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

[melville]

Did you say what fermentation temp? Are you going to spund? And any banana notes from the WB-06?

Temp range is 68-72. Not going to spund, no banana notes and even had a Weihenstephaner at the same time to reference banana.

 

[cegan09]

I have read most of this thread at this point. Has anyone considered that the T-58 may be added to the beer in small quantities to discourage people from propping up the yeast at home? I propped a bottle of everett a few years ago and it was awful. I could see using a blend of 05 and 04 or something to produce specific results, but this ratio conspiracy seems a little insane. I know people think there is some magic going on down there, but blending multiple dry yeast strains seems like a stretch.

At the rate they're pumping out beer, I kind of doubt they're doing anything to sabotage. They'll literally be selling beer as it's coming off the canning line.

What's the simpler explanation? That they're purposely sabotaging their beer at the risk of changing it so that a few home brewers won't build up their yeast? Or that they are using a yeast blend, which is something that a lot of breweries do?

 

[whovous]

Subbed.

Thoroughly confused, but subbed. Osmosis, do your stuff!

 

[melville]

I have read most of this thread at this point. Has anyone considered that the T-58 may be added to the beer in small quantities to discourage people from propping up the yeast at home? I propped a bottle of everett a few years ago and it was awful. I could see using a blend of 05 and 04 or something to produce specific results, but this ratio conspiracy seems a little insane. I know people think there is some magic going on down there, but blending multiple dry yeast strains seems like a stretch.

First I would say nothing about this thread makes any sense, that's what makes it so fun. Still, your suggestion seems the least plausible, though it is still possible. We know they naturally carbonate, some brewers use T-58 to condition — for me it makes the most sense that T-58 is used in this regard. The only other definite match is S-04. That of course makes a bunch of sense as their primary yeast strain. Then we have two mysteries (one sort of resembles wb-06) — if we could nail these down maybe we'd have something that made more sense.

After reading a bit more on T-58, I've noticed many describe or complain about fusels/hotness/alchohol, and I feel like I picked up on that tasting the hydrometer sample, which only heightens my suspicion that it's more for carbing the beer. Of course I could go the other way — why add a yeast/priming sugar when it'd be easier to spund a fermenter.

Also given everything we've seen on Brulosophy — does any of this stuff make a difference? Would tasters notice a difference between S-04 and a S-04 mix? Some didn't even notice a difference between Conan and S-05.

 

[couchsending]

Been doing a lot more scouring of the internets and a few more test batches with a lot more to come...

So the one yeast "looks" like S-04 however S-04 is supposedly the dry strain of whitbread 1098? People say it's the version of 1099 which is also 007 but it doesn't seem to get quite the same attenuation as 007 does it? Also one thing about S-04 is that it produces lactic acid and you get that slight twang from it, which I would assume is due to the lower PH? Got a beer in fermentor now with S-04 that is down to 4.19 PH. We know their beers generally have PH in the range of 4.5 (Haze sample I sent to Ward was 4.6). I've yet to measure a final beer after dry hopping. Will dry hopping up it that much? .3?

Also the other yeast "looks" like T-58 which is suppose to be dry DuPont? WLP-565. However could WLP-566 "look" similar? 566 is supposed to be more fruity than spicy/peppery. Also been reading a lot about 3711 and it's citrus/fruity characteristics at high temps (75-79). 3711 also happens to be the one of the highest (if not the highest) glycerol producing yeast strains available. To me one of the biggest areas where Treehouse separates itself is the mouthfeel of their beers. Everyone's knee jerk reaction to more mouthfeel is flaked adjuncts, Oats in particular but Nate has stated they aren't using any in any of their core beers. If you think about it blending in beer higher in glycerol and with some potential citrus/fruity esters is just going to potentially magnify the highly hopped base beer.

in the photos of the brewery those are small fermenters at the front closest to the area you purchase cans correct? Could those be used for fermenting smaller portions of the same wort that goes into the larger tanks with a different yeast?

You don't get as many highly ranked beers as they do by doing things the standard way. Sure a little hype helps but from my personal experience I don't think anyone comes close to matching the complete balance of their hoppy beers from aroma, flavor, mouthfeel, bitterness, etc. They only sell direct to consumer which gives them the ability to do different things than your average Brewery. They can take their time, only produce certain beers when it's optimal, etc. that's the beauty of their business model.

