Yorkshire Square on a home level?

[Gadjobrinus]

Fantastic, thanks, f00b4r. Met him on his introduction page but of course he's too humble to let us know! Will very much look forward to hearing more from him.

Wonderful to know. Thanks again.

 

[cire]

Firstly can I compliment and thank all concerned for the wonderful coverage on this subject, it is a great read. Secondly, can I say I'm really not humble, just cautious not to get out of my depth. I only have a little experience and personal opinion.

I've used two different Yorkshire Square yeasts in about 30 brews and more times for starters and small scale experiments. I ferment in an ordinary vessel without a tray to retain yeast, impractical on a homebrewing scale as already agreed. However it seems practical to use such strains to advantage in an open top fermentor manually recycling yeast and wort. I use a large spoon which is first flamed to sanitise and then speared through the yeast and into the wort until cool. It is important to lift the wort high above the vessel to get oxygen while it falls onto the yeast to push it back into the wort. I don't know but think procedures will vary from brewery to brewery and each will have their own specific yeast.

I think the initial idea of the square might have been designed to simpify yeast separation and collection. I believe any highly active and flocculating top fermenting yeast could adapt to a square and that Yorkshire yeasts will be at home in any ordinary open top fermentor provided it is systematically beaten back. If these yeasts are left unattended, fermentation will slow substantially as the majority of yeast rises out of the wort and flocculates.

Black Sheep yeast can be obtained from Brewlab with code "HH", which I assume is for Hardy and Hanson, the brewery that supplied their it to Paul Theakston. It has proved to highly attenuate worts. Their fermentors (cylindrical) came from Thorne Brewery and visitors are allowed to walk on decking that passes over their open tops. That area is well ventilated but not open to any other part of the brewery. The area was not especially clean when I visited, I think the priciple being that as long as the dust and dirt on the floor and beams isn't disturbed, it won't end up in the yeast.

An email to [email protected] with request for a specific brewery's yeast is often succeed even when it is not listed on their site. Yorkshire yeasts are generally easy to reclaim, although a conical is not idea for this.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Awesome post as usual, Cire, many, many thanks! While I'm probably giving up on the true square system with its deck, manhole, organ pipes, etc., I haven't yet given up on the idea of rousing from the bottom and then spraying vigorously through a fishtail. It may be an extravagance but in the pursuit of "the root" of anything historically and culinarily-culturally based, it's intrinsically my way (ask my former chefs, on the subject of stockmaking. Guaranteed not to smile). But it's probably just a dream and I'll do what you and McKnuckle suggest, just rousing and dropping with a spoon.

Perfect info on thoughts behind the square and how to deal with the yeast type in the absence of such a square. And many thanks for the Brewlab code. Interesting that the yeast is highly attenuative. Does it behave otherwise as we're thinking with these setups? Highly attenuative, but reluctant, needs rousing? Or dusty and stays in solution, like stereotypically attenuative yeasts do?

 

[cire]

I would class Black Sheep Yeast, HH, as a medium to good flocculator, certainly not one to worry about, just skim the krausen, put on the lid and cool it a little. It's hard to think such yeasts would be poor flocculators by observation.

After using what I believe to be the Timothy Taylor strain I was surprised attenuative Black Sheep was. While TT might struggle to 70% attenuation, TT, BS would be head to 80%.

If you want a true Yorkshire Square yeast, you might try asking alison at Brewlab if they can supply that from a particular brewery that interests you.
https://www.brewlab.co.uk/services/home-brew-yeast

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Cire, if Black Sheep yeast is that attenuative, I'm trying to understand the logic behind a pretty radical, in my mind anyway, post-pitching aeration regime. ?

I believe unless I'm wrong that Wyeast 1469 is supposed to be TT yeast. If less attenuative, did you nevertheless enjoy it? I presume it dropped pretty clear?

I do love BS beers, when I've been able to get them (maddens me last availability was while last living in Chicago, which was 2010). Had no idea on their attenuation. Did you find the yeast as somewhat dusty? (Not sure what I'm asking, actually, given your post above. Perhaps if they develop a stiff krausen and floc well, the question is, when? Does it take long, or something?

Just asking on the basis of this new info. you've provided re: BS attenuation, when compared to TT, and the fact BS nevertheless uses a pretty radical aeration regime.

 

[McKnuckle]

Just finished primary with WY1469 on my homage to Old Peculier. Thought I'd provide a data point regarding attenuation:

I pitched a month-old package without a starter into 2.6 gallons at 64°F. It climbed to 68° and was held there for 3 days, then it was dropped to 50° over 36 hours.

