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

[isomerization]

Another benefit of WB06 is that it stood out in terms of biotransformation based on the presentation shared by Isomerization. It results in lower geraniol and higher linalool and citronellol compared with the other strains tested. According to this presentation by a Lab Manager named Kate Steblenko from Jack’s Abby Craft Lagers, biotransformation results in lower concentrations of geraniol and increased concentrations of citronellol, linalool, and nerol. Also there data shows that this process takes about 3-4 days (slides 15 and 16). They describe linalool as resulting fruity, tropical, fruit loops, and candy flavors (slide 19). All together it seems like WB06 has desired biotransformation properties and may be better at it than other yeasts tested.

That said I do think finishing too low is a concern with WB06. Julius tastes much sweeter than my recent beer with about an 85% attenuation. My wife and I drank them side by side. The Julius was about 5 weeks old and was not tasting its best, but that did allow the julius base to shine through and made the sweetness more apparent.

Based on possibility wb06 over attenuating and the lack of complete banding match, I've been looking for an alternative to wb06 that might have similar biotransformation properties but without the over attenuating characteristic. Any ideas? A liquid yeast would be nice because than I could hopefully create a starter to reuse across batches rather than throwing away the remainder of the wb06 pack each batch. What do people think of the below yeasts? I don't believe the manufacturers reported attenuation of over 80% for any of them. These liquid yeasts could explain why there are pictures of yeast starters at TH in the past.

• WLP400 (Belgian Wit Ale yeast)
• Wyeast 3333 (German Wheat)
• Wyeast 3638 (Bavarian Wheat)
  
• Wyeast 3944 (Belgian Witbier) <- this was one of the tested yeasts and doesn't appear to match TH colonies.
• Wyeast 3942 (Belgian Wheat) <- this one is actually described as having apple, bubblegum and plum-like aromas

Also since it seems like WB06 is a close match for the yellow star colonies, but not a perfect match. Would a yeast similar to wb06, like a different wheat beer strain, have a similar but slightly different banding pattern? Or could it have any banding pattern under the moon?
View attachment 612121

I will agree that the WB-06 DNA banding pattern is the weakest link among the 4 studied yeast, but given the appearance of 3 other dry yeasts (from Fermentis/Lallemand family), I think the current ID is supported. Also keep in mind those weren’t on the same gel, so the vertical scale might be distorted, especially at the low bp end (bottom of gel).

 

[isomerization]

I’m looking at doing a split batch (five 1 gallon fermenters) experiment with the following:

1 - 1318 (usually process, internal control for good NE IPA)
2 - SO4/T58/WB06 (pitch at 72F, drop temp to 63F after 24 hr)
3 - SO4/T58 to start, add WB06 with dry hops with a few points left
4 - SO4/T58 with no WB06 added
5 - SO4 only

Percentages will try to hold to the 92/5/3 ratio that’s been discussed. Temp schedule will be the same for all 5 batches (same ferm chamber).

Suggestions/critiques welcome, likely won’t start until early March. Would consider dropping the S04 only for maybe a repeat of 2 but with CBC1 added for bottle conditioning...

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Another benefit of WB06 is that it stood out in terms of biotransformation based on the presentation shared by Isomerization. It results in lower geraniol and higher linalool and citronellol compared with the other strains tested. According to this presentation by a Lab Manager named Kate Steblenko from Jack’s Abby Craft Lagers, biotransformation results in lower concentrations of geraniol and increased concentrations of citronellol, linalool, and nerol. Also there data shows that this process takes about 3-4 days (slides 15 and 16). They describe linalool as resulting fruity, tropical, fruit loops, and candy flavors (slide 19). All together it seems like WB06 has desired biotransformation properties and may be better at it than other yeasts tested.

You want to be careful, the whole biotransformation thing gets very complicated. It seems to be the sum of a whole bunch of different processes in yeast, and you may get yeast that are "good" at some but not others, and some strains that are "too good", they just smash up all the hop compounds into little pieces. You also have to consider what esters etc the yeast are providing themselves, and it could be that thiols are more important than the terpenols in that New Zealand study.

Based on my single experiment mentioned above, WB-06 is a thug that doesn't know when to stop smashing up hop compounds, and also covers them up with an abundance of its own esters, whereas eg T-58 (and apparently 1318 based on Scott Janish's experience) are more in the "Goldilocks" zone, they biotransform but not too much.

