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

[HopsAreGood]

Any chance that...Gasp, wait for it, they have some sort of amazing melon/bubblegum extract flavoring agent that they use? I know it’s sac religious to think such preposterous things, but all evidence points to an overwhelming amount of S-04, which is really not that exciting of a yeast. The flavoring industry is absolutely massive and if you know what you’re doing you can have certain flavors developed for you.

I’m sure the chance of this is slim to none, but it’s crossed my mind a few times since I started reading this thread.

 

[TBryerton]

Any chance that...Gasp, wait for it, they have some sort of amazing melon/bubblegum extract flavoring agent that they use? I know it’s sac religious to think such preposterous things, but all evidence points to an overwhelming amount of S-04, which is really not that exciting of a yeast. The flavoring industry is absolutely massive and if you know what you’re doing you can have certain flavors developed for you.

I’m sure the chance of this is slim to none, but it’s crossed my mind a few times since I started reading this thread.

i use to think that as well, but after snooping around I found a description from them of one of their core beers, I want to say doppelgänger or doubleganger, that says it was made with water, yeast, hops, and barley, or something to that extent. Can’t remember if it was on their site or Twitter.

 

[HopsAreGood]

i use to think that as well, but after snooping around I found a description from them of one of their core beers, I want to say doppelgänger or doubleganger, that says it was made with water, yeast, hops, and barley, or something to that extent. Can’t remember if it was on their site or Twitter.

Yeah, while I don’t really think they’re using some kind of proprietary/custom flavoring agent, I wouldn’t necessarily rule it out either. But the fact that they said one of their beers was made with water, yeast, hops and barley, or whatever, doesn’t surprise me or mean anything. Think about it..,if you were them would you say doppelgänger is made with water, yeast, hops, barley, AND our top secret, never spoken of, custom flavoring agent that sets us apart from every other brewery in the world, creates demand like no other, and has home brewers and professional brewers all over the world obsessing over unlocking our magic yeast secret, that wink wink, they never will. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t.

Again, I don’t really think this is what they’re doing, but I also don’t think it’s all that far fetched.

 

[NJGeorge]

Yeah, while I don’t really think they’re using some kind of proprietary/custom flavoring agent, I wouldn’t necessarily rule it out either. But the fact that they said one of their beers was made with water, yeast, hops and barley, or whatever, doesn’t surprise me or mean anything. Think about it..,if you were them would you say doppelgänger is made with water, yeast, hops, barley, AND our top secret, never spoken of, custom flavoring agent that sets us apart from every other brewery in the world, creates demand like no other, and has home brewers and professional brewers all over the world obsessing over unlocking our magic yeast secret, that wink wink, they never will. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t.

Again, I don’t really think this is what they’re doing, but I also don’t think it’s all that far fetched.

Isoamyl acetate

 

[beervoid]

Isoamyl acetate

Escarpment did a webinar series on yeast and in it they talked about how acetate esters are very hard to modify. They are still not well understood and FAN plays a role. Not much research has been done yet on ale yeasts.
Isoamyl = Banana / Apple
Isobutyl = Banana / Fruity
2-phenyllethyl = Rose / Honey

 

[beervoid]

I think if we want to crack the code we probably need to ferment with all 3 yeast seperately and test out all ferm parameters to see how they behave. High fan wort, low fan wort, high temp, low temp, high pitch, low pitch etc.

 

[NJGeorge]

Check out this thread. Pretty interesting regarding wine yeast.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/saison-using-wine-yeast.413249/#post-8962048

 

[troxerX]

Good points! I think I follow you on insta, your stuff looks good. I personally agree that they are probably blending batches/kausening- I hit on it in my older posts. I got the flavor pretty close from my own experiments - still have some kinks to work out but I’m pretty close to there.

Just one thing to touch on - krausening doesn’t get rid of phenolic wrecks! I recently did an all Galaxy TIPA with mostly T-58 and a touch of Wb-06 and it was a nightmare - huge clove bomb. I did 3 separate spiesse with dry hops and 3 separate English yeasts (LAIII, S33, & 007) with my hop cannon - nothing fixed it - it was just a little less clovey and insanely bitter. My fix for it was brewing a 5% mosaic and Citra pale ale and blending the two (25% of the clove bomb) with f2 for carbonation. The mouthfeel was unbelievable and I was happy with the results.

I don’t think yeast blends at pitching are bad at this style either. The Farmhouse NEIPA blend from Omega is probably the best I’ve ever used and I saved it for 5-6 generations.

@echoALEia Thanks for the compliments!, do you have another insta tag? I haven’t been very active recently (posting wise) and after looking I can’t find you under your tag here.

Totally agreed with Krausening. Krausening is not intended to fix flaws, its an old but yet still modern enough brewing technique used by German brewers to condition and carbonate lager beers following long lagering periods (yeast died or went dormant) and since they could not use sugar due to their purity law a.k.a Reinheitsgebot which can be easier pronounced as “Reggae-insta-ballz” LOL the way to carbonate was by adding to the ‘already fermented’ beer a small fermenting batch of the same beer (at highest krausen) to condition the beer right before and/or during packaging. One thing they found was that Krausening also benefited the beer by softening the edges, giving the new yeast an additional chance to clean up and smooth things out. Speise technique is similar but not exactly the same, and it’s when you add a small fraction of unfermented wort to an already fermented (but w/ viable yeast) or an ‘almost done’ fermenting beer so it had additional “food” (Speise means ‘food’ in German?) to condition during packaging. None of these techniques were intended to fix flaws but could be applied indirectly to dilute a significantly flawed beer.