The beer was aerated at the beginning. I ferment in a closed 5 gallon corny keg (which is thus half full).

OG was 1.060; FG is 1.016. Attenuation is 73.3%. I had estimated 72%.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Great fermentation stats, a very helpful data point. Thanks McKnuckle. I'd be very happy with that. I might be shooting too high, but I'm estimating 77% for my "ESB" with OG 1.053 and Est. FG 1.012. Coming in at 155 and a 1:1 grist ratio, both favoring alpha amylase so I might have a surprise coming.

Thanks for your data - looking forward to more. Such data including sensory evaluation!

 

[cire]

I have not used WY1469. That isn't to say I've used a different yeast, but one with pedegree I trust. Those figures suggest mine has a very simlar performance, but once seen, never forgotten. Did it rise significantly and form a thick crust by flocculation? was it creamy in colour with a slightly pink tinge?

I should try 1469 and perhaps McKnuckle, you might ask [email protected] what cost to send a vial of TT to NJ for comparison?

 

[Gadjobrinus]

It's a total of £15.90 to ship HH anywhere in the world.

 

[McKnuckle]

I'd love to tell you what it looked like during fermentation, but I can't see too well through stainless steel.

I've used this yeast quite a few times in glass and plastic fermenters though. It's a top cropper and it doesn't floc terribly well. It's known to float stubbornly until temps get below the low 50s.

I wonder if BrewLab has Sam Smith's or Theakston's yeast??

 

[Gadjobrinus]

And I just bought 2 slopes of HH. Thank you, Cire. This is before I have my lab together, so I'm getting it together rather quickly. It will be interesting to compare this to Wyeast's 1469 from "TT," though I'm less sure of the provenance after reading Northern Brewer's remarks. Glad to have found Brewlab, and to know they ship internationally.

 

[cire]

The percentages I gave for TT and BS attenuation were with rousing and aeration. Left unroused attenuation will be totally different.

Once I pitched TT into a well aerated 1048 wort at 68F and after 2 days skimmed some surplus yeast, but no rousing was done in this phase. On day 6 heating was removed and wort allowed to cool to ambient, ~50F when on day 7 gravity was found to be 1030 and no yeast activity in wort observed. Raised back to 68F and roused and aerated, gravity fell by 6 points in 15 hours and a further 6 daily rousings lowered gravity to 1013 (73% attenuation) when it was again cooled then casked to condition naturally.

I've not done that with BS yeast, but believe there will be great similarities. I suspect it is possible by skimming and modest cooling to virtually stop fermentation at a chosen gravity. They will continue to ferment, but without rousing and aeration it will be at a slow rate.

I feel confident if you were to order TT yeast from brewlab you would get Timothy Taylor's. If Brewlab have Sam Smith's or any other, Alison will supply the code.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Thanks Cire. Having just bought BS's (apparently), I think I'm going to observe closely, do it in an open container, and do what I can to emulate their regime, which was laid out so well in the podcast mentioned. I am so glad to be in touch with Brewlab and thank you, too, for the contact. I'm certain I'll be trying several more.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

I would class Black Sheep Yeast, HH, as a medium to good flocculator, certainly not one to worry about, just skim the krausen, put on the lid and cool it a little. It's hard to think such yeasts would be poor flocculators by observation.

After using what I believe to be the Timothy Taylor strain I was surprised attenuative Black Sheep was. While TT might struggle to 70% attenuation, TT, BS would be head to 80%.

If you want a true Yorkshire Square yeast, you might try asking alison at Brewlab if they can supply that from a particular brewery that interests you.
https://www.brewlab.co.uk/services/home-brew-yeast

Just to say, 2 vials of HH arrived from Britain and they're tucked away in the cooler. The vial says "best before" May 2018, but I hope I'm up and running much sooner. Regardless, very excited and I'll maintain slants to keep it all going strong.

Speaking of which, in the absence of a hemacytometer, my plan is to propagate by slant - 10 ml 1020 - 100 ml 1020 - 1000 ml 1040; with all of these on stir plate. Then on to 10L, at 1040. Cool, decant, pitch into batch, which puts me in a 3.5-4.5X step. I'll have to figure it out from there because I don't brew often enough to harvest and repitch. Shame, because I'd prefer to work with yeast that have been through a few whole batch fermentations over propagating each time from slants or plates.

 

[ba-brewer]

Just to say, 2 vials of HH arrived from Britain and they're tucked away in the cooler. The vial says "best before" May 2018, but I hope I'm up and running much sooner. Regardless, very excited and I'll maintain slants to keep it all going strong.