 

[prosserbrewer]

I'm WAY late to this thread party (and apologize in advance if I missed mention of this already as I admit skipping a couple pages). At any rate, I came across an interesting beer yeast identification project today and the associated results, protocols, etc. that they used - looks like it was just posted 8 or 9 days ago. These folks out of Switzerland sequenced the various yeasts and fungi found in 39 beers (Orval and 2 Chimay beers among them) and identified the species, if not strain, of what they found. The project is called BeerDeCoded and website is www.genome.beer

From Protocol document:

"ITS mapping analysis
We downloaded the curated set of ITS sequences from the Refseq database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/refseq/targetedloci/). We used these sequences to build an ITS index for the Burrows-Wheeler Aligner. We used BWA to map the reads of each beers from the fastq files to our ITS index. Subsequently, we counted the number of ITS per beer and per species and we kept only the species where we found more than 10 reads. We used R statistical software in order to plot the results and to perform the hierarchical clustering analysis with the ape library. Finally, we compared our results with the user friendly pipeline of One Codex using their targeted loci analysis. "


At any rate, I found the project interesting and hope they continue on with what was originally a kickstarter funded project. I'll attach the results they posted here so folks can take a look. As an aside, I found all this while looking up various protocols and methods for identifying yeast and bacteria as it's been a long time since I played around with DNA identification in college. I just enlisted some PhD's that work mostly with wine to help me investigate the pros and cons of wild sour beer fermentation locations. Figured I should get more up to speed but I'm very glad I don't have to be the final lab expert in these areas! Hopefully this source helps or at least you folks find it mildly interesting.

Cheers!

Peter

View attachment beer_analysis of yeast varieties in 39 Belgian Beers.pdf

 

[bierhaus15]

Just to clarify, S-04 is the Whitbread B strain (1098/007) and while it does produce more lactic acid than many yeasts, the amount is not enough to significantly change final beer pH. Moreover, T58 is very close to the Ardennes strain and is often recommended as a substitute for probrewers.

Per glycerol production, some yeasts do produce more, although a bigger impact on mouthfeel is residual sugar. TH beers often finish north of 1.012, sometimes around 1.015. That high FG would seem cloying, if not for a relatively high bittering charge.

Moreover, if TH is using blends of dried yeast, they are certainly not storing or reusing the yeast. The whole point of dry yeast in a production setting is that you don't need yeast storage or management equipment. And considering dry yeast mutates readily after one generation, it doesn't make sense to re use it.

 

[couchsending]

Just to clarify, S-04 is the Whitbread B strain (1098/007) and while it does produce more lactic acid than many yeasts, the amount is not enough to significantly change final beer pH. Moreover, T58 is very close to the Ardennes strain and is often recommended as a substitute for probrewers.

Per glycerol production, some yeasts do produce more, although a bigger impact on mouthfeel is residual sugar. TH beers often finish north of 1.012, sometimes around 1.015. That high FG would seem cloying, if not for a relatively high bittering charge.

Moreover, if TH is using blends of dried yeast, they are certainly not storing or reusing the yeast. The whole point of dry yeast in a production setting is that you don't need yeast storage or management equipment. And considering dry yeast mutates readily after one generation, it doesn't make sense to re use it.

I've made plenty of hoppy beers that finishes between 1.014 and 1.017 with over 100 theoretical IBUs and tons of dry hopping that don't have the mouthfeel I get from Treehouse beers.

 

[isomerization]

***Red Square Update***

BOOM! I feel pretty confident that we have identified the 4th yeast that I've pulled out of TH dregs. I ran out of the previous DNA ladder I had been using, so the first two lanes are two different ladders, just FYI.

My current hypothesis is that they are using CBC-1 (or possibly Fermentis F-2, I couldn't get my hands on that yeast w/o paying through the nose for shipping from the UK) during the dry hop/spunding portion of fermentation. This would then imply that the other 3 yeasts (S-04, T-58 and WB-06 like strains) go into primary (separately or not is still a question).

