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

[couchsending]

I don’t think you’d find the correct answer in the NEXT 258 pages of this thread... In my opinion it’s still just as up in the air as it was on page 20.

 

[Hannabrew]

I did 92/5/3 based on that post by Trinity and I wouldn't do it again or if I did I would mash at 158. A step mash with that ratio brough me down to 1.005

I would likely try 95/4/1 but at that point is it even worth the effort? I'm not sure

 

[TheHairyHop]

Was there even definitive proof that it's WB-06? I thought it was just inferred based on a similar genetic pattern and the company related to the other two

 

[tld6008]

I did 92/5/3 based on that post by Trinity and I wouldn't do it again or if I did I would mash at 158. A step mash with that ratio brough me down to 1.005

I would likely try 95/4/1 but at that point is it even worth the effort? I'm not sure

I have brewed their recipe twice and finished both times at .009. My plan was also to mash at 158 next time but other than trying to get a fuller mouthfeel I think the beer is great.

 

[couchsending]

Was there even definitive proof that it's WB-06? I thought it was just inferred based on a similar genetic pattern and the company related to the other two

If its two dry strains I’d doubt there’d be any liquid yeast used. Wouldn’t make sense.

I still don’t think they’re all pitched together.

 

[ThePaleAleIndian]

Right, I don't think it was ever 100% certain that it was WB-06, it was just that WB-06 made a lot of sense because it was close to a match and also a third Fermentis strain. Also it seems like there are a bunch of reports of a banana-bubblegum ester in TH beers, which I think thus far we're attributing to WB-06 or similar.

I also don't think they are pitching all the strains together. Either staggered pitch or finished beer blend.

 

[TheHairyHop]

I'm just wondering if they're using a hefe strain that isn't diastaticus. That would explain the similar but not identical pattern. I also believe that Julius isn't typically below 1.01, so they'd have to be relying on some mechanism to stop WB-06 (CBC maybe?). It just seems odd to me that they'd be playing with fire like that, unless they are pasteurizing.

 

[cegan09]

Got a variety of tree house beers recently. I have never once tasted banana in them. Bubblegum maybe, but damn it was faint.

I think people want there to be this crazy complex magical process because there is so much hype around the beers. But I'd be shocked if the reality wasn't that it's a fairly normal process.

 

[TheHairyHop]

Got a variety of tree house beers recently. I have never once tasted banana in them. Bubblegum maybe, but damn it was faint.

I think people want there to be this crazy complex magical process because there is so much hype around the beers. But I'd be shocked if the reality wasn't that it's a fairly normal process.

the analyzed beers have multiple (somewhat odd) strains of yeast in them. It's not magical. It's a lab result

 

[cegan09]

the analyzed beers have multiple (somewhat odd) strains of yeast in them. It's not magical. It's a lab result

Sure, but people are trying to nail it down to these insane ratios and timings. I just don't think they're doing that. I would believe they're mixing strains for primary, and then using something else to carbonate, or some other combination that makes sense for large scale production. But the rabbit hole of crazy methods to perfectly blend yeast strains in specific ratios seems a step too far to me.

 

[thehaze]

Is it possible to use KCl with Bru'nWater? If not, how much would you add? Is it 1:1 ratio when compared with CaCl?

 

[chieftain]

Is it possible to use KCl with Bru'nWater? If not, how much would you add? Is it 1:1 ratio when compared with CaCl?

It's not 1 to 1. Check earlier in the thread - I believe Melville or other users did a breakdown of how they compared.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Adding 1.276 g. of KCl will give you the same ppm Cl- concentration as for adding 1 g. of NaCl

 

[isomerization]

It's not 1 to 1. Check earlier in the thread - I believe Melville or other users did a breakdown of how they compared.

Mw of CaCl2 = 111 g/mol (64% molar Cl ratio)
Mw of KCl = 74.6 g/mol (48% molar Cl ratio)

1 g of CaCl2 provides 0.638 g of Cl
1 g of KCl provides 0.476 g of Cl

Therefore, 1.34 g of KCl provides the equivalent amount of Cl as 1 g of CaCl2.

 

[thehaze]

Thank you for the replies. I will give KCl a try in my next IPA. Hopefully, I will not screw it up.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Pending that I did this correctly, 2 grams added to 5 gallons of water would add 50.2 ppm Chloride and 55.5 ppm Potassium.