Speaking of which, in the absence of a hemacytometer, my plan is to propagate by slant - 10 ml 1020 - 100 ml 1020 - 1000 ml 1040; with all of these on stir plate. Then on to 10L, at 1040. Cool, decant, pitch into batch, which puts me in a 3.5-4.5X step. I'll have to figure it out from there because I don't brew often enough to harvest and repitch. Shame, because I'd prefer to work with yeast that have been through a few whole batch fermentations over propagating each time from slants or plates.

Curious about what you going to use as a stirlate for the 10mL initial step?

What is your target final cell count and assumptions on number of cells at each step?

In the slanting thread here on HBT they assume .8B cells from a 10mL shaken starter inoculated with just a couple loops of yeast. Do you plan to use just a couple loops?

Only recently started making slants and building them up so still looking for information.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Hey Ba -

The 10L, no, just plan to oxygenate - that's a lot of wort! And to be honest, I'm going in blind, which is really bothersome to me. The standard 10X multiplier, with constant stirring, until the final step and a 4.5x multiplier into oxygenated wort.

It's easy to estimate populations when you're starting with a fairly well known quantity (e.g., a WL vial), but I've not come across any estimates before from slants. So thanks for mentioning the thread, will have to dig it up. And I actually grab several loops, and allow the yeast to come to (my best estimate) of holding capacity of the given medium.

Thanks Ba. It's really important for me to get a decent estimation because I like to underpitch my English bitters some, like .6-.65 or so, over the .75-1.00 million/ml/P. So now I need to do a better job at this process. What I did when I last brewed (when I captured some yeasts on business cards in England, let them dry, brought them back, plated them up, slanted, and propagated) worked out well, but it was pure luck, I think. My guide then was Pierre Rajotte's book and as you may know, he's all about multiplier steps, and not population counts.

Edit (warning - lotta breath here):

I am among the worst offenders at wanting to nail everything down so I can project a "perfect" beer. So I spend endless hours thinking "authentic" water, the perfect grist for a robust porter ("how much, to the .0000001%, of black patent v. de-bittered black?"), the tortured mix of the newest American and/or New Zealand with traditional English hops in an IPA, and when, precisely, in the process?

What I'm getting at is that I can get way too hung up, I think, on things I really can't control, either because I don't have the equipment (a microscope; a hemacytometer), or because beer is an inherently complex system that means I can't entirely predict what, say, certain hops will do together, synergistically, that isn't the sum of what I'd predict after copious study of their various compositions.

So the only way "in" is empirically. Here, just going with the tried and true Hansen stepping, 10X multipliers, etc. Then trying to divine by the finished product whether it works. And whether this process can be said to definitively be an actor in that success, If it works, fantastic - I've logged a process that works, and I'll try to replicate it and pray it works like that each and every time I brew.

Sometimes, I just want to put down calculations, and brew. Taste, smell, and brew again. To mash-in when the water throws its mirrored gaze back at my eager form.

 

[ba-brewer]

This is the sticky on slanting
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=579349

I believe this is the thread the sticky was created from.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=133103

This post seemed interesting in that he does smaller than the 10x step. The smaller steps fits the best practices set in the brewunited yeast calculator I use that calls for an inoculation rate of 25-100 m/ml/P for starter steps.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6340791&postcount=773

The sticky talks about using a whole slant into a larger initial step instead of doing a 10mL first step with a couple loops worth of yeast. I am leaning toward using whole slants as I can pressure can the wort in small 4oz canning jars for first step.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Thanks for the threads Ba. I did catch the first sticky after reading your post and saw the whole slant process, which I thought was really interesting. And the small step post: yeah, I think that works well too. Rajotte himself prefers only a 3-4X step. Totally hear him on "too clean" a character from overpitching, and his notes from White's book on fresh lab yeast v. harvested yeast pitching rates - thanks for the post and to him, for these notes, as they make me want to go back and read White's book in this area (my edit above notwithstanding, lol - "just when I was out, they pulled me back in").

I think it's all a balancing act between encouraging good growth and all the desired flavor and aroma compounds that brings about, and ensuring healthy yeast that can finish their job (and live to do it another day, perhaps).

Thanks for the post, Ba. Hitting the hay but if you post, I'll look forward to reading more.

 

[f00b4r]

Just to say, 2 vials of HH arrived from Britain and they're tucked away in the cooler. The vial says "best before" May 2018, but I hope I'm up and running much sooner. Regardless, very excited and I'll maintain slants to keep it all going strong.

