Yorkshire Square on a home level?
- Thread starter Gadjobrinus
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
OP
OP
Thanks for turning me on to the brewery, Hanglow. Yeah, interesting to read under the video of the coolship getting filled (I do love how that looks, a fan filling wort or beer), that the process "attracts a range of wild yeasts and flavors unique to Cambridgeshire." Have you tried this? Is it going after a true lambic, or more of a lambic technique, with British ingredients?
OP
OP
foob4r, I don't think I'm following you. You mention the ladle - are we talking a ladle in a standard homebrew bucket?
OP
OP
You're talking about splashing with the ladle, then? Again, I think I missed something - you're not saying that has the equivalent effect as something like the Yorkshire Square - right?
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
We don't need a pump and a sprayer at the homebrew level. All we need to do is rouse the yeast manually. A ladle is a fine implement for doing that. That's exactly what I used with my 2 gallon experiment a while back. Obviously one can't reasonably do so around the clock every 3 hours, but we can at least do it a few times a day.
Watch:
Watch:
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
Reading through the old Barnard book, thank you again, Hanglow - really pleasurable read from another time.
His description of the upper deck as a "square back for holding the yeast grown during fermentation." It does beg the question I've been wanting to ask since looking at this system, and that is, why would you want to keep krausen yeast from your wort, only giving it a brief contact time every 3 hours during the growth fermentation phase?
His description of the upper deck as a "square back for holding the yeast grown during fermentation." It does beg the question I've been wanting to ask since looking at this system, and that is, why would you want to keep krausen yeast from your wort, only giving it a brief contact time every 3 hours during the growth fermentation phase?
OP
OP
Our posts crossed, McKnuckle. Fantastic video! Thanks for posting. I was about to edit my post to say, in contrast to a true Yorkshire Square system, why not do what you and foob4r are suggesting - essentially, simply rousing the yeast like countless traditional breweries do?
Again I always think about culinary evolution, basically; how a food or a process tends to emanate out of the land, or what the land gives. I suspect the Yorkshire square is required because of the yeast - mere rousing won't do. I'm not sure why. I also think the end result is different, the process lends something different than mere roused yeast, and again I can't figure out why.
I emulate professional practice as professional practice, as almost comically unlikely as that might be anymore, is not far from my mind. And if I control for variables, I've always felt, then I need to be as exacting as I can to do just that.
Again I always think about culinary evolution, basically; how a food or a process tends to emanate out of the land, or what the land gives. I suspect the Yorkshire square is required because of the yeast - mere rousing won't do. I'm not sure why. I also think the end result is different, the process lends something different than mere roused yeast, and again I can't figure out why.
I emulate professional practice as professional practice, as almost comically unlikely as that might be anymore, is not far from my mind. And if I control for variables, I've always felt, then I need to be as exacting as I can to do just that.
Has anybody tried an open fermentation in a conical? I plan to make a English Porter (5 Gal Batch) in a 7 gal Fast fermenter using Ringwood Ale (W1187) yeast. I'm wondering if leaving the top off the FF will achieve a result close to the open square. Rousing the yeast may be more difficult but I'm hopping it would be worth the effort. Also, since my brewing space is also occupied by cars and other thing found in the garage I may need to cover the open conical with a clean cloth to prevent thing from dropping in. Hope that will have no ill effect.
brewbama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,737
- Reaction score
- 2,499
OP
OP
I've never tried it, but I'm the wrong guy. I've always fermented closed. My usual is primary in a sanke then bathed/forced under CO2 into a 10 gallon corny for dry hopping if applicable, cooling, then racking into a final corny for forced carb. Outside of my earliest days brewing, when I bottle conditioned, this is going to all be new to me.
I don't know why it wouldn't work. Outside of a possible geometry thing (at least 1:1 aspect ratio), you can top crop your batch and try what the guys here are suggesting, rouse by hand. I don't see the conical bottom being an issue there - after all, you're developing currents either way, and lifting out with a ladle or something like it, either way. If you have a pump, you could even try recirc'ing and spraying over the top.
Then, you've top cropped, and you have the added advantage of dumping trub and spent yeast. Pretty intriguing, actually!