These liquid yeasts could explain why there are pictures of yeast starters at TH in the past.

• WLP400 (Belgian Wit Ale yeast)
• Wyeast 3333 (German Wheat)
• Wyeast 3638 (Bavarian Wheat)
  
• Wyeast 3944 (Belgian Witbier) <- this was one of the tested yeasts and doesn't appear to match TH colonies.
• Wyeast 3942 (Belgian Wheat) <- this one is actually described as having apple, bubblegum and plum-like aromas

Also since it seems like WB06 is a close match for the yellow star colonies, but not a perfect match. Would a yeast similar to wb06, like a different wheat beer strain, have a similar but slightly different banding pattern? Or could it have any banding pattern under the moon?

In general related strains seem to have similar patterns, but be aware that the mutation of a single DNA "letter" can turn eg a big fragment into a small one or vice versa, or wipe it out entirely, so just one very minor mutation could change two bands. I tend to agree with you, that the WB-06 isn't that secure and it would be nice to repeat the PCR (no criticism of isomerization, everyone gets the odd fuzzy PCR from time to time, especially in these circumstances), but it may well be a closely related strain.

However, WB-06 is not a wit/hefeweizen strain, it's completely unrelated. If you look at Suregork's family tree, the wit strains like 3942 and WLP400 are at 7 o'clock - they're kolsch-y strains, part of the main "brewery" family of yeasts. The classic German hefeweizen strains like 3068 are a separate group further round at 8 o'clock, again kolsch-y yeasts that have acquired a small bit of DNA that produces phenolics. WB-06 is at 12 o'clock, along with 1388 and WLP570 it forms a slightly weird offshoot (supposedly from Duvel) of the "seasonal" family of yeasts that includes wine and saison yeasts. Both 1388 and WLP570 are quoted as having a max attenuation of 78%, so may not be diastaticus?

There doesn't seem to be too much rhyme or reason as to which yeast are good for biotransformation - you might expect saison yeasts to be a bit more thuggish, but T-58 is at 9 o'clock in the Mixed group, 1318 is at about 4.30 but close to Conan/Vermont (which seems not to) and not that far from the Chicos (which one would assume don't).

 

[RTE]

I will agree that the WB-06 DNA banding pattern is the weakest link among the 4 studied yeast, but given the appearance of 3 other dry yeasts (from Fermentis/Lallemand family), I think the current ID is supported. Also keep in mind those weren’t on the same gel, so the vertical scale might be distorted, especially at the low bp end (bottom of gel).

Thank you Isomerization and Northern Brewer for the responses.

Given the distortion at the lower end the WB-06 match is a decent match. I was not trying to beat the WB-06 horse to death anymore, but rather wondering if it could make sense to experiment with a yeast that is genetically close to WB-06. 1388 and WLP570 could both be options. According to the manufacturers both have the STA1 gene so they may not bring much to the table in terms of benefits relative to WB-06.

Hop biotransformation seems to be very complex. I've been trying to read as much as I can and listen to the various podcast episodes that cover it but each presentation, paper, or show leads to more questions. For example in the Master Homebrewer's podcast that was shared, Scott Abbott says yeasts that can biotransform are beta-glucosidase positive or produce the beta-glucosidase enzyme, which include Lallemand's New England, BRY-97, and Belle Saison. Lallemand's Nottingham does not. I'm really curious how T-58 and WB-06 fit into this and if they produce the enzyme. BRY-97 is from the Mixed group yeast like T-58.

Any idea where Belle Saison falls on the tree? Is New England similar to Vermont Ale?

I haven't seen it but is anyone familiar with a list of yeasts that produce beta-glucosidase enzyme? This question was already asked in another form, i.e. is there a list of yeasts capable of biotransformation. Other than the podcast I haven't seen much mention of beta-glucosidase.

Last question, there seems to be a growing if not strong consensus that it's most efficient to dry hop with 1 to 2 points left, if the goal is biotransformation. I've been dry hopping to early. Last batch was at 48 hours. For those of you fermenting with S04/T58 in the mid 60s and not WB06. How long until you have 1 to 2 points left (roughly)? Also does points refer to gravity where 1 to 2 = 0.001 to 0.002 or does it refer to Plato?