Speaking of which, in the absence of a hemacytometer, my plan is to propagate by slant - 10 ml 1020 - 100 ml 1020 - 1000 ml 1040; with all of these on stir plate. Then on to 10L, at 1040. Cool, decant, pitch into batch, which puts me in a 3.5-4.5X step. I'll have to figure it out from there because I don't brew often enough to harvest and repitch. Shame, because I'd prefer to work with yeast that have been through a few whole batch fermentations over propagating each time from slants or plates.

You might be interested in this method for harvesting healthy clean yeast.
The beauty of this method is that you should be capturing the healthy yeast that you want minus all the break material that you get in slurry and can check for contamination down the line.
It is worth having a read around IPA's posts on that forum as there is more discussion on the method on some other threads. Looking forward to seeing how the beer turns out [emoji4]

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Scanned it, great thread, thanks, f00b4r. Will look forward to sitting down with it later in the day.

 

[bierhaus15]

Just stumbled across this thread, cool stuff. That said, last year I got interested in Yorkshire fermentation methods and after some tinkering ended up using a small peristaltic pump to recirculate wort from the bottom of a bucket through the yeast head, during the early portion of fermentation. I first tried this with WLP037 but did not have any luck, as the yeast did not form a thick enough krausen. It worked well with WY1469. I ended up doing 2 beers with this process and the results were nice, although I can't say if it did things any better than a sanitized spoon and occasional stirring. I used plastic buckets and covered the top with cheesecloth.

The resulting beers attenuated more than expected (1.045-1.008) and had an improved mouthfeel. However, diacetyl levels were a touch higher than I prefer (I am highly sensitive to it) although that toffee-ish character is appropriate for Yorkshire beers. The increase in mouthfeel is probably due to increased diacetyl production.

I would be curious to hear how the Brewlab HH strain does for you. I have some banked, although it was in my early days of slanting and it never seemed that healthy. I've since accumulated a decent collection of UK strains, if people are interested in trading slants.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Just stumbled across this thread, cool stuff. That said, last year I got interested in Yorkshire fermentation methods and after some tinkering ended up using a small peristaltic pump to recirculate wort from the bottom of a bucket through the yeast head, during the early portion of fermentation. I first tried this with WLP037 but did not have any luck, as the yeast did not form a thick enough krausen. It worked well with WY1469. I ended up doing 2 beers with this process and the results were nice, although I can't say if it did things any better than a sanitized spoon and occasional stirring. I used plastic buckets and covered the top with cheesecloth.

The resulting beers attenuated more than expected (1.045-1.008) and had an improved mouthfeel. However, diacetyl levels were a touch higher than I prefer (I am highly sensitive to it) although that toffee-ish character is appropriate for Yorkshire beers. The increase in mouthfeel is probably due to increased diacetyl production.

I would be curious to hear how the Brewlab HH strain does for you. I have some banked, although it was in my early days of slanting and it never seemed that healthy. I've since accumulated a decent collection of UK strains, if people are interested in trading slants.

Wow, bierhaus, if I could give 50 "likes" for a post, you'd take it! Thanks for jumping in and sharing your experiences. Hadn't even thought of a peristaltic pump, brilliant! To be honest I'm still trying to find both a viable temp control option in a "clean room" atmosphere, and have not come up far. One part is resolved by simply using my MLT, cleaned and sanitized, and the existing chugger on my brewing frame. 20 gallons, 1:1 (close to it, anyway) aspect ratio, ss, drains and pump, etc. But it's all still attached to my frame.

As I write this though you've spurred me to think again on this - esp. with your peristaltic pump. I want to ferment in a chamber outside, so this could work. Funny thing - was walking through some store the other day and came across a small fan for propane, I believe, a flame spreader, maybe? Small, but my mind went hmmmm. I've thought to build a fan spreader, just like we all know in this spread. I'll let you know if I can get it going, lol. Thanks, bierhaaus.

If it isn't this HH I was going to use the WLP 037, so that's great info., though I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. That's Timothy Taylor, ostensibly, IIRC? And that's good to know about WY 1469 because it was basically a tossup for me between the 37 and the 1469.

Your fermentation profiles that you got and the diacetyl are all really interesting, though again I'm sorry as it sounds that this was not a desired result. I'm sensitive to diacetyl as well though it's sort of contextual. I hate it in a "clean" ale yeast, and don't mind it in very moderate amounts in some beers (a lot of those are northern), so we'll see.

Brewlab gives a long period of viability (might even be usable vitality, not sure to me) of 6 months. That would put me to March I think, on these slants, have to look at the date again. But that makes me pretty nervous so I plan to reslant every 3 months, and we'll see. Such a great service and reasonably priced, that if it looks bad, I'll buy another couple nearer my brewhouse completion.

