attenuation in basically 4 days while S04 starts slower and takes nearly 10 to get to 75%. Then WB06 crawls at the start compared to the others and takes almost 15 days to fully attenuate to 86%. This makes me think carefully timed pitches, along with your overpitched T58/WB06 and way underpitched S04 could be important.

Also, when asked via tweet about blending wort from different fermenters in his IPA’s he was awfully coy and admitted he does do it in some beers (see attached).

He’s well aware this thread exists because he responded to a tweet about it in Nov. 2017, so the question is if he’s seen progress made here and he’s tried to derail us by lies or half-truths. He seems like a good guy in terms of character based on the way he talks about the crew and the charity work they do, but that doesn’t mean he wants people figuring out the secret sauce.
 

Attachments

TBryerton

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
126
Reaction score
63
Awesome, I look forward to seeing your results! Another thing to think about is the following chart from Fermentis that shows attenuation over time for different SG wort (they use Plato). Looking specifically at the 18* Plato wort because it’s close to the SG that most treehouse beers must have to, it shows that T58 gets out of the gate fastest and finishes up at 70% attenuation in basically 4 days while S04 starts slower and takes nearly 10 to get to 75%. Then WB06 crawls at the start compared to the others and takes almost 15 days to fully attenuate to 86%. This makes me think carefully timed pitches, along with your overpitched T58/WB06 and way underpitched S04 could be important.

Also, when asked via tweet about blending wort from different fermenters in his IPA’s he was awfully coy and admitted he does do it in some beers (see attached).

He’s well aware this thread exists because he responded to a tweet about it in Nov. 2017, so the question is if he’s seen progress made here and he’s tried to derail us by lies or half-truths. He seems like a good guy in terms of character based on the way he talks about the crew and the charity work they do, but that doesn’t mean he wants people figuring out the secret sauce.
Good find - hadn’t seen that one. If that’s the case then I think it’s likely the ‘house yeast’ beers are using more than one FV.

Based on what we know these beers they are using a different process than their other IPAs and have hops interacting with yeast. Considering the TH flavor is consistent, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me they are using different hops in that vessel. So probably one FV dedicated to this and then added to the other beer at different %.
 

echoALEia

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
72
Reaction score
47
Location
Philadelphia
Awesome, I look forward to seeing your results! Another thing to think about is the following chart from Fermentis that shows attenuation over time for different SG wort (they use Plato). Looking specifically at the 18* Plato wort because it’s close to the SG that most treehouse beers must have to, it shows that T58 gets out of the gate fastest and finishes up at 70% attenuation in basically 4 days while S04 starts slower and takes nearly 10 to get to 75%. Then WB06 crawls at the start compared to the others and takes almost 15 days to fully attenuate to 86%. This makes me think carefully timed pitches, along with your overpitched T58/WB06 and way underpitched S04 could be important.

Also, when asked via tweet about blending wort from different fermenters in his IPA’s he was awfully coy and admitted he does do it in some beers (see attached).

He’s well aware this thread exists because he responded to a tweet about it in Nov. 2017, so the question is if he’s seen progress made here and he’s tried to derail us by lies or half-truths. He seems like a good guy in terms of character based on the way he talks about the crew and the charity work they do, but that doesn’t mean he wants people figuring out the secret sauce.
It makes sense with timed pitching. The problem with mine is that I didn’t control the temps because it was just an experiment. Makes me wonder what it would have been had I controlled the them. If it’s timed, so you think he’s pitching t58/wb06 straters hours or a day or so after?
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
It makes sense with timed pitching. The problem with mine is that I didn’t control the temps because it was just an experiment. Makes me wonder what it would have been had I controlled the them. If it’s timed, so you think he’s pitching t58/wb06 straters hours or a day or so after?
I do think he’s either pitching starters of new yeast after or using multiple FV’s for different yeasts. We still haven’t figured out if the high percentage of S04 we see in the cans means that’s the most prominent yeast used (in the large FV, say) or if that means it’s added lat (even in the smallest amount or FV) and that’s why it’s hanging around. The can of green(?) that went T58 heavy after being a year old in the can could mean it just survives longer, but I’m not sure.

