Get your HBT Growlers, Shirts and Membership before the Rush!


Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > Lambic & Wild Brewing > Lacto + Pedio vs Pedio Only
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-15-2013, 06:28 PM   #11
levifunk
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 197
Liked 41 Times on 27 Posts
Likes Given: 39

Default

I think the Rodenbach GC bottle was a '94.

One thought on the lacto and pedio pitch. It seems lacto creates acidity much faster, so it could be seen beneficial to get the ph down quickly and then let the pedio take over and continue dropping it over the long haul.

__________________
funkfactorygeuzeria.com
levifunk is offline
 
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-25-2013, 06:01 PM   #12
splattsmier
Burton Brewhouse
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 11 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Conroe, Texas
Posts: 503
Liked 129 Times on 90 Posts
Likes Given: 216

Default

I have no contribution, just giving this thread a BUMP for answers

__________________
Untappd me: splattsmier

Untappd my homebrew: BurtonBrewhouse

MY CELLAR: http://www.cellarhq.com/cellar/ScottyP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy-Klubb View Post
"They can try to pry the mash paddle from my cold, dead hands."
splattsmier is offline
 
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-28-2013, 07:07 AM   #13
ellijo89
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kennewick, WA
Posts: 116
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

This doesn't really answer your question either, but is interesting. Moving toward just using Pedio and Brett in the barrels. Although It seems Lacto is still present, just not pitched anymore. Part way down they talk about it.

http://embracethefunk.com/2013/05/24...den-qa-part-2/

__________________
ellijo89 is offline
 
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-28-2013, 02:19 PM   #14
Xpertskir
Feedback Score: 6 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Morgantown, Wv
Posts: 2,086
Liked 414 Times on 268 Posts
Likes Given: 21

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philiphirz View Post
Do you think that these sources are just using more aggressive strains of lacto compared to WL and Wyeast? Is there another reason that I am missing that would make pitching lacto in conjunction with pedio a productive endeavor, especially in beers in the 15-25 IBU range?

Thanks,
Phil

No

Yes.

Lacto is for quick turn around(or long term) sours, pedio is for long term sours(with brett).

I think you are way over-thinking it. There are more ways to make sour beer than straight sacch ser beer....none of them are wrong, they are just different and will yield different results. Try some of the different ways, and see what you like. One unfortunate thing is that 2 carboys side by side with the same recipe and bugs will not turn out the same, there is a mystical nature to sour beer. This makes home brewing sour beer quite the crapshoot because we don't have the scale of production and blending ability that all the pro's do.
__________________
Xpertskir is offline
 
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-28-2013, 10:30 PM   #15
Biobrewer
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Leandro, CA
Posts: 170
Liked 22 Times on 16 Posts
Likes Given: 6

Default

I made 10 gallons of an all citra Wheat beer (12 lbs. wheat malt, 8 lbs. 2 row, 1.5 lbs caravienne) at 25 IBU and OG 1.059. Fermented with 1056, and then took 5 gallons of it and added 6 lbs of apricots, and WY Pedio and Lacto culture. I let it sit for 6 months before bottling. At bottling about 3 weeks ago, it was nice and sour, but not overly aggressive. I feel as though the sourness had more balance to it with both Pedio and Lacto than just Pedio, based off of my previous experience. However, the only other beer I add only Pedio to is a 100% Brett beer that I also add fruit to, so I suppose comparison between the two is little difficult.

The perceived balance from adding both might just be the result of a cleaner palate from initially fermenting with 1056 as opposed to Brett, followed by extended aging. One thing is for sure, you definitely don't need Brett to clean up the diacetyl produced by Pedio. The beer I made above had no Brett, and definitely did not have any perceptible diacetyl. Saccaromyces cerevisiae produce the necessary enzymes to reduce diacetyl to acetoin, and then to 2,3 butanediol. Acetoin has a threshold (150 mg/L) which is far greater than diacetyl, (0.15 mg/L), and 2,3 butanediol is more or less neutral as far as beer flavor is concerned. Therefore, this mechanism serves to reduce the diacetyl concentration and reduce the diacetyl flavor/aroma, while not contributing a new perceptible flavor aroma.

Cheers!

__________________
Biobrewer is offline
 
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-28-2013, 11:44 PM   #16
TNGabe
Feedback Score: 17 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,544
Liked 2201 Times on 1491 Posts
Likes Given: 2238

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biobrewer
I made 10 gallons of an all citra Wheat beer (12 lbs. wheat malt, 8 lbs. 2 row, 1.5 lbs caravienne) at 25 IBU and OG 1.059. Fermented with 1056, and then took 5 gallons of it and added 6 lbs of apricots, and WY Pedio and Lacto culture. I let it sit for 6 months before bottling. At bottling about 3 weeks ago, it was nice and sour, but not overly aggressive. I feel as though the sourness had more balance to it with both Pedio and Lacto than just Pedio, based off of my previous experience. However, the only other beer I add only Pedio to is a 100% Brett beer that I also add fruit to, so I suppose comparison between the two is little difficult. The perceived balance from adding both might just be the result of a cleaner palate from initially fermenting with 1056 as opposed to Brett, followed by extended aging. One thing is for sure, you definitely don't need Brett to clean up the diacetyl produced by Pedio. The beer I made above had no Brett, and definitely did not have any perceptible diacetyl. Saccaromyces cerevisiae produce the necessary enzymes to reduce diacetyl to acetoin, and then to 2,3 butanediol. Acetoin has a threshold (150 mg/L) which is far greater than diacetyl, (0.15 mg/L), and 2,3 butanediol is more or less neutral as far as beer flavor is concerned. Therefore, this mechanism serves to reduce the diacetyl concentration and reduce the diacetyl flavor/aroma, while not contributing a new perceptible flavor aroma. Cheers!
I won't claim to understand what you're saying, but why doesn't diacetyl always go away with aging when produced by sacchromyces or by a lactic acid bacteria in a sacchromyces beer?
__________________

Why spend 5 minutes reading when you can just start another thread?

