Recent Heady cans

About six weeks ago a friend brought back (to FL) a fresh can of Heady. It did pour somewhat clearer than previous cans. Taste was also muted . . . good, but not that killer greatness I've had in the past.

I harvested the yeast, it started . . . and promptly smelled like a bottle of vinegar. On advice of the Yeast Whisperer (@jbakajust1 ) I dumped it. FTR, I regularly harvest and have had success with HT in the past.

 

For your consideration:

“John Kimmich explains why those influenced by the Vermont beers are even more muddled and milky:

“I find it interesting that so many brewers and yeast companies are now using our yeast. I have tried several beers from different sources, and find that, for the most part, they miss the mark. I can attribute this to one thing–they are all getting their yeast from our cans of beer one way or another. Some have cropped the tiny amount of yeast on the bottom of the can, or they bought it from one of the tiny online yeast banks. The problem with this is that they are all using a culture taken from the weakest yeast cells in the fermentation process. Although we do not filter our beer, we do a pretty good job of keeping yeast out of the can. Therefore, the only yeast left in the can are the weaklings that were never able to fully drop out of suspension. That is their starting point, so they are at a huge disadvantage from the start. I often hear about the fact that these beers being brewed around the country are very turbid and almost milky in appearance; again, not surprising.”

Cheers!

@telejunkie

 

HT changes from batch to batch, imo.

 

I couldn't say....unfortunately heady is one of my bucket list beers, have not had the pleasure of trying it yet.

 

Very interesting, thanks for sharing! I think at one time people were attempting to use Conan to replicate NEIPAs, but I think it has fallen out of favor, for the most part.

 

There are a number of commercially produced yeast strains that are purported to be the same strain as used at The Alchemist. Below is a list of the strains that I am aware of:

• The Yeast Bat (Vermont Ale)
• GigaYeast GY054 (Vermont Ale)
• East Coast Yeast ECY29 (North East Ale)
• Omega Yeast Labs (DIPA Ale)
• Imperial Organic Yeast A04 (Barbarian)

As to whether any of the above yeast strains replicate the performance of The Alchemist yeast strain?

Cheers!

 

If the clone yeasts that are on the market are supposedly exact matches whether 'approved' by The Alchemist or not, this certainly sounds like their way of saying that their strain is proprietary, and there will be no more 'clones'.

 

Yeah I have used They Yeast Bay, GigaYeast and Omega Yeast Conan variant, all of which I would say are similar in character. I have also harvested yeast from Heady Topper cans, and I do believe I got more of a typical "peachy" Conan character from the yeast harvested from the cans than from the commercial strains. As far as using Conan to create NEIPAs, as Kimmich contends, I believe it used to be a contender, but has fallen out of favor for 1318, at least among homebrewers. I can't speak for commercial brewers.

 

According to John Kimmich the yeast cells that remain in the finished beer are 'weakling' cells. If the commercial yeast vendors are propagating from 'weakling' cells than they are sub-optimum as compared to the yeast utilized at The Alchemist brewery.

Cheers!

 

Yeah, lots of folks on BA post about using 1318.

I used the Whitbread strain (I chose S-04) to brew my 'NE' style IPA and that strain worked well for me.

Cheers!

 

March 2016 was the published date.

http://www.newschoolbeer.com/2016/03/new-englandvermont-style-ipa-is-not-a-thing.html

Cheers!

 

I've heard a lot of dismissiveness from J Kimmich about people trying to brew something similiar to heady. In the yeast comment he seems to equate 'weakling' with mutant. The yeast from the can has been stressed, but I find it hard to believe the commercial yeast vendors are simply propagating a mutant strain that is somehow 'weaker' than the Alchemist strain. They likely have multiple microbiologists staffed and are qualified to assess yeast health. 'Weakling' isn't really a yeast term so I'm not sure what it means.

J Kimmich made a somewhat similar statement about heady clones and water treatment. I wish he was a little more open to homebrewers who don't have access to heady.

 

I have read a number of posts from homebrewers who use the so called Conan strains that they achieved poor attenuation. As to whether this is due to 'weakling' or "mutant" I am uncertain.

Cheers!

@telejunkie

 

FWIW I too would prefer this to be the case. Some commercial brewers are very open to providing clone information to homebrewers (e.g., Vinnie Cilurzo) and others are less forthcoming. At the end of the day commercial brewing is a business and each brewery owner will make decisions accordingly

Cheers!

 

That is my limited experience also. In 2014 I traveled to Waterbury and picked up some HT. The pour was cloudy and the dregs were very prominent in the flask. Fast forward to late 2016; my HT lacked the cloudiness and when I poured into a flask there was no visible yeast. But it did start (although it was tainted and dumped). Also, the flavor was definitely muted from earlier.

When harvesting there is always the risk of not getting a representative cross section of the yeast sample. My guess (emphasis on guess) is the non-flocc'ers would be the strongest . . . with the weaklings settling to the bottom first. But it is still a non-representative sample. Just used some Giga Vermont Ale yeast and while decent, it is lacking compared to the old Heady.

Regarding attenuation: I made three brews from re-started HT (2014 version) dregs. Attenuation was 90% which told me more was going on than just HT yeast. Yet the peach/apricot flavor was very pronounced. After the third cycle the distinctive flavor had faded. I repeated with dregs from another can with identical results . . . aa of 90%, kaput after three cycles. I just brewed twice with Giga and attenuation was 75/76% . . . very different stone fruit flavor/aroma which I call decent but far below the old-timey flavor.

Must be tough trying to stay a step ahead of the wannabes . . . Run Alchemist Run:

 

Check out this thread:

http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=390082

Veganbrewer contacted John and got a lot of information. Telejunkie's clone recipe in BYO was developed with some cooperation from John. I suspect the main 'secret' is in the precise manner of Alchemist's hop additions.

 

As stated before, HT varies from batch to batch. Personally, I have had over 10 separate batches and they vary in clarity and flavor/hoppyness. Some had a tremendous amount of hop flakes where others had very. Little.
IMO it as a great beer, but now it is fair riding on hype. Compared to many other brews through out the USA there are others I'd prefer to clone.

I also am not a fan of big headed Brewers