What I was referring to the phenol wreck, with the assumption we were blending, when your POF+ batch is fermented you can crash it to eliminate or significantly reduce yeast presence before blending it to the base batch and therefore most likely minimize further phenol development. Also adding a final krausening batch w/ neutral CBC-1/F2 can also help by inhibiting any remaining POF+ yeast from developing over time during final conditioning.

@HopsAreGood thats a great assumption, as @mcoman mentioned, yeasts have different behaviors and properties that are independent of the batch volume - however the final proportions of yeast in the cans hints about their process (and ingredients too). @Clyde McCoy results at high level show they are comfortable with (their process does not remove) S04 from their final product but not with the others, which is obvious since their phenotypes will have a huge impact in their final product quality. The evidence also show they are not filtering - otherwise the data we’ve been collecting means their batches are contaminated with the same strains over and over again or that Fermentis is making the same exact mistakes during yeast manufacturing which both are improbable.

What I would argue and here’s where I need everyone’s thoughts - if we assume they pitch a blend of yeasts into one wort (at any ratio) - then whatever yeast control methods they apply, with the assumption they crash — obviously to control the POF+ — it will have an impact on all the yeast strains in the mix. We know S04 is highly flocculating and therefore (excluding WB-06 which we barely see?) we will end with equal or similar yeast proportions suspended in the beer before krausening. As we all agree they krausen, due to mouthfeel and other sensory, therefore adding the krausen portion will trigger growth of all yeasts at equal or very similar proportions (or even more of POF+ due to its low flocculation) and therefore we will see that in their cans which we don’t. If we all agree, then this idea supports the blending theory - or brewing separately controlled batches that when finally blended may result in unequal populations of yeast in the final product w/S04 leading amounts.

The other option I could use to counter argue myself - with the assumption of one wort-multiple yeasts - unequal proportions of yeast in final product can result if they pitch the POF+ first and then at a certain gravity they add the conditioning inhibitor CBC-1/F2 and then crash both of them, then add S04 to finish what’s left and then krausen with an S04 fermenting batch. This option will finish with unequal populations and can explain why CBC-1/F2 shows minimally in their final product. One disadvantage of this is the product consistency risk as every second and temperature counts and the slightest mistake controlling the POF+ will screw the batch - a risk I will never take at such high batch volumes. Blending is less risk as you control each step and know the quality of the parts before committing to the final product.

Cheers!



https://www.anchorbrewing.com/blog/anchor-terminology-krausening/

 

[TBryerton]

@echoALEia Thanks for the compliments!, do you have another insta tag? I haven’t been very active recently (posting wise) and after looking I can’t find you under your tag here.

Totally agreed with Krausening. Krausening is not intended to fix flaws, its an old but yet still modern enough brewing technique used by German brewers to condition and carbonate lager beers following long lagering periods (yeast died or went dormant) and since they could not use sugar due to their purity law a.k.a Reinheitsgebot which can be easier pronounced as “Reggae-insta-ballz” LOL the way to carbonate was by adding to the ‘already fermented’ beer a small fermenting batch of the same beer (at highest krausen) to condition the beer right before and/or during packaging. One thing they found was that Krausening also benefited the beer by softening the edges, giving the new yeast an additional chance to clean up and smooth things out. Speise technique is similar but not exactly the same, and it’s when you add a small fraction of unfermented wort to an already fermented (but w/ viable yeast) or an ‘almost done’ fermenting beer so it had additional “food” (Speise means ‘food’ in German?) to condition during packaging. None of these techniques were intended to fix flaws but could be applied indirectly to dilute a significantly flawed beer.

What I was referring to the phenol wreck, with the assumption we were blending, when your POF+ batch is fermented you can crash it to eliminate or significantly reduce yeast presence before blending it to the base batch and therefore most likely minimize further phenol development. Also adding a final krausening batch w/ neutral CBC-1/F2 can also help by inhibiting any remaining POF+ yeast from developing over time during final conditioning.

@HopsAreGood thats a great assumption, as @mcoman mentioned, yeasts have different behaviors and properties that are independent of the batch volume - however the final proportions of yeast in the cans hints about their process (and ingredients too). @Clyde McCoy results at high level show they are comfortable with (their process does not remove) S04 from their final product but not with the others, which is obvious since their phenotypes will have a huge impact in their final product quality. The evidence also show they are not filtering - otherwise the data we’ve been collecting means their batches are contaminated with the same strains over and over again or that Fermentis is making the same exact mistakes during yeast manufacturing which both are improbable.

What I would argue and here’s where I need everyone’s thoughts - if we assume they pitch a blend of yeasts into one wort (at any ratio) - then whatever yeast control methods they apply, with the assumption they crash — obviously to control the POF+ — it will have an impact on all the yeast strains in the mix. We know S04 is highly flocculating and therefore (excluding WB-06 which we barely see?) we will end with equal or similar yeast proportions suspended in the beer before krausening. As we all agree they krausen, due to mouthfeel and other sensory, therefore adding the krausen portion will trigger growth of all yeasts at equal or very similar proportions (or even more of POF+ due to its low flocculation) and therefore we will see that in their cans which we don’t. If we all agree, then this idea supports the blending theory - or brewing separately controlled batches that when finally blended may result in unequal populations of yeast in the final product w/S04 leading amounts.