Would love to exchange slants with anyone, when I have anything to offer. Right now I have nothing, save the HH. But great idea.

Many thanks again and nice to meet you here. Look forward to reading more of you.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

If it isn't this HH I was going to use the WLP 037, so that's great info., though I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. That's Timothy Taylor, ostensibly, IIRC? And that's good to know about WY 1469 because it was basically a tossup for me between the 37 and the 1469.

Other way round, 1469 is meant to be Timmy's, WLP037 is supposedly Sam Smith's.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Thanks, Northern.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Memory jogged: this q 3h/6 min. rousing process Black Sheep does, during primary; does anyone know how long they keep this going? I believe in the interview he indicates "during fermentation cycle," which probably means the first 3 days at fermentation temps and not the slow cool down to 50 F over the next 3 days. Still, even 36 hours seems odd - I can't imagine they rouse/aerate the entire 36 hours, for obvious reasons. Anyone know the particulars on this?

 

[madscientist451]

This may get labeled as heresy, but my view is that the pumpover/rousing of the yeast it to get the beer to ferment faster so they could make more beer with the existing equipment that was available.
This assertion is supported by the fact that Black Sheep Riggwelter was cloned by the CYBI crew using standard methods, no rousing, no pumpover, no square fermenters.
I recently made a batch of the Riggwelter CYBI clone using 1469 and I DID rouse the yeast by agitating the carboy every now and then, because I noticed the fermentation seemed to be slowing down. But I have a job and other responsibilities, sometimes am not home for days at a time and didn't do it on any set schedule. A simple experiment could be run by splitting a standard 5 gallon batch into two, 3 gallon carboys; let one sit there like normal, and agitate the other on some sort of a schedule. Obviously the agitated carboy is going to finish faster, but when they are both done will a blind taste test reveal any difference?
But the traditional method of the pumpover exposes the fermenting beer to air, not the C02 rich environment of the inside of a carboy. So the experiment could be enhanced by doing a "pour-over". Simply dump the carboy of fermenting beer into another carboy on a regular schedule. I was actually planning on doing this, but its cider/wine season and I'm low on carboys at the moment.
I'm planning on re-pitching the 1469 into a re-brew of the Riggwelter or perhaps a T.T Landlord clone, and hope to try the pour over method if I can find the time.

 

[bierhaus15]

This may get labeled as heresy, but my view is that the pumpover/rousing of the yeast it to get the beer to ferment faster so they could make more beer with the existing equipment that was available.

While I don't disagree for the modern usage, I was taught that the system was originally devised as a means to achieve clarification of the beer while it was in the fermenter and to ensure complete fermentation when using dodgy ingredients. Victorian brewers put an immense amount of effort into 'cleansing' their fermenting beer of excess yeast and trub and the various fermentation systems (union, square, and dropping) achieve just that; while helping add 02 to the beer during the aerobic yeast phase. On the square system, the upper deck serves to physically separate the beer from the yeast, and subsequently allows for faster clarification of the beer. Most breweries did not use secondary settling tanks or have the ability to cool the beer, so the beer went straight from the fermenter to the cask and needed to be clear. And considering that these breweries used a mix culture of yeasts (and often containing bacteria), removal of yeast from beer would help prevent spoilage.

That said, the old rule of thumb for rousing was to start pumping 18hrs after the start of fermentation and recirculate for 10 minutes, every 4 hours. That would happen during high krausen, or within ~3 days. Adding 02 after the aerobic phase increases diacetyl production. I am sure some of the 'Yorkshire' flavor is because of this process. My issue with the CYBI clones, is that they are essentially cloning old bottled beer, which is often pasteurized and showcases much more oxidation character than fresh draft product. Having drank my share of northern cask beer, I think the bottle comparisons are a far stretch.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

That said, the old rule of thumb for rousing was to start pumping 18hrs after the start of fermentation and recirculate for 10 minutes, every 4 hours. That would happen during high krausen, or within ~3 days. Adding 02 after the aerobic phase increases diacetyl production. I am sure some of the 'Yorkshire' flavor is because of this process.

Right here, yes. I can't see how continuing the rousing after the growth phase wouldn't result in anything but an oxidized beer, and all its flaws. I also wonder whether the Black Sheep process simply extends the growth phase and retards or slows the anaerobic fermentation phase. I actually have no idea, but it's interesting.

My plan was to immediately do a 6 min rousing on transfer from the BK; to introduce air, though likely not enough. Then follow every 3 hours, per the indicated Black Sheep regimen. And here's where I get stuck. I can't imagine they continue like this over their "first phase," their main ferment before slowly cooling down to 10C and holding there for a couple days. So I don't know when to stop the rousing cycles and allow the batch to ferment out (until the cool down begins).