 

[RTE]

Also potentially of interest, I picked up Treat from Treehouse last week. The specifically mention that they switched to using their house yeast in the description. The beer is absolutely bursting with that Treehouse yeast ester flavors. I think more so than any of the other beers I've had recently.

 

[isomerization]

Thank you Isomerization and Northern Brewer for the responses.

Given the distortion at the lower end the WB-06 match is a decent match. I was not trying to beat the WB-06 horse to death anymore, but rather wondering if it could make sense to experiment with a yeast that is genetically close to WB-06. 1388 and WLP570 could both be options. According to the manufacturers both have the STA1 gene so they may not bring much to the table in terms of benefits relative to WB-06.

Hop biotransformation seems to be very complex. I've been trying to read as much as I can and listen to the various podcast episodes that cover it but each presentation, paper, or show leads to more questions. For example in the Master Homebrewer's podcast that was shared, Scott Abbott says yeasts that can biotransform are beta-glucosidase positive or produce the beta-glucosidase enzyme, which include Lallemand's New England, BRY-97, and Belle Saison. Lallemand's Nottingham does not. I'm really curious how T-58 and WB-06 fit into this and if they produce the enzyme. BRY-97 is from the Mixed group yeast like T-58.

Any idea where Belle Saison falls on the tree? Is New England similar to Vermont Ale?

I haven't seen it but is anyone familiar with a list of yeasts that produce beta-glucosidase enzyme? This question was already asked in another form, i.e. is there a list of yeasts capable of biotransformation. Other than the podcast I haven't seen much mention of beta-glucosidase.

Last question, there seems to be a growing if not strong consensus that it's most efficient to dry hop with 1 to 2 points left, if the goal is biotransformation. I've been dry hopping to early. Last batch was at 48 hours. For those of you fermenting with S04/T58 in the mid 60s and not WB06. How long until you have 1 to 2 points left (roughly)? Also does points refer to gravity where 1 to 2 = 0.001 to 0.002 or does it refer to Plato?

Your last question, and I think this was brought up as an option earlier in this thread, would be addressed by allowing S-04/T-58 to finish (leaving maltotriose untouched), drop the yeast and then add the WB-06 with the dry hop addition (at desired temp) to finish off the beer. Total specultion, but perhaps the conditions of the beer at that point would inhibit expression/activity of glucoamylase (STA-1)

I’m hoping to address this with my 5 batch “study”.

 

[isomerization]

Also potentially of interest, I picked up Treat from Treehouse last week. The specifically mention that they switched to using their house yeast in the description. The beer is absolutely bursting with that Treehouse yeast ester flavors. I think more so than any of the other beers I've had recently.

Description even says Juicy fruit bubble gum!

 

[RTE]

Your last question, and I think this was brought up as an option earlier in this thread, would be addressed by allowing S-04/T-58 to finish (leaving maltotriose untouched), drop the yeast and then add the WB-06 with the dry hop addition (at desired temp) to finish off the beer. Total specultion, but perhaps the conditions of the beer at that point would inhibit expression/activity of glucoamylase (STA-1)

I’m hoping to address this with my 5 batch “study”.

Ah, I like this solution. It avoids having to speculate on the gravity or take frequent gravity readings. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your experiment.

With this approach, do you think you could harvest the S-04/T-58 yeast and reuse later? Generally I'm feeling wasteful using 3 packs yeasts for a 5 gallon batch. I'm tossing the partially used T-58 and WB-06 packs. WB-06 is expensive as well. Has anyone tried strategies for getting more out of each of the 11.5g packs like:

• Vacuum sealing/storing and reusing
• Building a starter and then storing a portion of it to reuse
• Storing in ziploc bags in the fridge/freezer (I may have done this once).

A liquid alternative to WB-06 could be nice in this regard.

 

[isomerization]

No need to trash the dry yeast, store in a ziplock (or vacuum sealed) bag in the fridge. Should get 5-10 uses out of a single sachet of T-58 and WB-06.

Edit: to address the reuse, I wouldn’t because that’s why I’m using the dry yeast in the first place, no need for a starter. Plus there’s the issue of the ratio (maybe genetic too) drift too.

 

[isomerization]

@RTE forgot to comment on this, but most Sacc strains (edit meant beer strains) do NOT express beta-glucosidase. There are lots of Brett strains that do though.