The other option I could use to counter argue myself - with the assumption of one wort-multiple yeasts - unequal proportions of yeast in final product can result if they pitch the POF+ first and then at a certain gravity they add the conditioning inhibitor CBC-1/F2 and then crash both of them, then add S04 to finish what’s left and then krausen with an S04 fermenting batch. This option will finish with unequal populations and can explain why CBC-1/F2 shows minimally in their final product. One disadvantage of this is the product consistency risk as every second and temperature counts and the slightest mistake controlling the POF+ will screw the batch - a risk I will never take at such high batch volumes. Blending is less risk as you control each step and know the quality of the parts before committing to the final product.

Cheers!



https://www.anchorbrewing.com/blog/anchor-terminology-krausening/

I’d be very surprised if they’re pitching all three yeasts at the same time, unless maybe they’re using something we haven’t uncovered, such as a wine yeast. If it was that simple someone would’ve figured it out by now, and TH (core beers) has a very distinct flavor that I’ve never gotten from anyone else.

 

[troxerX]

[Below] Most likely this has been posted here previously — a Beer Connoisseur interview with Nate, interesting were it is said that “it is exceptionally difficult to make a beer with this character that maintains drinkability” and “I have worked hard to develop a process”... other interviews I recall were “making these beers is a lot of work”, the words ‘complex’ or ‘intricate’ are nowhere to be seen as everything is workload based — maybe I’m overthinking this but a one wort-one or multiple pitch-in-one vessel doesn’t sound like this?. I don’t have any commercial brewing experience so it’s difficult for me to gauge this so I will rely on the big boys for their opinion.

From a personal drinkability perspective I cannot imagine anything with more character and yet thirst quenching and more drinkable than either a blonde ale, weiss, lager or festbier — coincidentally all styles that have been historically krausened. From the many questions, hop saturation using these styles as a base may be the most intriguing one.

3

Full Interview:

https://beerconnoisseur.com/articles/nate-lanier-tree-house-brewing

 

[troxerX]

I’d be very surprised if they’re pitching all three yeasts at the same time, unless maybe they’re using something we haven’t uncovered, such as a wine yeast. If it was that simple someone would’ve figured it out by now, and TH (core beers) has a very distinct flavor that I’ve never gotten from anyone else.

From the little we know about their process and much experienced via sensory, their process is simple (or they try to keep it as simple) and has a high batch-to-batch reproducibility. Not an expert on this subject but I really doubt any wine yeast is involved here for many reasons 1) everything we’ve tested seem to match beer yeasts (anyone correct me if I’m wrong) 2) wine yeasts are best in tannin environments which I believe is not the case here, 3) some or most? wine yeasts are inhibiting to other yeasts 4) most? wine yeasts do not metabolize maltotriose or other malt sugars which could be a problem to a brewer seeking simplicity 5) too much monitoring and chemistry tests involved during fermentation with wine yeasts? and 6) just simply don’t seem to fit the drinkability of their beers w/o too much process complications.

You can’t go wrong with Fermentis powder beer yeasts which can be bought from one supplier and don’t require oxygenation at pitching, and probably a more predictable cell count too. I’m not a wine maker but from my impression, fermentation with wine yeasts requires more attention (YAN, FAN, PAN, BAM!) to keep the yeasts doing what they are supposed to. Not sure if that’s due to grape juice not been nutritious enough and don’t know how that will apply to a beer process but may be a retractor to someone pursuing a wine yeast option.

I also do not know how pure some wine yeast cultures are to this date, maybe someone with more knowledge could chime in.

I was looking at this video from 2013. Not sure which beer was being served but the color and pour just reminds me of a slightly cloudy festbier or weissbier. None of them looked like that dense hazy IPA we all know.

 

[couchsending]

The wine yeast that is potentially in question is not a killer strain so it could be copitched.

Its also POF-

based on the FG of their beers I’d be more Inclined to think 71B was in there as compared to a diastaticus POF+ yeast like WB-06.

I don’t think 71B is a predominant yeast, it’s So4 all day. But I’d be willing to try 2-3% 71B with So4 one of these days. Not sure how T-58 comes into the equation honestly. Might be just added to “protect” whatever it is they use to primary ferment.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

From the little we know about their process and much experienced via sensory, their process is simple (or they try to keep it as simple) and has a high batch-to-batch reproducibility. Not an expert on this subject but I really doubt any wine yeast is involved here for many reasons 1) everything we’ve tested seem to match beer yeasts (anyone correct me if I’m wrong)

Isomerisation's original PCRs had a mystery strain that was guessed to be CBC-1 or F2, which are wine yeasts used for bottle/cask conditioning, but we didn't really have any wine fingerprints in the library to know whether it was even a wine yeast at that time.

2) wine yeasts are best in tannin environments which I believe is not the case here
I'm not sure what you mean by "best" in this context. But tannins are just the old name for polyphenols, which "hazy hops" have in abundance.

3) some or most? wine yeasts are inhibiting to other yeasts
Most, not all. A lot of the Uvaferms and Enoferms are non-killer for instance. But as with the discussions towards the start of this thread about CBC-1/F2, even a killer yeast needn't necessarily be incompatible with some processes - and would be a good reason to blend beers rather than yeasts.