I don't know why it wouldn't work. Outside of a possible geometry thing (at least 1:1 aspect ratio), you can top crop your batch and try what the guys here are suggesting, rouse by hand. I don't see the conical bottom being an issue there - after all, you're developing currents either way, and lifting out with a ladle or something like it, either way. If you have a pump, you could even try recirc'ing and spraying over the top.
Then, you've top cropped, and you have the added advantage of dumping trub and spent yeast. Pretty intriguing, actually!
OP
OP
I know this is a waste of a tri-ply bottom, but the wall gauge is more stout than you would find on an "economy" pot, if they even make them in this gauge.
Just wondering what you guys think. Geometry is great. My welder would put in 2 ports - 1 for temp, 1 1/2" NPT for plumbing in whatever for fan/spray/air recirc. Pretty simple affair.
I'm also trying to research the actual aeration/oxygenation method used - I know they transfer from the BK with this fishtail fan, the same one they use in rousing every 3 hours. I'm just wondering if that's the only air the yeast get, and if so, how much this yields (I seem to recall a simple aeration scheme yields no more than 8 ppm or so, which is just on the low end of a standard gravity). Anyone happen to know?
I better understand now the whole purpose behind the deck, as opposed to mere rousing. The fishtail fires the beer at the held-back krausen so it forces mixing, and the thin, mixed slurry recedes into the organ pipes. Merely rousing would not result in near as much mixing.
Whacky, but it occurs to me it would be really easy to build a removable deck with a central hole, and organ pipes. Thing is, right - it's not really scalable on a simple level. Yeast stay the same size, but the vessel does not. In a standard Yorkshire Square, with the central hole going anywhere from 6" (MB&S) to 2', and a proportionate freeboard, that can't be replicated in a sense of scale on the homebrew level. So I agree, not sure it makes a bit of difference. Would sure love to try.
Just wondering what you guys think. Geometry is great. My welder would put in 2 ports - 1 for temp, 1 1/2" NPT for plumbing in whatever for fan/spray/air recirc. Pretty simple affair.
I'm also trying to research the actual aeration/oxygenation method used - I know they transfer from the BK with this fishtail fan, the same one they use in rousing every 3 hours. I'm just wondering if that's the only air the yeast get, and if so, how much this yields (I seem to recall a simple aeration scheme yields no more than 8 ppm or so, which is just on the low end of a standard gravity). Anyone happen to know?
I better understand now the whole purpose behind the deck, as opposed to mere rousing. The fishtail fires the beer at the held-back krausen so it forces mixing, and the thin, mixed slurry recedes into the organ pipes. Merely rousing would not result in near as much mixing.
Whacky, but it occurs to me it would be really easy to build a removable deck with a central hole, and organ pipes. Thing is, right - it's not really scalable on a simple level. Yeast stay the same size, but the vessel does not. In a standard Yorkshire Square, with the central hole going anywhere from 6" (MB&S) to 2', and a proportionate freeboard, that can't be replicated in a sense of scale on the homebrew level. So I agree, not sure it makes a bit of difference. Would sure love to try.
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
OT-ish but apparently recent DNA analysis at White Labs has revealed links between two British yeasts including WLP037, and saison yeasts. So Wiper & True have done a small batch of "British saison" using all British ingredients with WLP037 and then turning off the FV coolers to let it ferment at will.
http://wiperandtrue.com/whatsnew/ (down a couple of articles)
OP
OP
This is pretty crazy, Northern. I literally just set White and Zainasheff's book down to check on new posts on the forum. Just wrapped up pp. 94-107, temp control-fermentation flavors!
Thanks for the heads up to the article, and the site as well. Very thought provoking. I'd love to get an analysis done on the finished "British Saison" to see the complex of stuff they ended up with. Makes me wonder what something like the "California Ale" style would come up with, if it underwent a similar free-floating fermentation schedule.
I am down to Wyeast's 1469 or this 037, when it comes out. Never tried Ringwood, it's old history, for some reason my mind is recalling just way too intense a yeast character, can't recall if it was a diacetyl thrower, fusels, what. I am hoping to follow Black Sheep's schedule as closely as possible, since in that interview Alan Dunn laid it out so completely.
The only thing that puzzles me a bit is their slow-cool to 10F, which he describes as a "diacetyl rest."