As to potential negatives, I haven't come across many (yet): There was a concern raised on another forum that once a level of 10 ppm potassium is reached it may begin to potentially inhibit mash enzymes. It also doesn't taste very good. KCl has been used as a salt substitute, and it generally gets unfavorable ratings for flavor when compared side by side with NaCl.

Edit: This link appears to be the source for the inhibition of enzymatic activity at 10 ppm and above.
http://www.beer-brewing.com/beer_brewing/beer_brewing_water/minerals_brewing_water.htm

The way around this would be to add it post the mash. Even adding it to the sparge water would get around this drawback.

But then again, some are adding potassium metabisulfite to eliminate chlorine or chloramine, and others add it to scavange oxygen for LoDO brewing, so ... ????

 

[stickyfinger]

Pending that I did this correctly, 2 grams added to 5 gallons of water would add 50.2 ppm Chloride and 55.5 ppm Potassium.

As to potential negatives, I haven't come across many (yet): There was a concern raised on another forum that once a level of 10 ppm potassium is reached it may begin to potentially inhibit mash enzymes. It also doesn't taste very good. KCl has been used as a salt substitute, and it generally gets unfavorable ratings for flavor when compared side by side with NaCl.

Edit: This link appears to be the source for the inhibition of enzymatic activity at 10 ppm and above.
http://www.beer-brewing.com/beer_brewing/beer_brewing_water/minerals_brewing_water.htm

The way around this would be to add it post the mash. Even adding it to the sparge water would get around this drawback.

But then again, some are adding potassium metabisulfite to eliminate chlorine or chloramine, and others add it to scavange oxygen for LoDO brewing, so ... ????

remind me why you want potassium in there? i bought sodium metabisulfite for brewing as i recalled reading yes ago that potassium doesnt taste good.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I believe the original issue here (or rather as it was when I initially introduced it, perhaps about a year ago) is (was) adding chloride without adding sodium. If using potassium chloride to meet this goal, potassium simply comes along with it. There is no desire to add potassium. And at the time when I initially conceived of using potassium chloride, no negatives with regard to potassium were known to me.

The current inquiry is not by me, but rather it is by @thehaze, and it is my understanding that his goal is limiting calcium to avoid a chalky taste. But I prefer to not speculate as to the reasoning on his behalf.

Subsequent to my initial inquiry (with some brief math, either presented here or in another thread on this forum which I introduced at about the same time) I believe that Melville and one other person (at least) who has frequented this thread began to actively use KCl, and to my knowledge they have reported general success with no negatives.

 

[couchsending]

Ever taste CaCl or Gypsum? They don't taste all that great either. I wouldn't worry about the taste of KCl as the amount
you're using I don't think would have any sort of flavor impact. You can't actually taste NaCl until the levels of Na are rather
high but it's impact on pallet fullness can be perceived at much lower levels in my opinion. I have no evidence to back this up but
with the potential negative impacts of K on the mash as has been discussed I’d just toss it in the boil. I don't even add salts to
the sparge water any more, just adjust for pH with acid and add all the sparge salts to the boil.

 

[cegan09]

I went and re-read this entire thread. All 65 (on my forum settings) pages. And I still think everyone is trying to make this out to be more complicated than it might be, while basing that on a lot of "facts" that are just theories that got repeated so much they because "facts". Good example of this, those who pass off as fact that some cans had fewer strains of yeast when it was said that early on the samples were not treated correctly as they weren't expecting multiple strains.

Let's sum up things that we know for sure about the tree house yeast.
1. There are multiple strains showing up in their cans.

That's it. I was excited about this thread early on because of the investigative work into the strains. But a few were deemed to be "it's 100% this one" based on some early tests that could be wrong. In the first few pages it was pointed out how some yeasts can look similar at the genetic level, but be vastly different. It's possible that one or more of the identified yeasts is wrong, but the same trio has been carried on for over a year.

I think it needs to be brought up that ever since Monson TH has been slammed and always produced less beer than there was a demand for. It doesn't make sense to me that they'd waste fermenter space doing different fermentation to mix back together, it would only compound production limitations. Maybe now with the larger brewery it could be an option, but it doesn't seem like the simplest option.