4) most? wine yeasts do not metabolize maltotriose or other malt sugars which could be a problem to a brewer seeking simplicity
Not really relevant if you're just using it as a "helper" yeast to add flavour, as eg Scott Janish did with VIN7 to increase 3MH/3MHA. People are now using non-Saccharomyces species like Metschnikowia which only attenuate to 20-30%, as helper yeasts for flavour.

5) too much monitoring and chemistry tests involved during fermentation with wine yeasts?
??? No different to beer yeasts. You think wine yeasts are some weird separate thing, whereas they're not much different to something like Belle Saison - very consistent, reliable dry yeast.

6) just simply don’t seem to fit the drinkability of their beers w/o too much process complications

??? I'm not sure what this even means.

I’m not a wine maker but from my impression, fermentation with wine yeasts requires more attention (YAN, FAN, PAN, BAM!) to keep the yeasts doing what they are supposed to. Not sure if that’s due to grape juice not been nutritious enough

Yes, it's everything to do with the liquid they're fermenting, and not much to do with the yeast themselves. Beer is made from seeds, which have all the nutrients needed to make a new barley plant; wine is made from fruit juice, which is just meant to attract animals to eat the fruit to disperse the seeds so is just flavoured sugar water. But even so, the best beer producers add nutrients (follow the link to the recipe spreadsheet), it's not complicated but it does reward experimentation for the best results.

I also do not know how pure some wine yeast cultures are to this date,

Probably purer than some dry beer yeasts...

Funnily enough we've just been talking about wine yeasts in beer over on another thread. But all this talk of krausen and speise is typical of the US obsession with German brewing, which overcomplicates things to fit in with the myth of the Reinheitsgebot. It ignores the fact that US craft brewing owes far more to a different beer culture, one that prizes soft drinkability above anything else, one that gave Conan and 1318 to the US and positively worships the complexity of multi-strain yeasts rather than thinking they're an abomination to be rooted out.

Another clue - we talk about New England IPA and not New England bocks.

Yes, you need to switch your frame of reference from Germany to British brewing practices.

Forget krausening, I'd suggest the way to look at these beers are as low-oxygen cask-conditioned beers that generally follow British practice but excluding oxygen as much as possible. So any conditioning is done with sugar rather than introducing a complex mix of contaminants in the form of krausen. Most North Americans craft beer lovers don't understand what cask ale is all about as it's too crafty for them, but some are pleasantly surprised by how good cask-conditioned hazy beer can be. So it's no surprise that maybe some brewers are using British techniques and it baffles people who don't get the references.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Full Interview:

https://beerconnoisseur.com/articles/nate-lanier-tree-house-brewing

"Everyone has their “a-ha” beer, and mine was Trappistes Rochefort 8. It remains one of my favorites to this day, and I drink several every Christmas! I wouldn’t say it inspired me to get involved with the industry, but it certainly opened my eyes to the idea that a malt beverage could be conceived and presented in wildly different and interesting ways.... My very first home brew was an attempt at a milk stout...That’s What She Said exists as a bit of spite toward that first brew, and because I love milk stout."

Rochefort 8 and milk stout? That doesn't sound like a man who cares too much for German methods....

 

[Northern_Brewer]

The wine yeast that is potentially in question is not a killer strain so it could be copitched.

Its also POF-

POF- non-killer wine strains certainly exist, like Uvaferm 228.

Not sure how T-58 comes into the equation honestly. Might be just added to “protect” whatever it is they use to primary ferment.

From my own experiments, T-58 is certainly very active in biotransformation, so I imagine they did some side-by-sides and found the one with a side-order of T-58 was more complex. As I keep saying, just split a batch of wort with say 5g/l of Chinook, ferment it with US-05, T-58 and the two together and see the differences. Have a separate bucket with WB-06 if you want to see a yeast that just smashes hop flavour to wreckage, either on its own or in a blend (which isn't to say that in small doses the flavours it generates on its own don't compensate for the effect it has on the hops).

 

[isomerization]

From the little we know about their process and much experienced via sensory, their process is simple (or they try to keep it as simple) and has a high batch-to-batch reproducibility. Not an expert on this subject but I really doubt any wine yeast is involved here for many reasons 1) everything we’ve tested seem to match beer yeasts (anyone correct me if I’m wrong)

Isomerisation's original PCRs had a mystery strain that was guessed to be CBC-1 or F2, which are wine yeasts used for bottle/cask conditioning, but we didn't really have any wine fingerprints in the library to know whether it was even a wine yeast at that time.

2) wine yeasts are best in tannin environments which I believe is not the case here
I'm not sure what you mean by "best" in this context. But tannins are just the old name for polyphenols, which "hazy hops" have in abundance.

3) some or most? wine yeasts are inhibiting to other yeasts
Most, not all. A lot of the Uvaferms and Enoferms are non-killer for instance. But as with the discussions towards the start of this thread about CBC-1/F2, even a killer yeast needn't necessarily be incompatible with some processes - and would be a good reason to blend beers rather than yeasts.

4) most? wine yeasts do not metabolize maltotriose or other malt sugars which could be a problem to a brewer seeking simplicity
Not really relevant if you're just using it as a "helper" yeast to add flavour, as eg Scott Janish did with VIN7 to increase 3MH/3MHA. People are now using non-Saccharomyces species like Metschnikowia which only attenuate to 20-30%, as helper yeasts for flavour.

5) too much monitoring and chemistry tests involved during fermentation with wine yeasts?
??? No different to beer yeasts. You think wine yeasts are some weird separate thing, whereas they're not much different to something like Belle Saison - very consistent, reliable dry yeast.