Shout out to @StinkyBeer for the suggestion of trying the CBC-1/F-2 type strains, I don't think I would have gone down that route ($5 a piece!) w/o the suggestion.

 

[melville]

Nice!!!

 

[bierhaus15]

I've made plenty of hoppy beers that finishes between 1.014 and 1.017 with over 100 theoretical IBUs and tons of dry hopping that don't have the mouthfeel I get from Treehouse beers.

What I was getting at is that there is more to soft mouthfeel than glycerol levels. Cheapo brands used to add glycerol to increase mouthfeel and fullness in high adjunct beers; then they did studies and found it was more effective to add HFCS and bump the residual sugar. Glycerol is important, but the levels are so low in most beer that things like FG, water chemistry, and brew process are going to have more of an impact. And I'm sure yeast choice is part of that as well.

 

[melville]

Also, not an ester producer, so if it is used mostly for bubbles, the other three I've got going right now should be the man drivers of flavor, feel, etc. Unless....Mouthfeel correlates to natural carbonation.

Anyone know the/a formula for adding yeast for refermentation in a situation like this?

 

[melville]

Used in primay fermentation:

"CBC-1 does not utilize the sugar maltotriose (a molecule composed of 3 glucose units), and the result will be fuller body and residual sweetness in beer. Be advised to adjust mash temperatures according to desired result"

 

[marshallb]

It may be worth noting that CBC-1 is said to be great for fermenting under pressure. This gives credit to dry hopping and natural carbonation in the tanks before the beer is done.

 

[isomerization]

Need to finish some actual experiments (lol), but here is an aggregated pic of all the strains I've evaluated with the delta2-delta12 primer pair:

Legend:
A - WLP644
B - F1
C - F1/C4
D - Conan (TYB)
E - S-33 (Fermentis)
F - WB-06 (Fermentis)
G - K-97 (Fermentis)
H - Windsor (Danstar)
I - London ESB (Danstar)
J - WY1056
K - WY1272
L - WY1332
M - WY1318
N - WY1968
O - WLP670 (saison isolate)
P - WLP802
Q - TH Julius isolate (later determined to be T-58 like, green circle)
R - Vermont Ale (TYB; duplicate with D)
S - WY3944
T - TH Double Shot isolate (haven't gone back to see if this was the only strain...)
U - S-04 (Fermentis)
V - S-05 (Fermentis)
W - S-23 (Fermentis)
X - Munich (Danstar)
Y - W-34/70 (Fermentis)
Z - T-58 (Fermentis)
AA - CBC-1 (Lallemand)
BB - BE-256 (Fermentis)

 

[marshallb]

Need to finish some actual experiments (lol), but here is an aggregated pic of all the strains I've evaluated with the delta2-delta12 primer pair:

***Will edit in the Legend later this evening***

Aamzing work man! :rockin:

 

[melville]

someone might as well send isomerization a growler of Hill Farmstead now

 

[couchsending]

What I was getting at is that there is more to soft mouthfeel than glycerol levels. Cheapo brands used to add glycerol to increase mouthfeel and fullness in high adjunct beers; then they did studies and found it was more effective to add HFCS and bump the residual sugar. Glycerol is important, but the levels are so low in most beer that things like FG, water chemistry, and brew process are going to have more of an impact. And I'm sure yeast choice is part of that as well.

Sorry we're on different planes... I was thinking the glycerol was more for viscosity, thickness. Something I haven't been able to replicate in my beers yet. I agree that the softness is more water/process related and I'm under the impression its Alkalinity related to be more specific.

 

[couchsending]

someone might as well send isomerization a growler of Hill Farmstead now

I'm sending him some harvest HF ale yeast from a growler if that helps at all... might have to throw my last bottle of Everett in there too...

 

[couchsending]

Used in primay fermentation:

"CBC-1 does not utilize the sugar maltotriose (a molecule composed of 3 glucose units), and the result will be fuller body and residual sweetness in beer. Be advised to adjust mash temperatures according to desired result"

same is true for Windsor. This is why it has such low attenuation, doesn't eat Maltotriose

 

[StinkyBeer]

Same is true for London ESB and S-33...the more complex the sugar the quicker they are to flick you the bird.

