blow off

[denny]

@Pope_of_Dope

There are kind of two meanings for open fermentation.  One (I think wjat Phil_M has in mind) is just not having a closed fermenter, so you can skim the crud off (like old time pictures you’ve probably seen) but keeping it all cultured yeast.  Another is where you’re going, also allowing wild yeast to join the party.  A coolship is not needed, it wouldn’t be the best way to inoculate the wort (you’ll never be able to be sure you’ll get usable organisms in there, or do it repeatably. And the ones that take off while it’s still warm will be nasty bacteria as likely as any kind of yeast.)

There’s lots of stuff out there on how to capure wild yeast in your yard and culture it up for brewing.  If you have fruit trees in your yard, that’s supposed to be a great hunting ground. (I was going to try it, but then had to sell the property with the orcard. :()  I’ve read articles in a couple of the magazines (for starters try to track down Stan Hieonymus’ article in the the June-July 2016 Craft Beer & Brewing) and no doubt lots of books and online resources.  If I still had the apple trees, I’d be giving it a try!

I do live on an orchard, avocados and grapefruit, but harvesting bacteria sounds a little too technical then.  Remember, I’m the guy that started this thread with the duct tape on the airlock idea. So, unless I can use the duct tape to harvest this bacteria I think I’m out.  But, what about just brewing beer as I would, ferment in an open trogh for 4 or 5 days, skimming, and then transferring?  I’m intrigued to try something new.

We’ve had 3 different guests on the podcast who capture wild yeast and bacteria.  Sounds not too difficult.

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

The idea seems to be, leave a container under a tree.  Make a starter from what falls in.  If it smells and tastes good, pitch it into wort. Not technical, just random chance what you catch.  I’d rather try a few starters I might have to dump than start right  off with a whole brew day’s work I might have to dump.

[klickitat_jim]

“harvesting bacteria sounds a little too technical then.  Remember, I’m the guy that started this thread with the duct tape on the airlock idea. So, unless I can use the duct tape to harvest this bacteria I think I’m out.”

We need 300 more members like this!

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

I bet duct tape will be involved. The harvesting device is a paint pail with a screen over top so only tiny stuff falls in.  Not bees, or deer, or whatever. Gotta stick the screen on!

And Pope, since you think this took a cool turn, I take back my apology for derailing.  This is one heck of a way to get rid of that pesky airlock, I admit.

[Pope_of_Dope]

awesome.

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

Here’s some good stuff.  There’s tons more out there.  Search “wild yeast harvesting” or similar.

DIYeast: Capturing Yeast

Ambient-Spontaneous Yeast Starters

[coolman26]

@klickitat_jim

“harvesting bacteria sounds a little too technical then.  Remember, I’m the guy that started this thread with the duct tape on the airlock idea. So, unless I can use the duct tape to harvest this bacteria I think I’m out.”

We need 300 more members like this!

Classic!!

[pmorrissette (Phil_M)]

The more I think about it I just want somebody out there to get Stingo and see if you can culture up the dregs and use a “real” Yorkshire yeast in homebrewing. I was going to do it years ago, sadly never did.  Phil_M, you say suppliers think this yeast is unsuitable for homebrew as it needs too much rousing ?!  That should be easy, no need for elaborate equipment like in a two-story square or round.  A paddle ought to do it, along with the greater surface area-to-volume on a small scale!

Basically, the strains are so oxygen dependent they won’t ferment beer to finishing without it. S. Cerevisiae used a large stainless whisk to beat oxygen back into the beer. The voracity of these yeast for oxygen also helps keep the oxygen from staling anything too quickly. Some of the yeast may need to be removed as well, you want them to keep replicating so that they do eat all the oxygen. This in turn promotes the formation of diacetyl, which is not the bogeyman the BJCP (unwittingly) made everyone believe it was.

I do think that historic British beers seem to lend themselves to home brewing.

Pope, sorry for the derail, this is normal around here. It’s not meant on purpose, but we usually learn a lot here from derails. I’ve no experience with harvesting wild yeast, so I’m of no help there. As for open fermentation, if you leave your carboys in an isolated closet, just leave the stopper out for the first 24 hours of fermentation, then rack out from underneath the krausen/barm. Any nasties that may have floated down into the carboy will be left on top of the krausen/barm if all goes well. Works even better with a top cropping strain. That’s one simple way to start, you can also just get a food grade bucket and leave the lid off. Plenty of options out there.