6) just simply don’t seem to fit the drinkability of their beers w/o too much process complications

??? I'm not sure what this even means.

I’m not a wine maker but from my impression, fermentation with wine yeasts requires more attention (YAN, FAN, PAN, BAM!) to keep the yeasts doing what they are supposed to. Not sure if that’s due to grape juice not been nutritious enough

Yes, it's everything to do with the liquid they're fermenting, and not much to do with the yeast themselves. Beer is made from seeds, which have all the nutrients needed to make a new barley plant; wine is made from fruit juice, which is just meant to attract animals to eat the fruit to disperse the seeds so is just flavoured sugar water. But even so, the best beer producers add nutrients (follow the link to the recipe spreadsheet), it's not complicated but it does reward experimentation for the best results.

I also do not know how pure some wine yeast cultures are to this date,

Probably purer than some dry beer yeasts...

Funnily enough we've just been talking about wine yeasts in beer over on another thread. But all this talk of krausen and speise is typical of the US obsession with German brewing, which overcomplicates things to fit in with the myth of the Reinheitsgebot. It ignores the fact that US craft brewing owes far more to a different beer culture, one that prizes soft drinkability above anything else, one that gave Conan and 1318 to the US and positively worships the complexity of multi-strain yeasts rather than thinking they're an abomination to be rooted out.

Another clue - we talk about New England IPA and not New England bocks.

Yes, you need to switch your frame of reference from Germany to British brewing practices.

Forget krausening, I'd suggest the way to look at these beers are as low-oxygen cask-conditioned beers that generally follow British practice but excluding oxygen as much as possible. So any conditioning is done with sugar rather than introducing a complex mix of contaminants in the form of krausen. Most North Americans craft beer lovers don't understand what cask ale is all about as it's too crafty for them, but some are pleasantly surprised by how good cask-conditioned hazy beer can be. So it's no surprise that maybe some brewers are using British techniques and it baffles people who don't get the references.

I agree with what you’re saying, just want to add that I did test CBC-1 (which we’re assuming is the same thing as F-2 right?) in comparison to once of the TH colonies:

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Ah, of course, I remember now - there was that debate about whether CBC-1 was the same as F2, as TH appear to be a Fermentis shop but F-2 isn't available in retail packs in the US (but is in Europe). Given what they're doing, there's no particular reason why they need to be the same, although Lallemand are on record as referring to CBC-1 as "Champagne yeast" (on p61 of the Brewers Journal November 2018, iss 9 vol 4, using it as the primary yeast for brut IPA)

OTOH, @loveofrose has suggested that mead made with CBC-1 tastes like mead made with D21.

 

[troxerX]

From the little we know about their process and much experienced via sensory, their process is simple (or they try to keep it as simple) and has a high batch-to-batch reproducibility. Not an expert on this subject but I really doubt any wine yeast is involved here for many reasons 1) everything we’ve tested seem to match beer yeasts (anyone correct me if I’m wrong)

Isomerisation's original PCRs had a mystery strain that was guessed to be CBC-1 or F2, which are wine yeasts used for bottle/cask conditioning, but we didn't really have any wine fingerprints in the library to know whether it was even a wine yeast at that time.

2) wine yeasts are best in tannin environments which I believe is not the case here
I'm not sure what you mean by "best" in this context. But tannins are just the old name for polyphenols, which "hazy hops" have in abundance.

3) some or most? wine yeasts are inhibiting to other yeasts
Most, not all. A lot of the Uvaferms and Enoferms are non-killer for instance. But as with the discussions towards the start of this thread about CBC-1/F2, even a killer yeast needn't necessarily be incompatible with some processes - and would be a good reason to blend beers rather than yeasts.

4) most? wine yeasts do not metabolize maltotriose or other malt sugars which could be a problem to a brewer seeking simplicity
Not really relevant if you're just using it as a "helper" yeast to add flavour, as eg Scott Janish did with VIN7 to increase 3MH/3MHA. People are now using non-Saccharomyces species like Metschnikowia which only attenuate to 20-30%, as helper yeasts for flavour.

5) too much monitoring and chemistry tests involved during fermentation with wine yeasts?
??? No different to beer yeasts. You think wine yeasts are some weird separate thing, whereas they're not much different to something like Belle Saison - very consistent, reliable dry yeast.

6) just simply don’t seem to fit the drinkability of their beers w/o too much process complications

??? I'm not sure what this even means.

I’m not a wine maker but from my impression, fermentation with wine yeasts requires more attention (YAN, FAN, PAN, BAM!) to keep the yeasts doing what they are supposed to. Not sure if that’s due to grape juice not been nutritious enough

Yes, it's everything to do with the liquid they're fermenting, and not much to do with the yeast themselves. Beer is made from seeds, which have all the nutrients needed to make a new barley plant; wine is made from fruit juice, which is just meant to attract animals to eat the fruit to disperse the seeds so is just flavoured sugar water. But even so, the best beer producers add nutrients (follow the link to the recipe spreadsheet), it's not complicated but it does reward experimentation for the best results.

I also do not know how pure some wine yeast cultures are to this date,

Probably purer than some dry beer yeasts...

Funnily enough we've just been talking about wine yeasts in beer over on another thread. But all this talk of krausen and speise is typical of the US obsession with German brewing, which overcomplicates things to fit in with the myth of the Reinheitsgebot. It ignores the fact that US craft brewing owes far more to a different beer culture, one that prizes soft drinkability above anything else, one that gave Conan and 1318 to the US and positively worships the complexity of multi-strain yeasts rather than thinking they're an abomination to be rooted out.