Good find - hadn’t seen that one. If that’s the case then I think it’s likely the ‘house yeast’ beers are using more than one FV.

Based on what we know these beers they are using a different process than their other IPAs and have hops interacting with yeast. Considering the TH flavor is consistent, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me they are using different hops in that vessel. So probably one FV dedicated to this and then added to the other beer at different %.
I totally agree there’s some interaction between yeast and hops that matters in 1) mouthfeel softness and 2) lasting haze that never drops clear. Scott Janish has written about how haze is really proteins and polyphenols binding together (and small, broken down proteins work better for this), so there could be some interaction that plays into this which developed at TH over time; because their beers are hazier now than Monson.
 

JohnConnor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
149
Reaction score
59
I do think he’s either pitching starters of new yeast after or using multiple FV’s for different yeasts. We still haven’t figured out if the high percentage of S04 we see in the cans means that’s the most prominent yeast used (in the large FV, say) or if that means it’s added lat (even in the smallest amount or FV) and that’s why it’s hanging around. The can of green(?) that went T58 heavy after being a year old in the can could mean it just survives longer, but I’m not sure.



I totally agree there’s some interaction between yeast and hops that matters in 1) mouthfeel softness and 2) lasting haze that never drops clear. Scott Janish has written about how haze is really proteins and polyphenols binding together (and small, broken down proteins work better for this), so there could be some interaction that plays into this which developed at TH over time; because their beers are hazier now than Monson.
I'm going to disagree with interaction with hops and yeast creating permanent haze. In my experience, pH is where it's at. The lower my pH going into to fermenter, the hazier the beer. That's without high protein grist (no flaked or malted anything... 95% 2row/5% crystal. Sometimes some carafoam thrown in) and dry hopping after a soft crash (little to no yeast/hop interaction). Not entirely sure why? But that's what I've noticed.

I think I'd be surprised if their core beers are blended honestly. I can see batches blended into each other for consistency but not different fermentation profiles. I feel like you lose a lot of control over repeatability. I do recall at least one (maybe more) curiosity beers? or an anniversary beer? where they specifically call out blending different batches of completed beer together. I wish I could find that one but I'm leaning towards him referring to that than Julius being blended.
 

beervoid

Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
938
Reaction score
187
Location
Europe
I'm going to disagree with interaction with hops and yeast creating permanent haze. In my experience, pH is where it's at. The lower my pH going into to fermenter, the hazier the beer. That's without high protein grist (no flaked or malted anything... 95% 2row/5% crystal. Sometimes some carafoam thrown in) and dry hopping after a soft crash (little to no yeast/hop interaction). Not entirely sure why? But that's what I've noticed.

I think I'd be surprised if their core beers are blended honestly. I can see batches blended into each other for consistency but not different fermentation profiles. I feel like you lose a lot of control over repeatability. I do recall at least one (maybe more) curiosity beers? or an anniversary beer? where they specifically call out blending different batches of completed beer together. I wish I could find that one but I'm leaning towards him referring to that than Julius being blended.
Which PH do you aim for? How much wp and dh amounts?
I just did a non oat wheat beer with s-04 +t58 and its not much hazy. PH at ko was 4.98
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
@couchsending i saw on the Home brewers Association blog a few years back you planned to test heat shocking S04 yeast to increase glycerol production. Did you ever get to experiment with that? Osmotic stress causes yeast to produce glycerol in baking, so while we can’t make our beer thicker, if we could stress yeast another way, it may have a similar reaction. All the academic research has been on wine yeasts, and if heat shocking works on S04 (or even T58) in the same way, then way underpitching could cause similar stress and increase glycerol.
 