Side Note: I love that they use the hopback only, and do not dry hop. I should say, love it because I'd love to experiment with this, as it was almost as soon as I started that I abandoned whole hops and a BK false bottom (my primitive hopback), and went to pellets and whirlpooling.
Trying to figure out an open fermentation, transfer to conditioning, and dry hopping schedule is taking some thought. Mostly because I've achieved really good dry hopping results, but it was always with closed transfer under CO2, crash cooling and forced carbonation. Well, with casks, with whole hops, but never bottle conditioning, as I'm intending.
Thanks for the cite again, Northern. I'm looking forward to reading more of them.
Thanks for the heads up to the article, and the site as well. Very thought provoking. I'd love to get an analysis done on the finished "British Saison" to see the complex of stuff they ended up with. Makes me wonder what something like the "California Ale" style would come up with, if it underwent a similar free-floating fermentation schedule.
I am down to Wyeast's 1469 or this 037, when it comes out. Never tried Ringwood, it's old history, for some reason my mind is recalling just way too intense a yeast character, can't recall if it was a diacetyl thrower, fusels, what. I am hoping to follow Black Sheep's schedule as closely as possible, since in that interview Alan Dunn laid it out so completely.
The only thing that puzzles me a bit is their slow-cool to 10F, which he describes as a "diacetyl rest."
Side Note: I love that they use the hopback only, and do not dry hop. I should say, love it because I'd love to experiment with this, as it was almost as soon as I started that I abandoned whole hops and a BK false bottom (my primitive hopback), and went to pellets and whirlpooling.
Trying to figure out an open fermentation, transfer to conditioning, and dry hopping schedule is taking some thought. Mostly because I've achieved really good dry hopping results, but it was always with closed transfer under CO2, crash cooling and forced carbonation. Well, with casks, with whole hops, but never bottle conditioning, as I'm intending.
Thanks for the cite again, Northern. I'm looking forward to reading more of them.
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
Heh heh, I can read your mind! How is the White and Zainasheff book by the way, I've seen mixed reviews but it seems like it should be up my street as long as I ignore the first couple of chapters?
Not having used WLP037 myself, all I can say is that a saison heritage puts me off somewhat - and I'm not the greatest fan of Sam Smith beer either. So if something typically Yorkshire is the aim and Brewlab Yorkshire wasn't an option then I'd tend to 1469 out of the two.
I imagine that's a cool to 10C rather than 10F?
It's just a cleanup phase, one thing's clear that a lot of the flavour changes traditionally attributed to fermenting warm are actually a result of changes in fermentation temperature, up or down. From a commercial point of view it makes a lot of sense to condition at just below cellar temperature, to drop out any haze present so that the pubs don't encounter any haze at cellar temperature.
OP
OP
Heh heh, I can read your mind! How is the White and Zainasheff book by the way, I've seen mixed reviews but it seems like it should be up my street as long as I ignore the first couple of chapters?
Not having used WLP037 myself, all I can say is that a saison heritage puts me off somewhat - and I'm not the greatest fan of Sam Smith beer either. So if something typically Yorkshire is the aim and Brewlab Yorkshire wasn't an option then I'd tend to 1469 out of the two.
I imagine that's a cool to 10C rather than 10F?
I'm enjoying the book for the most part, though need to read it less when I'm getting ready to crash for the night and struggle to keep going. No fault of the text, I find it on-the-money informative. I had Kunze and read him as thoroughly as I could, given the holes and pieces in my background that were missing; same now with the Malting and Brewing Science volumes, which I find particularly well written. I find this yeast book covers enough science to titillate in this way, while being sure to provide practical recommendations that are immediately actionable.
So, all in all, yep, I enjoy the book.
Hear you on the saison. An interesting experiment and I think a fairly telling one, but not an experiment I'd want to quaff. I do enjoy some of Sam Smith, but by the time it gets to our shores and is beat up as it is, who knows what it was? I wanted to ask you about the Brewlabs Yorkshire strain - have never worked with Brewlabs, kind of crazy as I'm known of them forever. You like this strain? Any idea on its source? Your thoughts on the company generally? I've been limited to Wyeast and WL.
Ha! Yes, 10C, not 10F, my screwup. I get the rest, just a bit thrown by naming it a "diacetyl rest." I intend on doing as much exactly as Mr. Dunn revealed, though its efficacy as an experiment is almost nil, of course, given that almost everything will be different, starting with the yeast and ending with the lack of a square (though I am obsessively, maniacally committed to see if I could build one, at the 20 gallon level).