Treehouse are being clever. Some of the best brewers in the world base their brewhouse around the concept of blending. Whether that's blending multiple fv's in to a single large BBT or blending multiple strains in to one FV, or blending over a considered fermenting timescale to achieve desired esters...or blending multiple barrel aged beers.

Glad I could add to the this wonderful thread in some way. Great work Isomerization, keep it up.

I'm brewing a colab with a Danish brewer on Friday and it's an IPA (Citra, El Dorado, Azacca, Denali) and I'm going with 40/30/30 (s-04, T-58, WB-06). Pitching and fermenting at 25. I'll keep you posted!

Was chatting to another brewer recently who knows T-58 like the back of his hand...he let's that puppy ride up to 33 and loves it. It's so versatile. Have a play.

 

[StinkyBeer]

We aim to have IPA's and DIPA's finishing 1.017-1.020. The beers don't taste under attenuated...they do feel full and thick and juicy.

 

[couchsending]

So if a brewery is using ESB, like Creature Comforts for instance, and Trolicalia finishes at 1.010 I think. Are they mashing super low or using enzyme like Convertase to get yo those gravities?! Does lowering mash temps minimize maltotriose?

 

[isomerization]

Really excited to hear about the finished products using the discussed blends!

I was thinking more about CBC-1 might be employed (by us or TH). Would we add this yeast with priming sugar and dry hops to the keg (would a spunding valve even be needed?) after primary fermentation has completed OR try to transfer the beer before primary has ended, adding just the CBC-1 and dry hops?

I completely agree about having a high FG (when that's the plan), I recently made a Mango Milkshake DIPA (posted about it in the Julius clone thread) that finished at 1.028. It has an amazing mouthfeel and nicely balanced hop/tart/sweet character.

And @couchsending, will keep you posted on the HF dregs and absolutely looking forward to trying that bottle of Everett, will be my first time with HF.

 

[DaveDiedDancing]

This is an awesome thread. I check it multiple times a day to keep up. Thank you guys

 

[mbbransc]

Same is true for London ESB and S-33...the more complex the sugar the quicker they are to flick you the bird.

Treehouse are being clever. Some of the best brewers in the world base their brewhouse around the concept of blending. Whether that's blending multiple fv's in to a single large BBT or blending multiple strains in to one FV, or blending over a considered fermenting timescale to achieve desired esters...or blending multiple barrel aged beers.

Glad I could add to the this wonderful thread in some way. Great work Isomerization, keep it up.

I'm brewing a colab with a Danish brewer on Friday and it's an IPA (Citra, El Dorado, Azacca, Denali) and I'm going with 40/30/30 (s-04, T-58, WB-06). Pitching and fermenting at 25. I'll keep you posted!

Was chatting to another brewer recently who knows T-58 like the back of his hand...he let's that puppy ride up to 33 and loves it. It's so versatile. Have a play.

Won't that S-04 begin throwing fusels at 25°C? I'm thinking I might pitch S-04 first, 2-days in raise temps to the 25°-ish level, pitch S-33/T-58 along with first dry hop. Maybe cap the FV then and finish fermentation under pressure?

 

[Ruckusz28]

Today after work I'll be taking a gravity reading and a sample. It's been 4 days. With an OG of 1.062 it's probably finished and should be cleaned up. If all things are go, I'll rack to the dry hop keg, pressurize, and chill. I estimate transferring to the serving keg Friday and hitting my belly on Saturday.

Update:

The beer finished at 1.009. There are no notable fruit esters on the aroma or taste. Hop aroma/flavor is subdued. A very good, drinkable beer, but very far from a NEIPA flavor profile.

Lessons learned - MASH HIGH; this will help contribute to dextrins and improved mouthfeel.

If I did this again, I would pitch initial yeast blend at the start. Adjust ratios to reduce amount of higher attenuating yeast in favor of lower attenuating yeast. Considering high mash temp, shoot for a FG of 1.018/1.020. At this point you would pitch your "finishing" yeast and dry hops while attaching your spunding. The beer would drop .02-.04 points and carbonate up "naturally" while dissolving all of those beautiful dry hop aromas into solution. Rack off to your serving keg and enjoy. Remember, TH IPA's finish around 1.014-1.016. That residual sweetness is critical to the perceived "juice" appeal.