I think TH has had a lot of growing pains and struggled to scale up. If you look at the release rate of their curiosity series, it was a very occasional thing for the most part, right until the charlton brewery was coming online. Suddenly you had 1-2 curiosity beers a week for a while. The assumption was all of those were test batches on the new system while they tried to figure it out, many of them core offering that didn't come out right. I think they're still struggling with it as evidenced by the inconsistency. I can honestly say that the few times I've gone in the last year I have not been blown away like I used to be. I went specifically for TWSS since I'd never had it, and it didn't think it was even as good as Left hand's milk stout. The IPAs are good, but not as good as I remember. When I went a couple weeks ago I got Alter Ego and Aaalterrr Ego among others, and I swear the only difference is that regular AE was just the slightest bit less bitter. That's it.

I doubt TH will ever willingly give away their process or yeast. The mystery all helps to build the hype, like he's doing something that no one else can. I'm sure they know this and it would be foolish to shift from that. Vague answers and misdirection I'm sure are there on purpose.


I think the best things coming out of this thread aren't a definite statement of what TH is doing, but improvements that can be made at the home-brew level. Mixing yeast can add an amazing level of complexity to beer, but it comes with challenges and complications. There seems to be some good combinations in here to play with. Same for water chemistry and general fermenting and transferring practices.

 

[isomerization]

I went and re-read this entire thread. All 65 (on my forum settings) pages. And I still think everyone is trying to make this out to be more complicated than it might be, while basing that on a lot of "facts" that are just theories that got repeated so much they because "facts". Good example of this, those who pass off as fact that some cans had fewer strains of yeast when it was said that early on the samples were not treated correctly as they weren't expecting multiple strains.

Let's sum up things that we know for sure about the tree house yeast.
1. There are multiple strains showing up in their cans.

That's it. I was excited about this thread early on because of the investigative work into the strains. But a few were deemed to be "it's 100% this one" based on some early tests that could be wrong. In the first few pages it was pointed out how some yeasts can look similar at the genetic level, but be vastly different. It's possible that one or more of the identified yeasts is wrong, but the same trio has been carried on for over a year.

I think it needs to be brought up that ever since Monson TH has been slammed and always produced less beer than there was a demand for. It doesn't make sense to me that they'd waste fermenter space doing different fermentation to mix back together, it would only compound production limitations. Maybe now with the larger brewery it could be an option, but it doesn't seem like the simplest option.

I think TH has had a lot of growing pains and struggled to scale up. If you look at the release rate of their curiosity series, it was a very occasional thing for the most part, right until the charlton brewery was coming online. Suddenly you had 1-2 curiosity beers a week for a while. The assumption was all of those were test batches on the new system while they tried to figure it out, many of them core offering that didn't come out right. I think they're still struggling with it as evidenced by the inconsistency. I can honestly say that the few times I've gone in the last year I have not been blown away like I used to be. I went specifically for TWSS since I'd never had it, and it didn't think it was even as good as Left hand's milk stout. The IPAs are good, but not as good as I remember. When I went a couple weeks ago I got Alter Ego and Aaalterrr Ego among others, and I swear the only difference is that regular AE was just the slightest bit less bitter. That's it.

I doubt TH will ever willingly give away their process or yeast. The mystery all helps to build the hype, like he's doing something that no one else can. I'm sure they know this and it would be foolish to shift from that. Vague answers and misdirection I'm sure are there on purpose.


I think the best things coming out of this thread aren't a definite statement of what TH is doing, but improvements that can be made at the home-brew level. Mixing yeast can add an amazing level of complexity to beer, but it comes with challenges and complications. There seems to be some good combinations in here to play with. Same for water chemistry and general fermenting and transferring practices.

I don’t think anyone here is claiming to know 100% what strains they are using (and how). I’d be willing to wager that the identifications are correct, but the data is certainly messy, so I won’t fault you for disagreeing.

I’m definitely onboard with your last paragraph and (imo) that’s why this thread has continued on for over a year at high volume. The process discussions are the real value here.

 

[cegan09]

That was my main point. We'll likely never know for sure what TH is doing, but something cooler morphed out of it.

 

[isomerization]

That was my main point. We'll likely never know for sure what TH is doing, but something cooler morphed out of it.

I looked back over the gel images again. Other than the WB-06 call, I do think they are strongly suggestive, with the weak banding pattern of that yeast being the primary impediment to a better call.