Sources:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jib.418

https://cdn.uclouvain.be/public/Exports reddot/inbr/documents/presentation-luk-daenen.pdf

 

[TBryerton]

I had my best result doing mixed fermentation (all 3 separate), although I don't believe that's what they're doing. It was very banana at first but faded quickly after a few days in the keg and became an excellent beer.

I drink a lot of Treehouse and it's clear to me it's a very different beer than all the other NEIPAs I drink. When I drink a Sloop or an Other Half, all the flavor is coming from the hops. When I drink a TH the majority of the flavor appears to be esters, with the hops being complimentary.

 

[TyGent]

Found this regarding tasting notes from wheat beer yeasts:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/eureka...-yeast-comparison-results-part-2-tasting/amp/

Anyone else notice the first comment at the bottom of the study by Nathan? Probably a coincidence but still.

"Fantastic post. Thanks. I don’t understand why yeast manufacturers don’t do exactly this and provide it. Fermentis is probably the absolute worst when it comes to product descriptions. They would probably sell triple the amount of yeast with a little work into marketing and educational materials. People buy Wyeast 3068 because we all know what it it produces a Wein-esque hefeweissbeir style flavor. So the marketing is just the name alone.

In particular, I liked seeing the atypical or less common brands presented. They have the least amount of info on the web."

 

[RTE]

For what its worth I measured the Julius FG at 1.016 last night after giving it a good degassing. I think this is similar to what couchsending reported. That's very close to the FG I'd get if I only used S-04. It makes question if you want any addition attenuation past was S04/T58 give you.

 

[RTE]

@RTE forgot to comment on this, but most Sacc strains (edit meant beer strains) do NOT express beta-glucosidase. There are lots of Brett strains that do though.

Sources:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jib.418

https://cdn.uclouvain.be/public/Exports reddot/inbr/documents/presentation-luk-daenen.pdf

The first study linked was very interesting. If I'm interpreting the results right, they found that the Lallemand Wheat beer had the 8th highest β‐glucoside hydrolysis activity of the 80 yeasts tested. Most of that was extracelluar activity however. Is that important? An ale strain and a lager strain also had high activity, but based on the information they provided I don't think you can deduce what exact strains was tested. The wheat ale happens to be the only wheat ale tested and lallemand only produces one wheat ale from what I can see.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

The wheat ale happens to be the only wheat ale tested and lallemand only produces one wheat ale from what I can see.

Table 1 says they used two wheat beer strains from Lallemand, but only one wheat beer made it into Figure 1. These things happen - samples get dropped on the floor or whatever....

lallemand only produces one wheat ale from what I can see.

http://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/canada/product-details/munich-wheat-beer-yeast/
http://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/canada/product-details/munich-classic-wheat-beer-yeast/

But they are group 1 "brewery" yeasts, only distantly related to WB-06 which is a weird member of the group 2 saison family and not really a proper wheat beer yeast at all.

 

[brewpharm Hill]

For what its worth I measured the Julius FG at 1.016 last night after giving it a good degassing. I think this is similar to what couchsending reported. That's very close to the FG I'd get if I only used S-04. It makes question if you want any addition attenuation past was S04/T58 give you.

What temp are you mashing at? This is interesting. Scott janish measured it to be 1.012 or so (https://twitter.com/scottjanish/status/673225502077919232?lang=en). This was also back in 2015 so the recipe may have changed a little since then.

 

[couchsending]

I would say 1.015 to1.016 would be right for a mid 6s IPA. Treehouse, Hill Farmstead, Toppling Goliath all end up right there.

Degassed a S&S9 the other day. 1.012. I like this FG with 8% beers personally. The alcohol adds so much sweetness and body the slightly lower FG makes it lighter and more drinkable.

 

[RTE]

Table 1 says they used two wheat beer strains from Lallemand, but only one wheat beer made it into Figure 1. These things happen - samples get dropped on the floor or whatever....



http://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/canada/product-details/munich-wheat-beer-yeast/
http://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/canada/product-details/munich-classic-wheat-beer-yeast/

But they are group 1 "brewery" yeasts, only distantly related to WB-06 which is a weird member of the group 2 saison family and not really a proper wheat beer yeast at all.

Ahh, I was reading the table like a dodo bird and ignored the quantity column.

 

[RTE]

What temp are you mashing at? This is interesting. Scott janish measured it to be 1.012 or so (https://twitter.com/scottjanish/status/673225502077919232?lang=en). This was also back in 2015 so the recipe may have changed a little since then.