JohnConnor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
149
Reaction score
59
Which PH do you aim for? How much wp and dh amounts?
I just did a non oat wheat beer with s-04 +t58 and its not much hazy. PH at ko was 4.98
I was at 4.8 into the FV with my last batch. Coincidentally, I also used Conan for the first time. I have always struggled with pushing yeast esters but this one is peach for days. More ester than hop aroma at transfer. I need to run more experiments to see if they're related. I know pH can stress yeast. I don't know if that is low enough to do it. It did make me think about other curiosity beers where they talk about pushing or stressing their yeast. Pitch rate/pH maybe?

I've heard of people going lower though... 4.6. Haven't tried that low yet.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
I was at 4.8 into the FV with my last batch. Coincidentally, I also used Conan for the first time. I have always struggled with pushing yeast esters but this one is peach for days. More ester than hop aroma at transfer. I need to run more experiments to see if they're related. I know pH can stress yeast. I don't know if that is low enough to do it. It did make me think about other curiosity beers where they talk about pushing or stressing their yeast. Pitch rate/pH maybe?

I've heard of people going lower though... 4.6. Haven't tried that low yet.
Similar to my above question to @couchsending I like the idea of stressing yeast in different ways. We know underpitching does the trick and is used by Nate, but fermentation under pressure, PH, and heat shocking could be used too.

We know Julius finishes at a PH of 4.6 in the can, but because yeast lower PH and dry hopping raises PH, its hard to back out a starting FV PH.
 

JohnConnor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
149
Reaction score
59
Similar to my above question to @couchsending I like the idea of stressing yeast in different ways. We know underpitching does the trick and is used by Nate, but fermentation under pressure, PH, and heat shocking could be used too.

We know Julius finishes at a PH of 4.6 in the can, but because yeast lower PH and dry hopping raises PH, its hard to back out a starting FV PH.
I'll say having tried underpitching with a bunch of yeasts, it never truly got me much more than just pitching a "normal" amount. Maybe it's just me? But this pH thing really seemed to move the needle. Or maybe it's just the yeast? From reading others experience, this seems like a touchy yeast to get esters from so maybe I got lucky? I won't know until I experiment more.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
I'll say having tried underpitching with a bunch of yeasts, it never truly got me much more than just pitching a "normal" amount. Maybe it's just me? But this pH thing really seemed to move the needle. Or maybe it's just the yeast? From reading others experience, this seems like a touchy yeast to get esters from so maybe I got lucky? I won't know until I experiment more.
How much did you actually pitch to be considered underpitched? There have been many different instances of people "underpitching" that aren't drastic enough in my opinion. I'd like to try 1 gram of S04 per gallon of wort, which is way below any recommended amount, and see what happens.
 

couchsending

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,633
Reaction score
1,615
I never tried the heat shock experiment. Nor do I feel the need to honestly.

They’re definitely not blending separate ferments. There was a Curiosity where Nate talked about blending a Bright with Citra ferment and a Bright with Galaxy ferment into one final beer but I highly highly doubt they’re doing that for every “house yeast” beer.

I don’t really feel the need to try to replicate their beers anymore as I really don’t enjoy them. The texture and hop flavor is pretty crazy but the aroma is really not that pleasant and it’s almost impossible to pick out the hops. They all smell so bready to me.

My best guesses would be

Underpitch So4 at 72, let grow for a bit then cool to 62 or so for most of the ferment. As you get closer to terminal (not sure what that number is exactly) add a small amount of T-58 and I think 71b with the dry hops and cap the tank. Spund for natural carbonation, transfer to a Bright tank to adjust final carbonation.

On the hotside I would say they’re adding a fair amount of CaSo4 followed by less MgSo4 and CaCl, and only in the mash. 3-4x as much CaSo4 as the other two. However their water probably has a decent amount of alkalinity to start so you will get a significant reduction in final Ca levels but the So4 and Cl will make it through to the final beer.