Thank you for your thoughts as always, Northern. Will always enjoy reading more.
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
Well, since I'm not ready to post to the Recipes forum til this is tried and true, I'll share my go at something resembling Theakston Old Peculier here in this thread!
This is for a 2.5 gallon (half) batch.
Fermentables:
80.3% T. Fawcett Pearl malt
6.7% Torrified wheat
3.8% Carastan 30/37
1.9% Crystal 160L UK
2.9% Roasted Barley UK
4.4% Lyle's Black Treacle (at F.O. minus 5 min)
SRM 22.8
The theme is base malt plus 7% wheat, 6% mixed crystal, 3% roasted barley, plus black treacle at the end of the boil. Total fermentables weighed 5.75 lbs including the treacle.
Sorry about the wacky percentages. They were even til I factored in the treacle. I used 0.25 lbs of it, so double that to 0.5 lbs for 5 gallons.
Mash @ 154ºF falling to 151.5 over 75 minutes, plus a 15 minute lauter/sparge. Boil for 75 minutes.
Hops:
13.3 IBU from 8.2g Challenger 6.1% AA @ FWH
12.5 IBU from 8g Fuggle 5.9% AA @ FWH
4.4 IBU from 8g Fuggle 5.9% AA @ 10 min
? IBU from 12.6g Fuggle 5.9% AA @ flameout
~30 IBU
Water:
Ca 70, Mg 0, Na 16, SO4 53, Cl 85
Est. mash pH 5.41
I was aiming for 1.058 OG but overshot by a couple points to 1.060. Just pitched WY1469 at 64ºF, and set the fridge temp to 68º to allow a free rise during the growth phase.
I have been obsessing about this recipe since returning from my UK trip in August. The recipe is an amalgam of all the other published "clones," plus my own research and perceptions after drinking OP on cask at the Theakston brewery in Masham.
This is for a 2.5 gallon (half) batch.
Fermentables:
80.3% T. Fawcett Pearl malt
6.7% Torrified wheat
3.8% Carastan 30/37
1.9% Crystal 160L UK
2.9% Roasted Barley UK
4.4% Lyle's Black Treacle (at F.O. minus 5 min)
SRM 22.8
The theme is base malt plus 7% wheat, 6% mixed crystal, 3% roasted barley, plus black treacle at the end of the boil. Total fermentables weighed 5.75 lbs including the treacle.
Sorry about the wacky percentages. They were even til I factored in the treacle. I used 0.25 lbs of it, so double that to 0.5 lbs for 5 gallons.
Mash @ 154ºF falling to 151.5 over 75 minutes, plus a 15 minute lauter/sparge. Boil for 75 minutes.
Hops:
13.3 IBU from 8.2g Challenger 6.1% AA @ FWH
12.5 IBU from 8g Fuggle 5.9% AA @ FWH
4.4 IBU from 8g Fuggle 5.9% AA @ 10 min
? IBU from 12.6g Fuggle 5.9% AA @ flameout
~30 IBU
Water:
Ca 70, Mg 0, Na 16, SO4 53, Cl 85
Est. mash pH 5.41
I was aiming for 1.058 OG but overshot by a couple points to 1.060. Just pitched WY1469 at 64ºF, and set the fridge temp to 68º to allow a free rise during the growth phase.
I have been obsessing about this recipe since returning from my UK trip in August. The recipe is an amalgam of all the other published "clones," plus my own research and perceptions after drinking OP on cask at the Theakston brewery in Masham.
OP
OP
Yowza, McKnuckler, that recipe looks fantastic. I have never come across the Fawcett Pearl, nor have I heard of it - ! I know so many people love Fawcett's MO, but Northern sells Warminster (I like it a lot), and locally they get Munton's (not as much). I'm going to have to read up on your pearl.
To me, those percents look perfect - though I've never made the beer, lol. Just really appealing on reading it and I love your fermentation regime. 15 minute lauter/sparge. Forgive the naivete but the only thing I've ever done is fly sparging. Are you talking batch sparging? Or is this BIAB? (would love to learn more about both techniques).