Another clue - we talk about New England IPA and not New England bocks.

Yes, you need to switch your frame of reference from Germany to British brewing practices.

Forget krausening, I'd suggest the way to look at these beers are as low-oxygen cask-conditioned beers that generally follow British practice but excluding oxygen as much as possible. So any conditioning is done with sugar rather than introducing a complex mix of contaminants in the form of krausen. Most North Americans craft beer lovers don't understand what cask ale is all about as it's too crafty for them, but some are pleasantly surprised by how good cask-conditioned hazy beer can be. So it's no surprise that maybe some brewers are using British techniques and it baffles people who don't get the references.

@Northern_Brewer show is the British way with wine strains!

Agreed on CBC-1 my friend, if you look at all my posts I have never questioned presence this yeast as I thought it was confirmed via post #159 - I’ve been thinking of it as a beer strain and completely forgot this yeast properties suggests it derived from a wine strain at some point — but as you should know by now, talking about it in the flavor context is a waste of time as this yeast is completely neutral in flavor and aroma and thus doesn’t contribute to the beer flavor complexity. What this tells me is that the presence of this yeast is there simply as a result of their process to either inhibit other yeasts and/or condition, not to produce flavors.

https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/wp...3/TDS_LPS_BREWINGYEAST_CBC-1_ENG_8.5x11-1.pdf
Thanks for the feedback - my previous response was intended to show all the things that might detract someone when designing a beer with a wine yeast for flavor (I repeat - FLAVOR) development. Someone like Nate with an engineering background will think in terms or form-function-efficiency and recognize that designing a beer w/ a microorganism that has been evolving millions if not billions of years to live in the skin of grapes (tannin environment) and ferment what you call ‘flavoured sugar water‘ being pitched into beer wort doesn’t fit the form-function definition - as wine yeast (in general, you may know some exceptions of course) simply will try to make a very sweet wine out of your wort, something being experienced by many on this same thread. Not that this is bad in any way when experimenting, but just doesn’t fit what we want to accomplish here and most importantly - the evidence gathered so far. As you know, when your focus is simplicity not much evidence beyond a little bit of common sense and a touch of biology is needed to reach this conclusion.

Most of your posts seemed to show you are a kind of upset for us in the US giving too much credit or importance to German techniques instead of British ones LOL. We are trying to clone a beer here, this is not about nationalities, but we will take your suggestions when experimenting as they are all valid.

 

[MrPowers]

@Northern_Brewer show is the British way with wine strains!

Agreed on CBC-1 my friend, if you look at all my posts I have never questioned presence this yeast as I thought it was confirmed via post #159 - I’ve been thinking of it as a beer strain and completely forgot this yeast properties suggests it derived from a wine strain at some point — but as you should know by now, talking about it in the flavor context is a waste of time as this yeast is completely neutral in flavor and aroma and thus doesn’t contribute to the beer flavor complexity. What this tells me is that the presence of this yeast is there simply as a result of their process to either inhibit other yeasts and/or condition, not to produce flavors.

I have been using CBC1 to naturally carbonate all of my APA/IPA’s for the last year or so. It doesn’t add anything perceptible in the form of flavor or esters. It allows the base yeast character to remain intact. It also doesn’t add much from a bio-transformation perspective (I fermenter prime/add CBC after dry hopping).

What it DOES add is an incredible mouthfeel that is very soft and full bodied. Even in the absence of adjuncts or high chloride levels. You can push sulfate to 300-400ppm and still get a soft/rounded beer with great aromatics. My last NEIPA was a perfect example of that. It was a Pearl single malt + dextrose with approx 350ppm sulfate that was incredibly soft. CBC is also VERY resistant to hop creep/diacetyl. Which makes it a truly awesome conditioning strain for these beers.

 

[beervoid]

I have been using CBC1 to naturally carbonate all of my APA/IPA’s for the last year or so. It doesn’t add anything perceptible in the form of flavor or esters. It allows the base yeast character to remain intact. It also doesn’t add much from a bio-transformation perspective (I fermenter prime/add CBC after dry hopping).

What it DOES add is an incredible mouthfeel that is very soft and full bodied. Even in the absence of adjuncts or high chloride levels. You can push sulfate to 300-400ppm and still get a soft/rounded beer with great aromatics. My last NEIPA was a perfect example of that. It was a Pearl single malt + dextrose with approx 350ppm sulfate that was incredibly soft. CBC is also VERY resistant to hop creep/diacetyl. Which makes it a truly awesome conditioning strain for these beers.

How and at what temps do you condition? Do you use a spunding valve to keep the pressure in check?

 

[MrPowers]

How and at what temps do you condition? Do you use a spunding valve to keep the pressure in check?

I usually hard crash for 24-48hours, let the fermenter warm back up to 60-65F, add the rehydrated CBC + priming solution (dextrose) to the fermenter, purge headspace, wait 2-3 hours to see signs of activity, and then transfer to kegs. I don’t use spunding valves since I’m adding a measured amount of priming solution—enough to raise the gravity of the entire volume in the fermenter by 3 gravity points. Just purge the headspace of the keg (or transfer into water/sanitizer/fermentation purged kegs) and then seal with a blast of 30-40 psi. Then I let them carbonate at room temperature (usually takes 24–48 hours) and start slowly dropping the temperature to 32-34F until I’m ready to tap.