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Victorian brewers put an immense amount of effort into 'cleansing' their fermenting beer of excess yeast and trub and the various fermentation systems (union, square, and dropping) achieve just that; while helping add 02 to the beer during the aerobic yeast phase.

That sould read "Victorian brewers in Burton and places with similar yeast" - the Burton brewers were brewing for export, so wanted high attenuation for stability purposes, so had to put up with poor-dropping yeast. Fuller's don't use such systems because they have a yeast that drops like a rock. But AIUI their yeast benefits from a rouse after 24-36h precisely to get some oxygen into the yeast cake, to ensure happy yeast and full attenuation.

I must admit without knowing the exact schedule, I would rouse until 5-10 points above FG - let the beer/yeast tell you when to stop rather than being overly formulaic with times.

 

[bierhaus15]

That sould read "Victorian brewers in Burton and places with similar yeast" - the Burton brewers were brewing for export, so wanted high attenuation for stability purposes, so had to put up with poor-dropping yeast. Fuller's don't use such systems because they have a yeast that drops like a rock. But AIUI their yeast benefits from a rouse after 24-36h precisely to get some oxygen into the yeast cake, to ensure happy yeast and full attenuation.

Fullers used the dropping system until somewhat recently. I toured the brewery last winter and saw the old settling squares still in the brewery. Very cool place. What is also interesting is that their yeast was once a strong top cropper but has largely lost the ability once they went to CCV fermentors. Like Youngs, both were top cropped via skimming/parachutes and it is has only been somewhat recently that their yeasts behave so differently, ie. are highly flocculative due to successive bottom cropping.

Regardless, I'm going to give the my peristaltic pump method one more go; split a 10 gallon batch into 2 fermenters and one will get roused via the pump and the other will ferment as-is. Figure I'll use 1469 again for ease. I'll see if I can find a bit more details about rousing procedures.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Thanks Northern, I can work with that. Seemed weird to think they did this for 3 days, come hell or high water, but I didn't think to go by gravity which or course, makes sense. Thanks again.

 

[madscientist451]

I was taught that the system was originally devised as a means to achieve clarification of the beer while it was in the fermenter and to ensure complete fermentation when using dodgy ingredients.

My issue with the CYBI clones, is that they are essentially cloning old bottled beer, which is often pasteurized and showcases much more oxidation character than fresh draft product.

I considered the fact that the CYBI clone was compared to a bottled version, not cask or draft,
however the tasting panel was made up of experienced brewers/tasters so I'm thinking they took that difference into account. I have no way of knowing that, its total conjecture.
My limited research leads me to agree with bierhaus15, the goal for the last 100+ years was to produce clear beer. However, I don't see how the pump over process clears the beer, if anything it stirs it up. What the pumping over DOES accomplish is a faster fermentation. I believe the brewer interviewed for the CYBI episode said it was done in 3-4 days?
Has anyone ever seen a beer clearing while fermentaion is active? I haven't, but then again, I never really thought about it before. Once fermentation is finished, beer does settle, gets clear and can be drawn off.
And faster fermentation means faster turn around, more beer and more profits. I'm still thinking that the pump over process has more to do with profits than than it does to clear beer or flavor. The fact the flavor was acceptable or even sought after was a bonus for keeping the process going, but not the main reason.
We can't go back and ask the original owners of the breweries why they did certain things, and there are many things we can only guess about.
So back to my original question, if two beers were made, one left alone to ferment, one pumped or poured over, when they are both finished, will anyone be able to notice a difference? (I think yes) And which one will be preferred? Will a closed agitation produce a better beer?

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Having just listened to the CYBI Riggwelter interview, it's worth noting that whilst the main fermentation is 3 days, they're then conditioning for a couple of weeks - and they're relying on existing sugar for carbonation, in cask at least, so they're obviously a bit above FG after the 3 days, it's not fermented out by that stage.

I'm not sure I completely buy the faster turn-round thing given you're talking about shaving the odd day off a total of a couple of weeks of fermentation/conditioning - it's significant extra complexity which would likely cost more than an extra tank or two. If you want throughput, you go for a tower. Certainly in the UK squares are regarded as a throw-back that are only retained by brewers that deliberately seek out that "Yorkshire" taste.

As to what they're cloning - I've also listened to their Bombardier interview, where towards the end they talk a bit about whether the difference in the clone is down to staleness of the target, and they think probably not (ie it's a "clone failure") but they're not sure. I sense that they've had some cask beer but in general not the cask version of the beers they're cloning - and they explicitly try to match the US bottled versions rather than the original cask versions, which can be significantly different. They recognise that there is a difference - but try to clone the bottled version anyway.