I have been mashing at 156F. Yah I had seen that tweet. I'm thinking the same, that the recipe changed.

 

[isomerization]

The first study linked was very interesting. If I'm interpreting the results right, they found that the Lallemand Wheat beer had the 8th highest β‐glucoside hydrolysis activity of the 80 yeasts tested. Most of that was extracelluar activity however. Is that important? An ale strain and a lager strain also had high activity, but based on the information they provided I don't think you can deduce what exact strains was tested. The wheat ale happens to be the only wheat ale tested and lallemand only produces one wheat ale from what I can see.

I probably didn’t make this clear, but my interpretation of their results was that the assay couldn’t discriminate between glucoside and glucanase activity. I believe the authors posited that most beer yeast do NOT have the glucoside activity and thus, that assay is showing glucanase activity.

 

[isomerization]

For what its worth I measured the Julius FG at 1.016 last night after giving it a good degassing. I think this is similar to what couchsending reported. That's very close to the FG I'd get if I only used S-04. It makes question if you want any addition attenuation past was S04/T58 give you.

I’d expect S-04/T-58 to produce a similar FG whether separate or together.

Based on a previous experience with WLP099 (known diastaticus yeast) where I pitched after 1056 had quit and didn’t get a crazy low FG (1.020), I’m wondering if expression of glucoamylase can be down regulated if pitched later in fermentation? This would support adding WB-06 with the dry hop.

I’m looking at running my 5 batch experiment next weekend, testing this hypothesis.

 

[brewpharm Hill]

I’d expect S-04/T-58 to produce a similar FG whether separate or together.

Based on a previous experience with WLP099 (known diastaticus yeast) where I pitched after 1056 had quit and didn’t get a crazy low FG (1.020), I’m wondering if expression of glucoamylase can be down regulated if pitched later in fermentation? This would support adding WB-06 with the dry hop.

I’m looking at running my 5 batch experiment next weekend, testing this hypothesis.

Do you spund when you dry hop? Pressure can suppress ester production... not that there will be much flavor contribution with that late of a pitch, but I'm curious as to how it may alter the final result.

 

[martianpc]

So I'm making a neipa with Citra, mosiac, and galaxy. Possibly warrior too for bittering. I've been following this thread for a long time now and since many of you have tried lots of combinations, I'll ask your opinions.

Should I do this with 80% s04 / 20% t58. Or should [emoji300] track down wb-06 to add in. Or just go with omega yeast dipa ale heady strain.

I'm looking to make something between a Julius and a Hurricane.

Thanks

 

[couchsending]

So I'm making a neipa with Citra, mosiac, and galaxy. Possibly warrior too for bittering. I've been following this thread for a long time now and since many of you have tried lots of combinations, I'll ask your opinions.

Should I do this with 80% s04 / 20% t58. Or should [emoji300] track down wb-06 to add in. Or just go with omega yeast dipa ale heady strain.

I'm looking to make something between a Julius and a Hurricane.

Thanks

It needs to be sub 10% T-58

Personally I’d add as fermentation starts to slow but that’s just me.

 

[brewpharm Hill]

It needs to be sub 10% T-58

Personally I’d add as fermentation starts to slow but that’s just me.

Have you had good results with this method compared to pitching all at once? I want to take another stab at this yeast combo in the coming weeks, but I'm considering a staggered pitching approach. Still trying to decide.

 

[isomerization]

Do you spund when you dry hop? Pressure can suppress ester production... not that there will be much flavor contribution with that late of a pitch, but I'm curious as to how it may alter the final result.

I don’t spund during dry hop, unless you count keg hopping during natural keg carbing.

I’d agree with what you’re saying regarding ester production and not much occurring at that point. Low O2 and residual sugar will affect ester formation as well, this is what I’m thinking might happen with co-pitching WB-06 with the dry hop.

 

[TBryerton]

I found this interesting today on Twitter:

Julius is constructed using a well established and carefully curated yeast strain to draw purposeful flavors of orange juice and dried mango from a selected blend of American hops.

Green utilizes a similar yeast profile but a drastically different grain bill and hop contribution that results in a beer that that tastes like ripe pineapple and citrus.