Can't WAIT to hear how it comes out!
To me, those percents look perfect - though I've never made the beer, lol. Just really appealing on reading it and I love your fermentation regime. 15 minute lauter/sparge. Forgive the naivete but the only thing I've ever done is fly sparging. Are you talking batch sparging? Or is this BIAB? (would love to learn more about both techniques).
Can't WAIT to hear how it comes out!
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
There were sacks of Fawcett Pearl on the floor at Theakston's, so naturally I procured some! Northern Brewer had it. Probably not a big deal, but I'm trying...
I sometimes BIAB, but have been batch sparging "naked" in a cooler lately, which works perfectly for my 2.5 or 3 gallon batches (I have kegs in those sizes). This brew split the liquor 50/50 between mash and batch sparge.
The process of vorlaufing, draining, and sparging takes me about 15 minutes, so I factor that in since the grain is still in conversion range most of that time. Theakston's mashes for 90 minutes, or so the tour guide said. Hence a 75 minute mash plus 15 = 90.
Again, I'm obsessing over details that might not really matter, but it makes me happy nonetheless.
Here's Grouse Beater, Old Peculier, and Barista Stout at the visitors center. And below is one of their open fermenters in need of cleaning.
I sometimes BIAB, but have been batch sparging "naked" in a cooler lately, which works perfectly for my 2.5 or 3 gallon batches (I have kegs in those sizes). This brew split the liquor 50/50 between mash and batch sparge.
The process of vorlaufing, draining, and sparging takes me about 15 minutes, so I factor that in since the grain is still in conversion range most of that time. Theakston's mashes for 90 minutes, or so the tour guide said. Hence a 75 minute mash plus 15 = 90.
Again, I'm obsessing over details that might not really matter, but it makes me happy nonetheless.
Here's Grouse Beater, Old Peculier, and Barista Stout at the visitors center. And below is one of their open fermenters in need of cleaning.
OP
OP
Wow. Cool experience, McKnuckle. I really can't wait to get some notes of your brew when it's done. My typical is a 60 min. mash and then a mashout to 168-170 for 10 min. I won't know how long the vorlauf will be because I've always done it manually and never used recirc'ng pumps during the mash. But like you, I'm obsessed with clarity so my vorlaufs were on the long side. And then about 90 min. typical for my runoff.
Keep us posted!
-and I see nothing, nothing whatsoever needing cleaning with the fermentor.
Keep us posted!
-and I see nothing, nothing whatsoever needing cleaning with the fermentor.
I imagine that's a cool to 10C rather than 10F?
Before I had temperature control I had just started fermenting a batch of APA with US05 when we had a funny couple of days where the temp dipped for a day or so then went higher than normal for a couple days. So in stead of sitting in the mid 60s it was down to the upper 50s and up into the 70s, that beer smelled and tasted like fruit loop cereal.
The thread below has some information where people lowered the temp slightly to bring out or retain more English character
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=221817
OP
OP
Traditionally, for my ales (most of whom were/are English in their approach), I'd slightly underpitch, slightly under-oxygenate, and maintain on the cooler side to achieve a mix of estery and high alcohol, but trying to micromanage the process so it wasn't just an end run. Worked out well, but I think tweaking at that level won't work over the long run - even with a great lab, which I didn't have at home - because these things are stressors and it won't take many generations before viability/vitality, or mutancy starts to show up. Still, sometimes I think we all kind of forget yeast is one of the ingredients, malleable like the malt bill or mash rest temp.
I am not so sure English yeast are lazy, I would say they are the opposite. I think the rousing and aeration is to keep them growing and preventing from them for going to work. There is a brew strong episode where they discuss FAN and one of the things they mentioned was that yeast consume fan in a particular order while they grow and the last to be utilized is the FAN which helps with the production of esters. prolonging the growth phase would ensure they work those last FAN esters.
If the yeast were derived from yeast that existed when beer was aged and blended with fresh beer it would be desirable for the yeast to leave some sweetness so you could blend to get the right balance.
OP
OP
I was being lazy by my use of the word, lol. By lazy, I'm merely saying, fast flocculators. I don't know that's a metabolic thing as much as a structural thing - surface protein mix, but I don't know enough on the subject. That's really all I meant by "lazy."