Grist: 2row, carafoam, and something for color. Could be as simple as .5% of some roast malt. Probably a fair amount of Carafoam, maybe even as high as 15%.

Adjust boil pH to 4.9/5.0 at the start of the boil. Add a decent amount of hops in the boil. No need to adjust pH again at knockout.

The beers have a pretty high pH for a So4 ferment as that yeast can really lower pH I’ve found. There’s also a fair amount of bicarbonate in their final beer which can come from hops but wouldn’t surprise me if they’re adding some to the final beer. I’ve read adding Slaked lime to finished beer can “soften” it somewhat. Never tried it, no clue what dosage.
 

beervoid

Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
938
Reaction score
187
Location
Europe
I was at 4.8 into the FV with my last batch. Coincidentally, I also used Conan for the first time. I have always struggled with pushing yeast esters but this one is peach for days. More ester than hop aroma at transfer. I need to run more experiments to see if they're related. I know pH can stress yeast. I don't know if that is low enough to do it. It did make me think about other curiosity beers where they talk about pushing or stressing their yeast. Pitch rate/pH maybe?

I've heard of people going lower though... 4.6. Haven't tried that low yet.
How thick is the haze? And how much oz of wp and dh?
 

JohnConnor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
149
Reaction score
59
How thick is the haze? And how much oz of wp and dh?
I'm usually in the 3oz boil/3oz WP/6oz DH range for a 6 to 6.5% beer. That's my typical strength. I've never been a fan of the thick, sludgy looking beers. This is boarding on it. Grist was 87% 2row/10% carafoam/2% aromatic/1% acid. When I have time, I'll snap a picture so you can see for yourself.
 

beervoid

Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
938
Reaction score
187
Location
Europe
I'm usually in the 3oz boil/3oz WP/6oz DH range for a 6 to 6.5% beer. That's my typical strength. I've never been a fan of the thick, sludgy looking beers. This is boarding on it. Grist was 87% 2row/10% carafoam/2% aromatic/1% acid. When I have time, I'll snap a picture so you can see for yourself.
Thanks, im curious cause all the tree house I had where very opaque and hazy
 

brewpharm Hill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
144
Reaction score
72
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Along with my previous lengthy post, a few other observations:
1) Nate has spoken a lot about how recipes have evolved and specifically his processes. It’s possible the pictures from 2012 no longer even apply because the process is so vastly different. For example it’s well documented Julius in Monson was less hazy and maltier than now, and Nate has admitted as such.
2) has anyone experimented with adding grains late in mash? All signs point to Julius containing some caramel malt (10 lovibond to keep color from getting too dark?), a carafoam or carapils, and 2-row. I’m not sure how this might affect the fermentability of sugars or efficiency of extraction, but it’s a process I haven’t seen much experimentation with on this thread or others.
3) the fullness and softness of TH beers leads everyone to think mashing high (156-158) is crucial to the mouthfeel, but the attached picture Nate has tweeted (and a video I chose not to attach) show the vorlauf at 152, so there’s a real chance his beers aren’t mashed high and body is from elsewhere. Many experiments have shown mash temp doesn’t change mouthfeel anyway, but Julius still finishes at 1.014-1.015 FG.
Do we know that is from vorlaufing for sure?
 

brewpharm Hill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
144
Reaction score
72
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Also, Nate has stated that he doesn't like munich in IPAs. They even did a curiosity beer with it (don't remember which one but it was an earlier one for sure).... Now we know grainbills have changed and all so take it with a grain of salt. I've used munich for color and depth some of my IPAs to a color close to julius and some of them I was not impressed with. It probably depends on the hops and yeast used to get the flavors to meld. Not uncommon for IPAs to have munich though, traditionally. Preferred vienna a little more.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
Do we know that is from vorlaufing for sure?
I say that based on this tweet:


That appears to be a vorlauf as he’s recirculating the wort. The temperature gauge in that video also appears to be at 152* like the picture. Those are 2 different tweets over a week apart and the color of wort is slightly different so it seems to be 2 different beers both mashed at 152. That being said, he could have changed over time to a higher mash.
 