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

^^^^
The racking at 24 hours you describe, leaving trub below and dirty kräusen above, is what brewers in the South of England called the “dropping” method! Those yeasts at least are suited to this and a range of other methods suitable for homebrewers:  the Fullers (WY1968/WLP002) is a classic.  I had no idea about the weird habits of Yorkshire yeast.  Indeed we learn a lot from these – I’d rather not say derailments – how about excursions on a branch rail line? I’m  starting to wonder what the effects of open fermentation were in old lager breweries, if there were any positive benefits…

EDIT Note, Phil_M, that even in the dropping method, the dropping (literally, to another fermenter one storey below) was vigorous, with much splashing,  to introduce a lot of fresh O2!

[pmorrissette (Phil_M)]

^^^^
The racking at 24 hours you describe, leaving trub below and dirty kräusen above, is what brewers in the South of England called the “dropping” method! Those yeasts at least are suited to this and a range of other methods suitable for homebrewers:  the Fullers (WY1968/WLP002) is a classic.  I had no idea about the weird habits of Yorkshire yeast.  Indeed we learn a lot from these – I’d rather not say derailments – how about excursions on a branch rail line? I’m  starting to wonder what the effects of open fermentation were in old lager breweries, if there were any positive benefits…

If you like learning about yeast, search for S. Cerevisiae’s posts on here.

I’m not a big fan of 1968, ironically. 1469 is my default, surprise surprise. It’s got what I like about 1968, its top cropping unlike 1968, and a bit more fruity than 1968, which I find too clean. 1469 isn’t one of the crazy oxygen dependent strains, but I intend to play with it more before I try and track down how to get one of the other strains.

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

^^^^
The racking at 24 hours you describe, leaving trub below and dirty kräusen above, is what brewers in the South of England called the “dropping” method! Those yeasts at least are suited to this and a range of other methods suitable for homebrewers:  the Fullers (WY1968/WLP002) is a classic.  I had no idea about the weird habits of Yorkshire yeast.  Indeed we learn a lot from these – I’d rather not say derailments – how about excursions on a branch rail line? I’m  starting to wonder what the effects of open fermentation were in old lager breweries, if there were any positive benefits…

If you like learning about yeast, search for S. Cerevisiae’s posts on here.

I’m not a big fan of 1968, ironically. 1469 is my default, surprise surprise. It’s got what I like about 1968, its top cropping unlike 1968, and a bit more fruity than 1968, which I find too clean. 1469 isn’t one of the crazy oxygen dependent strains, but I intend to play with it more before I try and track down how to get one of the other strains.

(See my EDIT above) Any idea who the source of 1469 is? I wonder what method they used originally.  Top cropping suggests pontoes or some such, which still oxygenated.  The more I think about it theres not one old English setup that doesn’t oxygenate through fermentation, and I wonder how they all managed the transition to conicals.

EDIT never mind, found it. 1469 is Timothy Taylor.  So Yorkshire, but manageable I guess.

[klickitat_jim]

I just brought home two packs of 1469. Looking forward to the weirdness, lol. 1028 was too clean and took too long to drop clean

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

@klickitat_jim

I just brought home two packs of 1469. Looking forward to the weirdness, lol. 1028 was too clean and took too long to drop clean

Took too long?  You mean it DID drop out?  Thought it always took fining!

[klickitat_jim]

After about 2 weeks in the keg I finally gave up and added gel. Was clear the next evening.

If I wanted that clean of a profile, I would just use 1056 and have clear beer in a week with no gel

[BrewBama (Dwain)]

I bet duct tape will be involved. The harvesting device is a paint pail with a screen over top so only tiny stuff falls in.  Not bees, or deer, or whatever. Gotta stick the screen on!

And Pope, since you think this took a cool turn, I take back my apology for derailing.  This is one heck of a way to get rid of that pesky airlock, I admit.

“…Deer or whatever”???  LMFAO!!!

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

@BrewBama

I bet duct tape will be involved. The harvesting device is a paint pail with a screen over top so only tiny stuff falls in.  Not bees, or deer, or whatever. Gotta stick the screen on!

And Pope, since you think this took a cool turn, I take back my apology for derailing.  This is one heck of a way to get rid of that pesky airlock, I admit.

“…Deer or whatever”???  LMFAO!!!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hey, deer used to hang out in that orchard.  You can’t deny that with a paint strainer, the bucket would collect nothing that large. (Which rhetorical fallacy did I just fall into?)