 

[cegan09]

I looked back over the gel images again. Other than the WB-06 call, I do think they are strongly suggestive, with the weak banding pattern of that yeast being the primary impediment to a better call.

I agree that they are all closely matched, and it wouldn't shock me find out you're dead on, especially with reports of people being happy with the mix. But there's always some doubt. As discussed early on, some strains can look very similar but behave differently. Maybe they're using close relatives to the ones identified that make co-pitching easier. Maybe they're doing something completely different now with the scaling to the larger fermenters. It would be interesting to compare a current can to the older findings.

It's the discussion of mixing yeasts that intrigues me most, I think there's a lot of nuance you can add to beers with that to take them from good to great. Along with the discussion of natural vs forced carbing. I've heard from a few places that natural carbing can make a huge difference, and this thread backs that up.

 

[couchsending]

I looked back over the gel images again. Other than the WB-06 call, I do think they are strongly suggestive, with the weak banding pattern of that yeast being the primary impediment to a better call.

@isomerization you still have the isolates? I never used the ones you sent me, wonder if there’s enough viability to grow em up as I still have them. Would be interesting to compare it to a WB-06 ferment.

 

[isomerization]

@isomerization you still have the isolates? I never used the ones you sent me, wonder if there’s enough viability to grow em up as I still have them. Would be interesting to compare it to a WB-06 ferment.

I don’t, took them home with me but the vials I’ve tried to use (of other strains), never took off in starters so I trashed everything and switched to overbuilding starters and storing samples in the fridge. My buddy might have some vials, don’t recall if I shared them or not.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

In the first few pages it was pointed out how some yeasts can look similar at the genetic level, but be vastly different. It's possible that one or more of the identified yeasts is wrong, but the same trio has been carried on for over a year.

That first line sounds like something I might have said, in which case it needs a bit of clarification. At a global scale, humans and chimps share ~99% of their DNA [OK, it depends on your definitions, but it works for these purposes] but we are clearly very different.

At the same time, despite that 99% similarity at the species level, and sequence identity between species for a lot of important genes where mutations can be fatal, and >>99% similarity within a species, there are still small bits of the genome which vary so much that CSI can tell whether you or your brother committed the murder.

So whilst "genetically similar but phenotypically different" is an important caveat, you have to say what scale of genetic differences we're talking about. Also, we now have better understanding of the relationships at the genomic level - only since January have we known that T-58 is closely related to Windsor, but the PCR patterns can still be distinguished pretty readily. That gives us a handle on the kind of distinctions we're playing with and our confidence in being able to resolve individual strains.

There's also the non-DNA evidence, inasmuch that we know that small breweries commonly use dry yeasts - cheaper than liquid pitches but still avoids the complications of running your own house yeast. Blending them is a cute twist that gets round the problem of there only being 20-odd strains commonly available in dry form which means a lot of breweries tend to make beer that tastes pretty similar. The nature of how commerce works is that a brewery will tend to use dry yeast from just one company - they could use more than one, but will explore their main supplier's range in the first instance.

There's also the experimental evidence, of contributors here who have brewed with S-04/T-58 blends and found it gives a good approximation to their impression of the TH yeast profile. And ultimately that's what really matters - we're not doing this out of some arcane interest in brewing theory, we're just trying to make better beer. The S-04/T-58 combo works. Whether it is the actual combo used by Treehouse doesn't really matter.

So as a cautious chap, I'd say we're at least 90% confident that they're using S-04 and T-58, and mebbe 75% confident about WB-06 (no disrespect to isomerization - I've done gels that were plenty worse! - I'd just feel happier with a fresh run of that gel ).It's not something to bet the mortgage on, but I'd bet a pint on it.

Others less cautious might say we were 95+% and 90% confident about the identities. But as I say, it doesn't really matter what TH use, what matters is whether we as homebrewers make better beer.

 

[TheHairyHop]

I went and re-read this entire thread. All 65 (on my forum settings) pages. And I still think everyone is trying to make this out to be more complicated than it might be, while basing that on a lot of "facts" that are just theories that got repeated so much they because "facts". Good example of this, those who pass off as fact that some cans had fewer strains of yeast when it was said that early on the samples were not treated correctly as they weren't expecting multiple strains.

Let's sum up things that we know for sure about the tree house yeast.
1. There are multiple strains showing up in their cans.