I do get the impression that the average US homebrewer - present company obviously excepted - thinks that British beers are stronger than they really are, with a plethora of ESBs, and a flavour of muted hops, a whiff of cardboard, and a strong shot of priming sugar from underconditioning. Going to London tourist pubs will only reinforce that impression...

 

[madscientist451]

I'm not sure I completely buy the faster turn-round thing given you're talking about shaving the odd day off a total of a couple of weeks of fermentation/conditioning - it's significant extra complexity which would likely cost more than a extra tank or two. If you want throughput, you go for a tower.

A tower is a big conical tank? Never heard it called that before, or are you referring to something else?
I wasn't clear in my post, but I was talking about the historical reasons for using the pump-over process with the WY 1469 yeast. They didn't have big conical tanks back then.
And if they did, they would still want to agitate the wort somehow.
My observations of the 1469 yeast is that it slows down if you don't agitate it. It will finish eventually but takes much longer. I'm thinking the pump over shaves maybe a week or more off the process. I can't remember how long they fermented the CYBI clone version.
10 days? 2 weeks? Something like that.
Someday I'll run a split batch and find out for certain how long it takes and if there is a difference.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Tower fermenters allow continuous fermentation, with CO2 rousing to achieve huge yeast densities that ferment wort in 3-4 hours. They've rather fallen out of favour here, they're associated with the dark days of the mid-20th century where process efficiency was prized above taste and they're a bit fussy about yeast, which is one reason Whitbread B became so popular.

1469 is a notoriously slow yeast, remember it's not the one that Sheep use. It will be interesting to see how G gets on with the Hardy & Hanson yeast. Interestingly the Timmy's corporate video makes no mention of rousing (doesn't mean they don't do it, but Sheep go on about it a lot), and they look like basic open fermenters. Instead they emphasise how they prefer to take the slow option if it improves the beer. Also interesting that their yeast only dates back to the 1960s, I wonder if they were another brewery that used to use the British Pure Yeast Company which closed down in 1957.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Interesting discussion guys, I'm enjoying following it. As far as I know, Black Sheep's rousing regime - and the reason for all such systems - is simply to reintroduce wort with floc'ed out yeast. This is peculiar to their yeast, and others like it, that floc so readily. I think it's also important to note that they're not just rousing, but rousing with floc'ed yeast splayed out across a false floor - so I think anyway, this basically forces yeast and wort to hang together some measure more than in the case where they simply pump wort back up and over, in an open vessel without the true Yorkshire Square system, with a false floor, organ pipes, etc.

I definitely believe it has nothing to do with economy, as they take such pride in saying it's this kind of care that lends their beer a distinctive character. So they've told Michael Jackson and others, anyway.

And Northern, agree, on the conditioning. After their slow cool of a few days, a rest in the open a further couple of days, the conditioning at cool temp, and then off to the cask. So that is evidence there's quite a bit going on all the way through. I recall how much I rued I didn't have in place such a closeness with my beer, my yeast, that I could say, "plenty of sugar, plenty of yeast" to send it to cask without any added yeast or priming. That's tight, to me. Though I note he did mention a yeast count so it seems they do make sure there's enough going in?

Something I just picked up somewhere - because to hear him say they slow cool to 10C as a kind of "diacetyl rest - is that they like to do a slow cool down and long cool conditioning because they fear too much time at primary fermentation temps will essentially scrub too much away, the estery and other notes they cherish in their ales. It's unique, or seems to to me, and I'd like to ponder on this a bit.

For my own efforts, unfortunately this is going to be a long build for me, one that I have to do in stages. Medically and financially (funny how those two can be related) there are reality checks to my surging ambitions. Once again, someone here (sorry, whoever it is, can't recall) built this:

And I intend to do it as well. I intend to rouse, with a fishtail if I can fashion it, but otherwise with something that can give as violent a spraying as I can get. For the time being, I am thinking I'll ferment in my Spike MLT, actually, which is set up pretty well.

The real issue for me is finding a way to make our garage work - some kind of fermentation chamber - or having to grab my son to help haul the heavy vessel with 12ish gallons in it, downstairs to the basement where there's a decent chamber already in place, one I used for cheesemaking. But if we have to haul inside, that means a transfer from the BK to something like a keg, then a transfer from the keg to the open fermentor, and I'm not very sanguine about the double transfer. I'd vastly prefer just to roll the fermentor into a garage chamber, but the garage is really far from being ready for anything like that.