TBryerton

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
126
Reaction score
63
Also, Nate has stated that he doesn't like munich in IPAs. They even did a curiosity beer with it (don't remember which one but it was an earlier one for sure).... Now we know grainbills have changed and all so take it with a grain of salt. I've used munich for color and depth some of my IPAs to a color close to julius and some of them I was not impressed with. It probably depends on the hops and yeast used to get the flavors to meld. Not uncommon for IPAs to have munich though, traditionally. Preferred vienna a little more.
Regarding Munich, I’ve read that as well, so who knows. I think whatever he’s using that provides the color is so small it won’t make or break a clone recipe.

I’m not sure if they’re using 1 or more FV’s but whatever contributes that signature flavor is so dominate in some of their beers I struggle to think it can come from adding small amounts of yeast at different times in the process. But I’m far from an expert on that so maybe it is. I’m considering trying a S04 batch, krausenning with an oversized batch of T58 and adding some hops at the same time.
 

echoALEia

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
72
Reaction score
47
Location
Philadelphia
Not that they use it in their IPAs, but wasn’t a lot Weyermann Munich discovered at their brewery in an earlier post?
 

beervoid

Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
938
Reaction score
187
Location
Europe
I have use a small amount of melanoidin in ipa to get a very distinct fruity flavor. Munich contains melanoidins. My next 2 batches will have a small amount of munich I and II to compare.
 

NJGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
303
Reaction score
95
I’ve been playing with adding a touch of Munich for a while and like the results. We discussed and experimented with that early in this thread as well. Vienna too. I did a pale ale with all Vienna some pale wheat and a touch of Munich 1 with good results. A tad dark but in the sun it’s an awesome orange color. See the pic. For 4.8% beer it has a good full malt mouthfeel and taste. Drinks like a regular IPA. If you can figure out how to get a ton of isoamly acetate from a yeast without clove. You’ll come close to their yeast profile. I think that what we should focus on. How to extract or use a yeast that produces a ton of the overripe banana flavor.
 

Attachments

beervoid

Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
938
Reaction score
187
Location
Europe
I’ve been playing with adding a touch of Munich for a while and like the results. We discussed and experimented with that early in this thread as well. Vienna too. I did a pale ale with all Vienna some pale wheat and a touch of Munich 1 with good results. A tad dark but in the sun it’s an awesome orange color. See the pic. For 4.8% beer it has a good full malt mouthfeel and taste. Drinks like a regular IPA. If you can figure out how to get a ton of isoamly acetate from a yeast without clove. You’ll come close to their yeast profile. I think that what we should focus on. How to extract or use a yeast that produces a ton of the overripe banana flavor.
Acccording to fermentis data sheets t58 produces the most isoamyl acetate with s04 being a close second. They both are really missing that tropical character that some of the popular neipa yeasts seem to accentuate.

What do you think munich adds?
How much is a touch and which srm are you aiming for?
For me the tree house beers have this nice mid pallet sweetness thats not cloying and balances out the sharp upfront bitterness, possibly making it less lingering?
 

NJGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
303
Reaction score
95
Acccording to fermentis data sheets t58 produces the most isoamyl acetate with s04 being a close second. They both are really missing that tropical character that some of the popular neipa yeasts seem to accentuate.

What do you think munich adds?
How much is a touch and which srm are you aiming for?
For me the tree house beers have this nice mid pallet sweetness thats not cloying and balances out the sharp upfront bitterness, possibly making it less lingering?
I think it adds color, more malt flavor, maybe some sweetness depending on mash temp/yeast. Try it out you’ll see. I add around 3-5% I think. Would have to check notes. 6-7 srm with this batch.
 
Top