Very interesting what you're saying, though. I didn't know that about the metabolism of FAN types, but it would make sense in the same way they approach carbohydrates. And it also makes perfect sense that it's specifically aeration-based rousing - and not merely stirring to get them up off the bottom. Dropping, Burton Union, they all have aeration as an important part of the system and so hadn't thought of that, makes sense it would be a growth and not anaerobic metabolism thing.
Also interesting to me, however, is that under-oxygenation, as a stressor, is a known ester producer. Like underpitching. Though both are crappy ways to manage a wanted ester profile.
Thanks, ba-brewer. Makes me want to look into this more (even Malting and Brewing Science gives this almost no coverage). Can you tell me which of brew strong you're talking about?
Very interesting what you're saying, though. I didn't know that about the metabolism of FAN types, but it would make sense in the same way they approach carbohydrates. And it also makes perfect sense that it's specifically aeration-based rousing - and not merely stirring to get them up off the bottom. Dropping, Burton Union, they all have aeration as an important part of the system and so hadn't thought of that, makes sense it would be a growth and not anaerobic metabolism thing.
Also interesting to me, however, is that under-oxygenation, as a stressor, is a known ester producer. Like underpitching. Though both are crappy ways to manage a wanted ester profile.
Thanks, ba-brewer. Makes me want to look into this more (even Malting and Brewing Science gives this almost no coverage). Can you tell me which of brew strong you're talking about?
This looks like the episode http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/brew-strong-free-amino-nitrogen/
OP
OP
Thanks!
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
I've not used it myself, only mentioned it in this context because allegedly it came from Black Sheep. Brewlab have a great yeast bank whose pedigree is a bit more reliable than the haphazard sources of much of the Wyeast/WL collections, at least for British breweries. Being more geared to commercial breweries they sell slopes rather than smackpacks, and they don't officially reveal their sources, but if you tell ask them for something to clone Old Peculier or Riggwelter or whatever then somehow the yeast they send you tends to match the target beer... I don't know how geared up they are to sending stuff to the US though.
OP
OP
Hahahha, you're killing me Northern. You absolutely wound me up and then I come to your final bit, lol.
Good to know regardless, thanks. The note on commercial clients and slants is one I hadn't thought of and does speak to the purity, it seems, a lab-to-lab transfer.
Good to know regardless, thanks. The note on commercial clients and slants is one I hadn't thought of and does speak to the purity, it seems, a lab-to-lab transfer.
OP
OP
Just checked, they do ship slopes worldwide for a very reasonable price. Now the research begins. I haven't even checked their commercial section because they offer slopes (your slopes are our slants, yes?) to homebrewers.
They offer regions, then counties, at least when I checked Northern England. They do ask for a specific yeast code as well - would this be these particular yeasts you're talking about, Northern?
Thank you again for the post. A very compelling piece of info.
Edit: There's a custom yeast code page, where they use the same language, "enter your specific yeast code." And they ask to call for a quote. I suspect this is the area where you obtain some of these particular strains. Yes?
They offer regions, then counties, at least when I checked Northern England. They do ask for a specific yeast code as well - would this be these particular yeasts you're talking about, Northern?
Thank you again for the post. A very compelling piece of info.
Edit: There's a custom yeast code page, where they use the same language, "enter your specific yeast code." And they ask to call for a quote. I suspect this is the area where you obtain some of these particular strains. Yes?
MaryB
Well-Known Member
Each side of my double well stainless kitchen sink hold a little over 5 gallons and it is a normal sized sink... go oversized farmhouse style sink for bigger. Even has the handy dandy drain hole built in the center!
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
Yep, slopes/slants, tomahto/tomayto...
Their yeast page is a bit confusing, those "counties" are individual yeast strains - it's a bit more obvious on the London & SE page where the "counties" are Thames Valley 1/2/3. But that "Yorkshire" is the one that the Internet thinks came from Black Sheep. So they have those dozen or so core strains, otherwise AIUI you email them asking for help in cloning beer X and they either tell you a code or process the order manually. It seems different breweries have different restrictions on the yeast, so sometimes you'll get the right yeast but nothing that you can track back to their official designation codes.
OP
OP
Thanks Mary, I'd wondered about that but gave up as I figured there wasn't enough volume. I'll take another look!