 

[beervoid]

I usually hard crash for 24-48hours, let the fermenter warm back up to 60-65F, add the rehydrated CBC + priming solution (dextrose) to the fermenter, purge headspace, wait 2-3 hours to see signs of activity, and then transfer to kegs. I don’t use spunding valves since I’m adding a measured amount of priming solution—enough to raise the gravity of the entire volume in the fermenter by 3 gravity points. Just purge the headspace of the keg (or transfer into water/sanitizer/fermentation purged kegs) and then seal with a blast of 30-40 psi. Then I let them carbonate at room temperature (usually takes 24–48 hours) and start slowly dropping the temperature to 32-34F until I’m ready to tap.

Ok so it only takes up to 2 days to get the carbonation where you need it?

 

[troxerX]

I have been using CBC1 to naturally carbonate all of my APA/IPA’s for the last year or so. It doesn’t add anything perceptible in the form of flavor or esters. It allows the base yeast character to remain intact. It also doesn’t add much from a bio-transformation perspective (I fermenter prime/add CBC after dry hopping).

What it DOES add is an incredible mouthfeel that is very soft and full bodied. Even in the absence of adjuncts or high chloride levels. You can push sulfate to 300-400ppm and still get a soft/rounded beer with great aromatics. My last NEIPA was a perfect example of that. It was a Pearl single malt + dextrose with approx 350ppm sulfate that was incredibly soft. CBC is also VERY resistant to hop creep/diacetyl. Which makes it a truly awesome conditioning strain for these beers.

@MrPowers that sounds awesome, thanks for sharing. This is one of the keys to the mouthfeel puzzle. Also it’s ‘undetectible’ to be diastaticus by Lallemand (see Lallemand link in previous post #3658) and will not keep munching on your complex sugars thus keeping the sweeter side of things intact.

I was looking into a description of their Gggreennn:

Any ideas on how can someone pack larger and larger hop additions without impacting the drinkability of a beer or making it too bitter, green, off putting and that will not tire your palate?

 

[MrPowers]

Ok so it only takes up to 2 days to get the carbonation where you need it?

I usually let it sit for a week, because my spunding valve only reads 15PSI, so if I check it it will explode. But I have checked it at 24-48 hours before and it’s usually fully carbonated at that point.

@MrPowers that sounds awesome, thanks for sharing. This is one of the keys to the mouthfeel puzzle. Also it’s ‘undetectible’ to be diastaticus by Lallemand (see Lallemand link in previous post #3658) and will not keep munching on your complex sugars thus keeping the sweeter side of things intact.

Any ideas on how can someone pack larger and larger hop additions without impacting the drinkability of a beer or making it too bitter, green, off putting and that will not tire your palate?

The problem that I run into is the amount of loss with dry hops much over 1.25oz/gallon. I can’t imagine trying to deal with even 2oz/gallon. I’m already doing 12 gallon batches just to get 10 into kegs at 1.25oz/gal.

 

[couchsending]

Anytime I’ve naturally carbonated a hoppy beer I felt like the beer had less hop aroma than if I had force carbed. I do think it benefits the mouthfeel and flavor doesn’t seem to change that much but aroma is never has good. I’d say Tree House beers don’t seem to have great hop aroma. Plenty of yeast esters, but lacking in hop aroma for sure.

 

[MrPowers]

Anytime I’ve naturally carbonated a hoppy beer I felt like the beer had less hop aroma than if I had force carbed. I do think it benefits the mouthfeel and flavor doesn’t seem to change that much but aroma is never has good. I’d say Tree House beers don’t seem to have great hop aroma. Plenty of yeast esters, but lacking in hop aroma for sure.

It does mute hop aroma slightly, but I think the oxygen reduction benefits are worth it. You will have more aroma with force carbing though.

Ideally, I'd like to have a unitank that I could spund the beer, drop the yeast, and then dry hop the already carbonated beer. But, $$$.

 

[NJGeorge]

About the Beer: Spunding and Slurming Updates they could be doing something like this. Just because Nate said on Twitter they don’t spund or whatever doesn’t mean they don’t do something similar.

 

[MrPowers]

About the Beer: Spunding and Slurming Updates they could be doing something like this. Just because Nate said on Twitter they don’t spund or whatever doesn’t mean they don’t do something similar.

It would most likely be in the form of adding CBC1 + priming sugar to the fermenter/bright tank. If they're doing that in the fermenter, there isnt anything stopping them from dry hopping after it's carbonated/crashed. It would take some extra equipment to avoid beer volcano's, but it's certainly possible.

 

[NJGeorge]

It would most likely be in the form of adding CBC1 + priming sugar to the fermenter/bright tank. If they're doing that in the fermenter, there isnt anything stopping them from dry hopping after it's carbonated/crashed. It would take some extra equipment to avoid beer volcano's, but it's certainly possible.

Yeah a hop cannon. They had one or two in Monson. The CBC or killer wine yeast could just be used to stop the other yeast. Pitch the primary yeast to get fruity esters and then pitch the killer strain after 12 hours or so to stop the other yeast from developing clove or whatever off flavors. Thinking out loud here lol

 

[lilbova3]

Nate’s beers were so phenomenal back in the day could he have really been doing things so complicated five years ago? Have there been talks from any other brewers about a killer yeast strain regularly used in brewing? I have no idea so educate me.