So, basically saying, if anyone has any thoughts that spring up on how to handle this open fermentation when brewing outside, wide open to them. Thanks again!

 

[bierhaus15]

I'm thinking the pump over shaves maybe a week or more off the process. I can't remember how long they fermented the CYBI clone version. 10 days? 2 weeks? Something like that

There are still a few Alan Pugsley Ringwood breweries using fishtails and continuously pitching their Yorkshire Ringwood yeast. I don't know any that use squares, but I've visited enough of them to know their shtick was they could make beer in 5 days or less. The beers were pretty terrible (diacetyl bombs) but they produced them quickly, with no finings or filtration. I'd imagine the fishtail helps speed up fermentation; keeps yeast is aerobic growth phase for longer, resulting in more yeast growth = faster fermentation and increased diacetyl production.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

That's interesting bierhaus and I had that thought too, that they were keeping the aerobic phase sustained - though I'd thought it's because this traditional practice made it difficult to get O2 to the yeast at all so they have to do this, not that it was an economic move to speed up production. I usually think in a kind of evolutionary term - that if a brewery keeps to a practice that's been done a long time, through many economic paradigm shifts, I'll look to other reasons than sheer balance sheet considerations. After all, if keeping the beer in the aerobic growth phase was the consideration, all they'd have to do is goose it with pure O2 in a sustained flow.

I loathe the Ringwood strain and have never produced anything I'd call palatable with it (or what is presented as Ringwood when I buy it). I don't think you can apply the fermentation dynamics of that strain to another's, e.g. Black Sheep's, practice. I find BS's beers very clean, actually. Going on memory but I don't recall any issue with excessive diacetyl, and I'm pretty sensitive to it.

 

[cire]

Has anyone ever seen a beer clearing while fermentaion is active? I haven't, but then again, I never really thought about it before. Once fermentation is finished, beer does settle, gets clear and can be drawn off.

All those who've worked with a proper Yorkshire yeast.

My first was in the fermenter for 7 days at 70F and after skimming was cooled and a day later found to have attenuated by only 30%. The beer was perfectly clear, so was roused and with 3 hours the krausen had fully returned and after another 3 hours the beer was once again clear and it took nearly another week to suitably attenuate.

I believe that if such a yeast is roused regularly and top cropped it will continue to work in this way. If however it repropogated from slurry, in time it will not and will complete fermentation in the way you describe.

My Hardy and Hanson yeast was obtained from Brewlab and I think it is the original strain, not from Black Sheep. When first pitched it was roused and while that did speed fermentation, it didn't perform like the previous strain. However, subsequent repitching from top cropping with rousing it is now starting to operate in a very similar way to the first.

Black Sheep is a relatively new brewery, it's beers are new based on traditional ideas. The brewery is cobbled together, the hot side was taken from Hartley's of Ulverston when it was closed by Robinson's, the fermenters from Thorne when it was closed by Vaux. My own thoughts are that there is a mix of traditional and modern there to be very cautious before assuming Riggwelter is completely traditional and might be replicated using those methods. The brewery is worth visiting if only to sink a pint of each of their beers. If you do, take notes at the time, don't rely on memory.

Pitch a Yorkshire yeast and rouse it regularly until it is at the desired gravity. Skim the yeast leaving a half inch covering and cool. Cask and leave alonewhen it will continue to carbonate slowly for an extended period. Roll the cask around every day and it carbonates very quickly. Leave it still for just a day or two and the beer will clear and be ready to serve.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Thank you cire. As always I appreciate the closing of the gap between both my distance and my romanticism from your reality of being there, and bearing your history and practical wisdom. I want to chew on these thoughts.

The HH I acquired - this is Hardy and Hanson, the same as yours, or Black Sheep (I'm not clear if you're saying Black Sheep's originated with HH and has morphed due to a different practice, or is actually an entirely different provenance - sorry, I'm not well versed in this)?

You indicate, rouse until desired FG, in a word. How would you relate this to the BS practice, the fishtail rousing every 3 hours, through, let's use Northern's notion, 5-10 pts. above FG? Do you mean, using Black Sheep's technique, to rouse all the way through to FG?

Or perhaps you mean your example, from your first paragraph. Basically, if I understand you, just bring the sleeping yeast back into work, monitoring attenuation, until you reach FG. There's no routine: "every 3 hours, 6 min. recirc...through to FG + 5-10 pts."

Your last paragraph is straightforward; all your post is workable, just wanting to clear up a couple of points. Having concluded I'll be needing to weld the frame myself, there will be some time here, particularly to get or build a suitable space where I feel comfortable running open ferments. This information is fantastic, though, and I'm very eager to incorporate the work in trying it all out.