isomerization
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
- Messages
- 1,422
- Reaction score
- 889
I went and re-read this entire thread. All 65 (on my forum settings) pages. And I still think everyone is trying to make this out to be more complicated than it might be, while basing that on a lot of "facts" that are just theories that got repeated so much they because "facts". Good example of this, those who pass off as fact that some cans had fewer strains of yeast when it was said that early on the samples were not treated correctly as they weren't expecting multiple strains.
Let's sum up things that we know for sure about the tree house yeast.
1. There are multiple strains showing up in their cans.
That's it. I was excited about this thread early on because of the investigative work into the strains. But a few were deemed to be "it's 100% this one" based on some early tests that could be wrong. In the first few pages it was pointed out how some yeasts can look similar at the genetic level, but be vastly different. It's possible that one or more of the identified yeasts is wrong, but the same trio has been carried on for over a year.
I think it needs to be brought up that ever since Monson TH has been slammed and always produced less beer than there was a demand for. It doesn't make sense to me that they'd waste fermenter space doing different fermentation to mix back together, it would only compound production limitations. Maybe now with the larger brewery it could be an option, but it doesn't seem like the simplest option.
I think TH has had a lot of growing pains and struggled to scale up. If you look at the release rate of their curiosity series, it was a very occasional thing for the most part, right until the charlton brewery was coming online. Suddenly you had 1-2 curiosity beers a week for a while. The assumption was all of those were test batches on the new system while they tried to figure it out, many of them core offering that didn't come out right. I think they're still struggling with it as evidenced by the inconsistency. I can honestly say that the few times I've gone in the last year I have not been blown away like I used to be. I went specifically for TWSS since I'd never had it, and it didn't think it was even as good as Left hand's milk stout. The IPAs are good, but not as good as I remember. When I went a couple weeks ago I got Alter Ego and Aaalterrr Ego among others, and I swear the only difference is that regular AE was just the slightest bit less bitter. That's it.
I doubt TH will ever willingly give away their process or yeast. The mystery all helps to build the hype, like he's doing something that no one else can. I'm sure they know this and it would be foolish to shift from that. Vague answers and misdirection I'm sure are there on purpose.
I think the best things coming out of this thread aren't a definite statement of what TH is doing, but improvements that can be made at the home-brew level. Mixing yeast can add an amazing level of complexity to beer, but it comes with challenges and complications. There seems to be some good combinations in here to play with. Same for water chemistry and general fermenting and transferring practices.
I don’t think anyone here is claiming to know 100% what strains they are using (and how). I’d be willing to wager that the identifications are correct, but the data is certainly messy, so I won’t fault you for disagreeing.
I’m definitely onboard with your last paragraph and (imo) that’s why this thread has continued on for over a year at high volume. The process discussions are the real value here.