Has anyone ever gotten any TH esters from just S04? Stressing, under pitching, fermenting hot?

I haven’t had a fresh TH beer in awhile. Maybe 6-8 months ago I had some and I thought all the beers tasted the same. Every, single, one. The beers were slightly old, maybe three weeks. But I did love their Bright beers, the American Ale yeast really allowed the hops to shine.

 

[TBryerton]

Nate’s beers were so phenomenal back in the day could he have really been doing things so complicated five years ago? Have there been talks from any other brewers about a killer yeast strain regularly used in brewing? I have no idea so educate me.

Has anyone ever gotten any TH esters from just S04? Stressing, under pitching, fermenting hot?

I haven’t had a fresh TH beer in awhile. Maybe 6-8 months ago I had some and I thought all the beers tasted the same. Every, single, one. The beers were slightly old, maybe three weeks. But I did love their Bright beers, the American Ale yeast really allowed the hops to shine.

I’ve played with S04, T58, and WB06. I’ve try blending all 3 post fermentation as well. Ive never been able to produce anything that resembles TH esters.

 

[Clyde McCoy]

I’ve played with S04, T58, and WB06. I’ve try blending all 3 post fermentation as well. Ive never been able to produce anything that resembles TH esters.

What ratios have you tried? I just plated another can of Julius and based on colony morphology I would guess >97% are S-04-like (haven't tested yet).

My earlier co-pitch comment was based on the quote from Chris White "if your goal is flavor, you need to add the multiple strains early on, preferably together."

 

[TBryerton]

What ratios have you tried? I just plated another can of Julius and based on colony morphology I would guess >97% are S-04-like (haven't tested yet).

My earlier co-pitch comment was based on the quote from Chris White "if your goal is flavor, you need to add the multiple strains early on, preferably together."

They were awhile back so I don’t remember the ratios, but in terms of co-pitching I never went as high as 97% with S04. I also tried staggering, had really bad luck there. Blending produced a good beer but wasn’t like TH. And it was a pain in the @ss (I hate using glass w/pressure transfers and used 1G carboys for t58 and wb06) so I only tried twice.

It’s interesting that you’re finding mostly S04 in Julius but we’re able to find T58 in Green. That distinct TH flavor is in both, but always comes through stronger in Julius for me. To me Green is a beer that pulls a lot of its flavor from Galaxy, but gets support from the malt bill and esters. I still think Julius gets a relatively small amount of hops for this style and focuses more on the esters. JJJ screams Citra, as where regular Julius does not.

 

[beervoid]

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

 

[Passa194]

What ratios have you tried? I just plated another can of Julius and based on colony morphology I would guess >97% are S-04-like (haven't tested yet).

My earlier co-pitch comment was based on the quote from Chris White "if your goal is flavor, you need to add the multiple strains early on, preferably together."

I think S-04 is being stressed a specific way which lends a lot of what we are all chasing. I believe it would be kept more simple than blending. I will also agree that their beers do taste very similar although Super Treat is my new favorite and I do taste some “bubble gum.”

 

[TBryerton]

I think S-04 is being stressed a specific way which lends a lot of what we are all chasing. I believe it would be kept more simple than blending. I will also agree that their beers do taste very similar although Super Treat is my new favorite and I do taste some “bubble gum.”

I think it’s clear s04 is a major player here, but I don’t think it’s the only contributor in regards to the flavor we‘re chasing. I’ve been under the impression that their core IPA’s are DH’d prior to the end of fermentation - do we know that to be true? If that is true, which conflicts with what I believe we know about their bright/us05, then I’m pretty convinced the answer to these questions have to do with that alternative process.

 

[beervoid]

I think it’s clear s04 is a major player here, but I don’t think it’s the only contributor in regards to the flavor we‘re chasing. I’ve been under the impression that their core IPA’s are DH’d prior to the end of fermentation - do we know that to be true? If that is true, which conflicts with what I believe we know about their bright/us05, then I’m pretty convinced the answer to these questions have to do with that alternative process.

They mentioned in a description they foregoed the fermentation dry hopping.

 

[Noob_Brewer]

got a noob question here. With dry yeast, how do we really know if we are under pitching or not given that Mr. Malty says dry yeast is 20 billion cells per gram yet Brewers friend suggests that Fermentis SO4 is 6 billion cells per gram. Also how consistent really are these dry packets in terms of number of cells per gram? Seems to me that these wide margins in estimating how much yeast is indeed in each packet might contribute to the wide array of outcomes reported here in HBT when using SO4. Sorry if this has been answered already but 20B vs 6B is a HUGE difference especially when peeps are trying to hit the sweet spot with using S04.

 

[NJGeorge]

What ratios have you tried? I just plated another can of Julius and based on colony morphology I would guess >97% are S-04-like (haven't tested yet).

My earlier co-pitch comment was based on the quote from Chris White "if your goal is flavor, you need to add the multiple strains early on, preferably together."

Have you tested an Equilibrium beer yet? I’m curious to see what that shows. I get that over ripe banana ester in some of their beers.

 

[NJGeorge]

I think it’s clear s04 is a major player here, but I don’t think it’s the only contributor in regards to the flavor we‘re chasing. I’ve been under the impression that their core IPA’s are DH’d prior to the end of fermentation - do we know that to be true? If that is true, which conflicts with what I believe we know about their bright/us05, then I’m pretty convinced the answer to these questions have to do with that alternative process.

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