That's it. I was excited about this thread early on because of the investigative work into the strains. But a few were deemed to be "it's 100% this one" based on some early tests that could be wrong. In the first few pages it was pointed out how some yeasts can look similar at the genetic level, but be vastly different. It's possible that one or more of the identified yeasts is wrong, but the same trio has been carried on for over a year.

I think it needs to be brought up that ever since Monson TH has been slammed and always produced less beer than there was a demand for. It doesn't make sense to me that they'd waste fermenter space doing different fermentation to mix back together, it would only compound production limitations. Maybe now with the larger brewery it could be an option, but it doesn't seem like the simplest option.

I think TH has had a lot of growing pains and struggled to scale up. If you look at the release rate of their curiosity series, it was a very occasional thing for the most part, right until the charlton brewery was coming online. Suddenly you had 1-2 curiosity beers a week for a while. The assumption was all of those were test batches on the new system while they tried to figure it out, many of them core offering that didn't come out right. I think they're still struggling with it as evidenced by the inconsistency. I can honestly say that the few times I've gone in the last year I have not been blown away like I used to be. I went specifically for TWSS since I'd never had it, and it didn't think it was even as good as Left hand's milk stout. The IPAs are good, but not as good as I remember. When I went a couple weeks ago I got Alter Ego and Aaalterrr Ego among others, and I swear the only difference is that regular AE was just the slightest bit less bitter. That's it.

I doubt TH will ever willingly give away their process or yeast. The mystery all helps to build the hype, like he's doing something that no one else can. I'm sure they know this and it would be foolish to shift from that. Vague answers and misdirection I'm sure are there on purpose.


I think the best things coming out of this thread aren't a definite statement of what TH is doing, but improvements that can be made at the home-brew level. Mixing yeast can add an amazing level of complexity to beer, but it comes with challenges and complications. There seems to be some good combinations in here to play with. Same for water chemistry and general fermenting and transferring practices.

With the most due respect, people in this thread have tried many, many times to replicate the TH mouth feel and flavor. They brewed the beer and reported on their findings. However, none of us have been able to absolutely nail it. I get where you're coming from, and I share most if not all of your sentiments, but it isn't exactly constructive. The rabbit holes that people have fallen into are born from the fact that we've tried simple. I've personally tried it a few times, and I've frankly given up.
I do not think it's as complicated as you think for interesting process decisions to be implemented. For instance, if they're krausening with WB-06 (hypothetical here, I have no proof that they're doing this), they just need one smaller fermenter that is continuously filled and emptied with the yeast and some simple wort. For three gallons, I use a quart of krausen beer.
I'm not being snarky when I say that if you think it's a simple process, brew the beer! Drinks on me if you nail it. I don't think I'm much closer to hitting TH character after all this time, so I'd be stoked if someone could get there

 

[brewpharm Hill]

Has anyone had cans from the brewery lately? Within the last few months I've noticed an increase in the amount of sediment in the cans. My beer glass now has quite a bit of sediment on the bottom that I've never noticed with Tree House before. I don't mind it, just thought it was curious.

ALSO...I plan on brewing on Columbus day.

I want to use a mix of S04:T58 (95%:5%). I'm hesitant to throw WB06 in since it's my first time blending yeasts and I remember most people had a hard time with except maybe @marshallb and his Julius clone on Trinity. Probably will pitch warm (70-72) for 24 hours to get some of the bubblegum from T58 and then cool it to 66 and let it finish. Anyone have luck with this? I've read the thread and there is just so much to comb through it's hard to keep track of what has worked and what hasn't.

In terms of process I want to ferment in a fermonster and then do a closed pressure transfer to a corny rigged with a cut dip tube, filter, and spunding valve. This will contain my dry hop and will occur right at peak krausen or shortly after. I'll let it finish in there at 66 under ~10 psi. Once done I'll do a closed transfer to it with some gyle and conditioning yeast (likely CBC if I can get my hands on this). When I finalize the recipe I'll post it and let y'all know how it comes out. Any thoughts on this process?

 

[drez77]

Has anyone had cans from the brewery lately? Within the last few months I've noticed an increase in the amount of sediment in the cans. My beer glass now has quite a bit of sediment on the bottom that I've never noticed with Tree House before. I don't mind it, just thought it was curious.

Yes, I have noticed a lot of increase sediment in the cans of late.