Haze is the most heavily hopped of the three, and through a combination of process and hop blending, results in a flavor profile akin to peach nectar and citrus.

 

[RTE]

It needs to be sub 10% T-58

Personally I’d add as fermentation starts to slow but that’s just me.

What is the goal with the late addition of T-58? I'm thinking it could be to help s-04 finish attenuation but S-04 has a higher apparent attenuation than T-58. Are they fermenting different sugars? Or does the late addition help with biotransformation.

My understanding is that adding yeast after 72 hours should not contribute anything to the flavor profile of the beer. Is that correct?

 

[isomerization]

What is the goal with the late addition of T-58? I'm thinking it could be to help s-04 finish attenuation but S-04 has a higher apparent attenuation than T-58. Are they fermenting different sugars? Or does the late addition help with biotransformation.

My understanding is that adding yeast after 72 hours should not contribute anything to the flavor profile of the beer. Is that correct?

It’s important to remember that nothing with this approach is really set in stone, and could very likely vary across different brewers/set ups.

With that said, I believe you are correct that S-04 is more attenuative than T-58, so might have to time the addition well to gain anything from that approach.

 

[RTE]

It’s important to remember that nothing with this approach is really set in stone, and could very likely vary across different brewers/set ups.

With that said, I believe you are correct that S-04 is more attenuative than T-58, so might have to time the addition well to gain anything from that approach.

Yes exactly. The attenuation numbers reported by fermentis are both averages and very general, i.e. doesnt say anything about the yeasts ability to ferment different types of sugar. That's why I'm curious as to know the impact of adding t-58 late in practice. Did you brew your 5 batch experiment this weekend? I'm very curious to hear about the findings!

 

[isomerization]

Yes exactly. The attenuation numbers reported by fermentis are both averages and very general, i.e. doesnt say anything about the yeasts ability to ferment different types of sugar. That's why I'm curious as to know the impact of adding t-58 late in practice. Did you brew your 5 batch experiment this weekend? I'm very curious to hear about the findings!

I did! Will post up initial info later tonight.

Regarding Fermentis, there was a pdf link posted recently in this thread that said neither S-04 or T-58 could ferment maltotriose.

 

[couchsending]

Yes exactly. The attenuation numbers reported by fermentis are both averages and very general, i.e. doesnt say anything about the yeasts ability to ferment different types of sugar. That's why I'm curious as to know the impact of adding t-58 late in practice. Did you brew your 5 batch experiment this weekend? I'm very curious to hear about the findings!

Actually you can find that information on the Fermentis site. T-58 can't ferment maltotriose so attenuation is considerably lower. The T-58 is just for transformation
of hop compounds in my mind, this is why I recommended adding it later in fermentation.

 

[isomerization]

Page 11

https://fermentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Brochure_Tips_and_Tricks_GB_web_planche-bd.pdf

 

[isomerization]

Brewed the 5 yeast split batch I recently mentioned last night:

Grain Bill:
Golden Promise (40.7%)
2-Row (40.7%)
CaraFoam (13.6%)
Victory Malt (3.4%)
Honey Malt (1.7%)

Mashed at 155F

Water:
mash pH target = 5.2

9 gal RO water (saved ~1 gal for small sparge)

3.4 g Gypsum
5.1 g CaCl2
1.7 g Epsom
4.3 g NaCl
5 mL Lactic acid

Hops:
1 oz. Bravo 5 min. (10 IBU)
3 oz Bravo Whirlpool at 170 °F 30 min
3 oz Citra Whirlpool at 170 °F 30 min
(~30 IBU for total Whirlpool, ended 142F after 30 min)

Dry hop (each fermenter will get 1/5 of the following once batch 3 is ready):
3 oz Citra LupuLN2 (Cryo)
5 oz Amarillo

Yeast splits:
1 - 1318 (usual process, internal control for good NE IPA in my setup)
2 - SO4/T58/WB06 (pitch at 72F, drop temp to 63F after 24 hr) (2.12/0.11/0.07 g)
3 - SO4/T58 to start, add WB06 with dry hops with a few points left (2.12/0.11/0.07 g) ***has TILT***
4 - SO4/T58 with no WB06 added (2.15/0.15 g)
5 - SO4 only (2.3 g)

Fermenting at 62F, will raise temp up to 68F when I dry hop (I think).

Visible fermentation had kicked off in all 5 fermenters about 16 hr post pitch.