OP
OP
Great, thanks, Northern. This is a great new avenue and I appreciate you pointing it out.
I seem to have a hard time getting esters in my English beers even using known estery yeast. I have tried warmer temps and slight under pitching neither made a difference. I did not know under-oxygenation caused more esters. I stir/agitate to aerate which probably qualifies for under oxygenation and was thinking tat might be part of my problem so on my last bitters I used a pure oxygen and a stone for like I do for lagers. It seems to have bit more esters when it went into the keg, will have to see if it stays that way when it carbonates.
OP
OP
I don't have much of a memory anymore and have forgotten basically everything about brewing science I ever learned, so I'm reading up again. This could be wrong, but I'll try. O2 is a limiting factor for sterol production, which yeast use in cell wall maintenance. Sterol also limits free acetyl-CoA, which is the most common "activated" acid in beer. Because esters are a combination of alcohols and activated organic acids, any factor that limits the production of sterols liberates more acetyl-CoA to be used in other things - most commonly, ester catalysis.
So, under-oxygenation is not only likely to increase esters, it is also really hard on cell walls. And especially over generations, you end up with weaker yeast with lower viability and vitality rates. I see it as kind of a cudgel v. a scalpel. Like under-pitching, it will work, but you're going to take a lay a lot of unwanted damage in the process.
This is totally just my understanding from reading White and others, so I hope I have it right. But anyway, that's why I was interested in this notion of oxygenation and higher esters, as a function of specific FAN takeup.
It's a great subject, thanks for poking at it with the Brew Strong ideas. I'm pretty fascinated by esters, always have been since, what, isoamyl acetate in middle-school chem lab? So this prods me on to more. As does what's going on with esters and your beers. Good luck, would love to keep hearing more.
So, under-oxygenation is not only likely to increase esters, it is also really hard on cell walls. And especially over generations, you end up with weaker yeast with lower viability and vitality rates. I see it as kind of a cudgel v. a scalpel. Like under-pitching, it will work, but you're going to take a lay a lot of unwanted damage in the process.
This is totally just my understanding from reading White and others, so I hope I have it right. But anyway, that's why I was interested in this notion of oxygenation and higher esters, as a function of specific FAN takeup.
It's a great subject, thanks for poking at it with the Brew Strong ideas. I'm pretty fascinated by esters, always have been since, what, isoamyl acetate in middle-school chem lab? So this prods me on to more. As does what's going on with esters and your beers. Good luck, would love to keep hearing more.
Northern yeasts tend to have very high oxygen requirements, they are typically class O3/O4 , ie.e they need more than can be added by saturation with air to reach their full attenuation. For comparison sake, "chico"/US05 etc is class O1, they only need wort that is half saturated with air to reach full attenuation, one reason why us05 is so bulletproof for us homebrewers And also why Sierra Nevada only aerates with filtered air when they use their yeast
Here's an example of a northern yeast in the NCYC
https://catalogue.ncyc.co.uk/saccharomyces-cerevisiae-1333
if you click on "Strain Information" you can see it says O3/O4. So re-aeration would usually be needed, or using pure 02 would certainly help
Here's the famous whitbread B - ie s04
https://catalogue.ncyc.co.uk/saccharomyces-cerevisiae-1026
it's classed as O2, so normal aeration is fine
you can read Kirsop's paper on it here, also mentions FAN
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03614.x/epdf
One could of course pitch lots more yeast and fermentor geometry etc would also come into play, along with wort gravity etc etc
And also why Sierra Nevada only aerates with filtered air when they use their yeastHere's an example of a northern yeast in the NCYC
https://catalogue.ncyc.co.uk/saccharomyces-cerevisiae-1333
if you click on "Strain Information" you can see it says O3/O4. So re-aeration would usually be needed, or using pure 02 would certainly help
Here's the famous whitbread B - ie s04
https://catalogue.ncyc.co.uk/saccharomyces-cerevisiae-1026
it's classed as O2, so normal aeration is fine
you can read Kirsop's paper on it here, also mentions FAN
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03614.x/epdf
One could of course pitch lots more yeast and fermentor geometry etc would also come into play, along with wort gravity etc etc
OP
OP
Very revealing, and looking forward to reading into this, Hanglow, thanks so much. So, is my logic reaching here?: high O2 requirement and therefore low O2 weakens sterol synthesis, and consequently, cell wall plaibility/toughness; with low sterol production, you have free Acetyl-CoA in unduly large numbers; and therefore, higher esterification.
