Discussion in 'Yeast' started by Korev, 7/3/17.
Well, the 1904 Tooth's Imperial Ale would seem a good candidate for those tallies.
I’m 3/4 of the way through Bronzed Brews and loving it!! Excited you’ve done an extension/amplification! Coopers history is exciting I had wondered why they got no mention in BB. Buying 6 O’Clock now! Look forward to a potential wlp059 feat next year at ANHC. Great work
Peter, 1913 Tooheys Standard Pale Ale recipe page 276 specifies dry hopping. Then on p 278 "Worcester hops for dry hopping"
Was this specific to Pale Ales as opposed to XXXs etc?
I'm old enough to remember some of the last XXXs over the bar back in the 70s - for example Tooths and they were fairly bitter but didn't display much hop aroma. I was fresh out of pom land, CAMRA member and home brewer even back then so I approached all these new Aussie beers with what would nowadays be a BJCP type mindset
Oh also for those ordering from LuLu, use coupon codes LULU20 for 20% discount and then SHIPITNOW2017 for free shipping. Mine was USD$15 delivered, yay!
For those it may concern, I knocked up another Toohey's Old recipe using the Brewman's Brewbuilder recipe with WLP059.
I added the [liberal quantity of] dextrose at about day 4 and allowed it to ferment out over 2 weeks at 18°C, bumping it up later. It finished at 1.004: perfect. It's been in the keg about a fortnight and I got stuck into some on the weekend. As chance would have it, I very much enjoyed a schooner of Old after a round of 18 in Bermagui last week so my taste of it is pretty fresh.
Much lighter in colour, like an amber but browner. Remarkably clear, no finings in sight. It doesn't have the same degree of chocolate/roast that the real example does and probably tastes 'younger', but apart from that is a very similar beer. Even though they use a proprietary malt perhaps a bit more roast wouldn't go astray, else I'd wager Old has brewer's caramel added. The main difference however is the quaffability of my brew - it was incredibly easy to line up one after the other and about halfway through the first schooner my tastebuds hit neutrality and I don't think I wouldn't have been able to pick it apart from the real deal. The yeast works very well in this beer and certainly matches the style. One thing the mega brewers are able to do with their beer is make them so that after you'd had 8 Draughts/VBs/News (we've all been there) you're still heading back to the bar for another. It's a challenge on the home brewing scale to make beers that allow this - especially for non-HB drinkers - but I've managed to nail it on this brew. I reckon the yeast has done a lot to allow this as it did a great job chewing away 750g of dextrose with effectively no aftertaste. I'd use it again in this beer for sure, and of course every time I brew a Toohey's Old I wonder why I don't brew it more often.
I've still got another sample in the fridge, I'm thinking I might do the Bronzed Brews version of Old and see how it compares.
I'd bet that Toohey's Ale yeast is a descendant or great great nephew or something of the old Melbourne No. 1.
Hey @TheWiggman (or others), have you done a 059 beer where you added the dex/sugarz in during the boil?
I'm curious as to whether there is any detectable difference between the 2 options of when to add sugar.
I suspect, for Belgian yeasts at least, that adding during the boil can enhance the subtle flavour contributions from the yeast with relation to sugar - i think it might give a little more caramel/bubblegum(?) for my tastebuds, but might make the yeast struggle to attenuate fully. Whereas adding towards the end of the fermentation allows the yeast to attenuate more easily, but reduces those flavour contributions from the yeast acting on the sugars.
So i'm curious as to whether there might be a similar thing happening with the remarkable 059?
(... or with the Belgians, for that matter - maybe it's all just my imagination!)
God dammit, oh well I only got the free shipping.
Any word on what 059 does to hoppy beers, compared to, say, US-05/M44/M42/1272/051?
I need to do a hoppy IPA/DIPA for Xmas, and wondering if this would be good for it; or if I should shelve the 059 and get a more appropriate yeast going.
Hoist on my own petard - well sort of - the dangers of making sweeping statements!!
I went back over my notes (from 2013) for the Tooheys 1913 PA and I have extrapolated backwards from a July 1925 Brewing Materials book - which is where they accounted for DH. By that time the Bottling Bitter had been re-named Flag Ale and used an ale yeast from Ordinary, not a lager yeast. Flag Ale was not brewed very often and stopped production in April 1926.
The record had a notation that 180 lb dry hops were used in a 181.5 hhd - finished beer batch. This is where my 1913 assumption about DH in the Tooheys recipe has come from for this beer. This may or may not be correct. I have not found any DH references for PA in the Tooths records that I have seen - and I have seen quite a few!
The other beers in the pre WW2 period that were DH - were Stag Stout, Flag Stout and Oatmeal Stout. No DH used in Ordinary (Old/ XXX).
The ABJ "cribbed" a lot of content from the UK, the reference on p278 comes from The "English Brewers Journal" and was UK practice.
Well I have just kegged a 1917 Crystal Ale and during the early part of the ferment ~ 18C the fridge smelt fruity then after 2 days I ramped up to 23C to ferment out - sampling from the fermenter it has come out hoppy and very dry ( probs the 22% sugar)
I have kegged mine a few days ago as well, very easy drinking ale.
Tooths 1917 Crystal Ale.
'A light refreshing summer ale'
I have to agree with this.
Did yours use Chevallier Malt?
No, T.F. floor malted pale was the best I could do this time around. Chevallier is not that common around my parts.
It took me a while to convince The Brew Shop to get the Chevallier from Crisp in the UK. Now I am working through my favourite old recipes to see if it and 059 makes a difference from my previous tasting notes. Just brewed a 1931 WH Pale Ale today again with 059
i brewed a slightly altered version of the 1917 Tooth's xxx due to not being able to get all of the ingredients as per the book.
7 days into the pressure ferment and it's still going at 1.012. The flavour is awesome. Tastes like "Beer" and reminds me of that flavour you get off the froth off dad's beer as a kid.
I'm not sure of the mechanisms of simple sugars in the boil, the analogy which I'm sure you've heard is that the simple stuff will be consumed early and condition the yeast to not fully ferment other more complex sugar chains. Anecdotally I've had better results adding sugar late in the ferment than in the boil. In the case of my Toohey's Old I changed 3 things - JW to BB, sugar in the boil then mid-ferment, and the yeast. So I can't really give a fair comparison.
I add sugar to the boil and 059 seems happy 24 hours in
^^ yeah, that's essentially what I was referring to. I understand the theory of it being better for the yeasties to hit full attenuation, however 2 things with this:
1) it occurs to me the majority of flavour contribution from yeast occurs in the first 1/3rd of the fermentation, so anything flavour wise that simple sugars affect (aside from their innate caramel flavours, etc) would be missed;
2) this particular yeast seems totally fine ho-ing thru a fat bagful of sugarz and still getting thru the maltose later on. At least that seems to be the case. So I'm wondering if it makes any improvement adding the sugarz later in the fermentation, or if it works just as well if the sugarz at there at the start.
Separate names with a comma.