Happy Brewing.

 

[melville]

Interesting.

So I just closed transfer mine to the keg with dry hops inside and a bit of pressure to sit for a couple of days before cold crashing and adding some gas.
I went from 1.068 to 1.010. I mashed at 150 so per @Ruckusz28, I'd be inclined to mash higher next time around.

Nothing super stands out, it looks like a neipa, and smells great, but then it would with citra, galaxy, and motueka. Taste-wise, I get some slickness (large oat% in this one could be contributing), some real light fusel, and in the very back — a hint of something I would describe as belgian or at least, un-IPA-like. No banana, no spice, no clove that I can detect, but I also wouldn't say there was any bubblegum. All in all, the esters such as they are seem more fruit like than anything else.

Depending how this turns out after it carbs up, I'd probably lower the t-58 percentage and consider upping the wb-06, or... start with the s-04, and a couple of days in add the wb-06 and a smaller amount of t-58. Obviously a ton of variables to play with here.

Again for reference my ratio was a 50:30:20 blend of S-04:WB-06:T:58

 

[melville]

Interesting.

So I just closed transfer mine to the keg with dry hops inside and a bit of pressure to sit for a couple of days before cold crashing and adding some gas.
I went from 1.068 to 1.010. I mashed at 150 so per @Ruckusz28, I'd be inclined to mash higher next time around.

Nothing super stands out, it looks like a neipa, and smells great, but then it would with citra, galaxy, and motueka. Taste-wise, I get some slickness (large oat% in this one could be contributing), some real light fusel, and in the very back — a hint of something I would describe as belgian or at least, un-IPA-like. No banana, no spice, no clove that I can detect, but I also wouldn't say there was any bubblegum. All in all, the esters such as they are seem more fruit like than anything else.

Depending how this turns out after it carbs up, I'd probably lower the t-58 percentage and consider upping the wb-06, or... start with the s-04, and a couple of days in add the wb-06 and a smaller amount of t-58. Obviously a ton of variables to play with here.

Again for reference my ratio was a 50:30:20 blend of S-04:WB-06:T:58

Digging around the Fermentis site it seems like WB-06 should be the more likely culprit to throw off fusels (and esters), also attenuation — 86% — about where I am with my beer. So maybe my thinking is off, more t-58, less wb-06. It's all very...confusing.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[isomerization]

Digging around the Fermentis site it seems like WB-06 should be the more likely culprit to throw off fusels (and esters), also attenuation — 86% — about where I am with my beer. So maybe my thinking is off, more t-58, less wb-06. It's all very...confusing.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

I noticed that too, hard to say what is exactly going on (at TH), so will be even harder to figure out a schedule that works. Guess we have to make a lot of beer

I was looking back at my analyses of different cans, here are the breakdowns:

Julius: 7 S-04, 3 CBC-1, 2 T-58, 0 WB-06
Doppleganger: 5 CBC-1, 2 S-04, 2 WB-06, 1 T-58
Alter Ego: 7 S-04, 2 CBC-1, 1 T-58, 1 WB-06
Green: 5 CBC-1, 2 WB-06, 1 S-04

Now there are a lot of caveats here, I have no idea on the age of the cans and I definitely didn't analyze enough colonies for statistical power.

BUT, if we look at the distribution across all colonies analyzed (41 total), we get the following (rounded for convenience) and after the yeast is the % if we remove CBC-1 (i.e. post-primary addition):

41% - S-04 (66%)
37% - CBC-1
10% - T-58 (15%)
12% - WB-06 (19%)

I am still trying to wrap my head around the timing of everything. We know Nate is very meticulous, so I doubt he would want to give up fermentation control by pitching everything into the same vessel. This would argue for what StinkyBeer is doing, blending separately fermented beers together. The different ratios could reflect the volumes blended, but these yeast are going to flocc differently too. So...

The high amount of CBC-1 we see, does suggest it is being added late in the process, but its not going to eat any simply sugars, so does that argue for a sugar/dry hop addition? Do other breweries naturally carb this way?