Meaning, for high requirements, the tendency is to not be able to get enough O2 in solution - and maybe that's a good thing - that the culture likes esters, and this is one way historical brewing has achieved them in the area with high O2-demand yeast? (Or no, of course, since not giving enough O2 for a given yeast's requirements is a good way to screw the population down the road).
Edit: Thanks for the NCYC resource, Hanglow. All in bold I find to be really useful info - now that you've revealed the coded O2 requirements:
Whitbread B:
Flocculent.
NewFlo type flocculation.
1:5:4:5:5
O2, DMS 33 µg/l, low acetic, high lactic, diacetyl 0.42ppm only, used commercially in Tower Fermenters (continuous process), non head-forming, no estery flavour. Contains 2µ plasmid.
"Yorkshire Stone Square Type Recommended for Bottled Pale Ale"
Flocculent.
O3/O4. Head forming Yorkshire Stone Square type recommended for bottled Pale ale.
Do you happen to know this source? I presume Wyeast's 1469, White Labs's WLP037 and Brewlab's Yorkshire slant all come from a similar profile, perhaps the same brewery or breweries.
Regardless, denoting these O2 levels in terms of requirements is really helpful, Hanglow. Not only do they have a high O2 demand (why can't we just oxygenate on the higher side at the beginning?) but they are high flocculators - so need O2 pickup longer into the fermentation cycle, comparatively speaking, and a simple O2 goose at the beginning would be insufficient. This is why what looks like madness (introducing O2 so long into the cycle) makes sense for these strains.
Would that be a reasonable assessment?
Meaning, for high requirements, the tendency is to not be able to get enough O2 in solution - and maybe that's a good thing - that the culture likes esters, and this is one way historical brewing has achieved them in the area with high O2-demand yeast? (Or no, of course, since not giving enough O2 for a given yeast's requirements is a good way to screw the population down the road).
Edit: Thanks for the NCYC resource, Hanglow. All in bold I find to be really useful info - now that you've revealed the coded O2 requirements:
Whitbread B:
Flocculent.
NewFlo type flocculation.
1:5:4:5:5
O2, DMS 33 µg/l, low acetic, high lactic, diacetyl 0.42ppm only, used commercially in Tower Fermenters (continuous process), non head-forming, no estery flavour. Contains 2µ plasmid.
"Yorkshire Stone Square Type Recommended for Bottled Pale Ale"
Flocculent.
O3/O4. Head forming Yorkshire Stone Square type recommended for bottled Pale ale.
Do you happen to know this source? I presume Wyeast's 1469, White Labs's WLP037 and Brewlab's Yorkshire slant all come from a similar profile, perhaps the same brewery or breweries.
Regardless, denoting these O2 levels in terms of requirements is really helpful, Hanglow. Not only do they have a high O2 demand (why can't we just oxygenate on the higher side at the beginning?) but they are high flocculators - so need O2 pickup longer into the fermentation cycle, comparatively speaking, and a simple O2 goose at the beginning would be insufficient. This is why what looks like madness (introducing O2 so long into the cycle) makes sense for these strains.
Would that be a reasonable assessment?
MaryB
Well-Known Member
If I did the math right some of the 10" deep 36x20 farmhouse sinks are 20+ gallons!
Sorry I have been a bit busy to be able to reply prior to now but life has just got in the way. However, I was talking with the person who I learnt the rouse and aerate method from so he might be best placed to provide a bit more detail as he has been brewing since before i was a twinkle in my fathers eye and I am no spring chicken I believe Cire has already introduced himself on the forum, I have a feeling he might shock a few of you with regards to levels of ingredients and mineral values (I have seen him brew fantastic tasting beers that are considered to be undrinkable by the water rules followed by most over in the US, I would urge you to sacrifice some test batches to the beer gods and see what you think).
I believe Cire has already introduced himself on the forum, I have a feeling he might shock a few of you with regards to levels of ingredients and mineral values (I have seen him brew fantastic tasting beers that are considered to be undrinkable by the water rules followed by most over in the US, I would urge you to sacrifice some test batches to the beer gods and see what you think).