 

[lowtones84]

I apologize if this has been asked already, but did skim and didn't see an answer: Does Treehouse typically use the same yeast for most of their beers? It tastes like they do.

I recently visited and spent about $200 on cans...whoops Have plenty of yeast to harvest if I wish!

 

[isomerization]

I apologize if this has been asked already, but did skim and didn't see an answer: Does Treehouse typically use the same yeast for most of their beers? It tastes like they do.

I recently visited and spent about $200 on cans...whoops Have plenty of yeast to harvest if I wish!

They are fairly tight lipped.

American ale yeast for Bright series (clean American yeast is stated in beer descriptions)

Something different for their dark beers (unique DNA banding when 1 colony was analyzed)

Proposed yeast blend in core IPAs (at least circa 2016)

Please update/correct if anyone has better intel!

 

[couchsending]

I apologize if this has been asked already, but did skim and didn't see an answer: Does Treehouse typically use the same yeast for most of their beers? It tastes like they do.

I recently visited and spent about $200 on cans...whoops Have plenty of yeast to harvest if I wish!

Skim some more.. you won’t want to ferment anything with what you harvest from cans... maybe a saison

Or if you run out of 05 u can get some from a can of baby bright.

 

[RTE]

Page 11

https://fermentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Brochure_Tips_and_Tricks_GB_web_planche-bd.pdf

Thanks for sharing this. It's a great read and good resource.

Do you think a secondary pitch of WB-06 with the dry hop could be used to also naturally carbonate? My thought is to take your batch 3) above and once s04/t58 are finished, transfer on top off wb-06 and dry hops in a purged corny keg. I'll attach a spunding valve to avoid over carbonation.

According to the page 9 of the fermentis PDF I should be around 72-75% attenuation when S04 finishes and WB06 could go up to 86%. I started at 1.068 so 72-75% would be between 1.018 to 1.016 SG. 86% would be as low 1.009 at day 15. I believe going from 1.016 to 1.009 would result in 3.5 volumes of CO2, assuming 0.5 volumes per gravity point (See reply #6 by Kaiser at https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=2177.0).

Alternatively, I could transfer at day 6.5 when it should be just under 70% or 1.020, dry hop only, and hope to finish around 1.016 giving about 2 volumes of CO2. Transferring before fermentation is complete makes me nervous that it won't properly finish the last few points. Ideally I could just cap my primary vessel and avoid secondary, but I dont have the option to spund with the primary vessel I'm using right now.

Also what do you think of the Tilt? I was looking into getting one so I can nail down the timing of late dry hops.

 

[isomerization]

Thanks for sharing this. It's a great read and good resource.

Do you think a secondary pitch of WB-06 with the dry hop could be used to also naturally carbonate? My thought is to take your batch 3) above and once s04/t58 are finished, transfer on top off wb-06 and dry hops in a purged corny keg. I'll attach a spunding valve to avoid over carbonation.

According to the page 9 of the fermentis PDF I should be around 72-75% attenuation when S04 finishes and WB06 could go up to 86%. I started at 1.068 so 72-75% would be between 1.018 to 1.016 SG. 86% would be as low 1.009 at day 15. I believe going from 1.016 to 1.009 would result in 3.5 volumes of CO2, assuming 0.5 volumes per gravity point (See reply #6 by Kaiser at https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=2177.0).

Alternatively, I could transfer at day 6.5 when it should be just under 70% or 1.020, dry hop only, and hope to finish around 1.016 giving about 2 volumes of CO2. Transferring before fermentation is complete makes me nervous that it won't properly finish the last few points. Ideally I could just cap my primary vessel and avoid secondary, but I dont have the option to spund with the primary vessel I'm using right now.

Also what do you think of the Tilt? I was looking into getting one so I can nail down the timing of late dry hops.

I’m not convinced that you would see full attenuation with a late addition. I’m hoping to address that by comparing FG between batch 2 and 3.

I love the Tilt, makes me a bit neurotic checking it all the time, but it’s easily been worth the purchase (technically was a gift). I can go into more detail if you want haha.

 

[leesmith]

....I love the Tilt, makes me a bit neurotic checking it all the time, but it’s easily been worth the purchase (technically was a gift). I can go into more detail if you want haha.

I’d like to hear about it.

Would be interested about using it to time spunding instead of taking a sample.