TNGabe is offline
 
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-29-2013, 12:01 AM   #17
Biobrewer
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Leandro, CA
Posts: 170
Liked 22 Times on 16 Posts
Likes Given: 6

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNGabe View Post
I won't claim to understand what you're saying, but why doesn't diacetyl always go away with aging when produced by sacchromyces or by a lactic acid bacteria in a sacchromyces beer?
All Saccharomyces cerevisiae, like all humans, were not created equal. I would bet that some strains are better at cleaning up than others as a function of how much of the necessary enzymes are produced and functional. Some strains likely produce more enzyme, and others less. There may also be a whole host of other factors that play into the reduction of diacetyl. I'd have to dig further into some scientific literature for that. I'm sure it's out there somewhere. The 1056 definitely had no problem cleaning up any diacetyl that was produced. The flavor in the apricot/Pedio/Lacto citra wheat beer I made was delightfully free of any diacetyl.
__________________
Biobrewer is offline
 
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-29-2013, 12:05 AM   #18
TNGabe
Feedback Score: 17 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,544
Liked 2201 Times on 1491 Posts
Likes Given: 2238

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biobrewer View Post
All Saccharomyces cerevisiae, like all humans, were not created equal. I would bet that some strains are better at cleaning up than others as a function of how much of the necessary enzymes are produced and functional. Some strains likely produce more enzyme, and others less. There may also be a whole host of other factors that play into the reduction of diacetyl. I'd have to dig further into some scientific literature for that. I'm sure it's out there somewhere. The 1056 definitely had no problem cleaning up any diacetyl that was produced. The flavor in the apricot/Pedio/Lacto citra wheat beer I made was delightfully free of any diacetyl.
How do you know there wasn't something residing on the apricots (or you equipment) that cleaned up the diacetyl? It seems like you're rationalizing anecdotal evidence rather than proving something.
__________________

Why spend 5 minutes reading when you can just start another thread?

TNGabe is offline
 
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-29-2013, 12:14 AM   #19
Biobrewer
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Leandro, CA
Posts: 170
Liked 22 Times on 16 Posts
Likes Given: 6

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNGabe

How do you know there wasn't something residing on the apricots (or you equipment) that cleaned up the diacetyl? It seems like you're rationalizing anecdotal evidence rather than proving something.
I'm not sure I'm rationalizing anything. It's a scientific fact the Saccharomyces cerevisiae produce the necessary enzymes to reduce diacetyl.

I pasteurize the fruit and, given the fact that none of the 20-30 clean fruit beers I've made have ever been spoiled, I find the contribution from the apricots highly unlikely.

Equally unlikely would be the equipment, as I use all glass fermentors cleaned thoroughly. And, the beer didn't come in contact with tubing that touched Brett until bottling time.

I'm just saying that people indicating that Brett is required to reduce diacetyl are incorrect. Saccharomyces is proven to produce the necessary enzymes. That's not me anecdoting or rationalizing. That's science.
__________________
Biobrewer is offline
 
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-29-2013, 12:19 AM   #20
TNGabe
Feedback Score: 17 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,544
Liked 2201 Times on 1491 Posts
Likes Given: 2238

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biobrewer View Post
I'm not sure I'm rationalizing anything. It's a scientific fact the Saccharomyces cerevisiae produce the necessary enzymes to reduce diacetyl.

I pasteurize the fruit and, given the fact that none of the 20-30 clean fruit beers I've made have ever been spoiled, I find the contribution from the apricots highly unlikely.

Equally unlikely would be the equipment, as I use all glass fermentors cleaned thoroughly. And, the beer didn't come in contact with tubing that touched Brett until bottling time.

I'm just saying that people indicating that Brett is required to reduce diacetyl are incorrect. Saccharomyces is proven to produce the necessary enzymes. That's not me anecdoting or rationalizing. That's science.
I'm not suggesting sacc won't reduce diacetyl, but prevaling opinion of well respected brewers is that it's not capabale or reducing the diacetyl created by pedio below the detection threshold so you'll have to excuse my skepticisim.
__________________

Why spend 5 minutes reading when you can just start another thread?

TNGabe is offline
sweetcell Likes This 
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread



Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Plate Counts on brett, sacch, pedio, and lacto failbeams Lambic & Wild Brewing 0 03-08-2013 12:06 AM
lacto/pedio infection Benshultz327 Fermentation & Yeast 10 11-17-2012 08:44 AM
Gravity/ABV limits for Lacto/Pedio heywatchthis Lambic & Wild Brewing 1 11-25-2011 03:04 PM
Berliner Weisse style with pedio (or other pedio recommendations) skeezerpleezer Lambic & Wild Brewing 5 11-20-2011 03:31 PM
Lacto and Pedio starter B-Dub Lambic & Wild Brewing 1 08-10-2009 04:16 AM



Newest Threads

LATEST SPONSOR DEALS