What the hell is this lacto doing to my wort?

So I made a 50/50 pilsen / white wheat. IBU of about 5. SG 1.030. The fermenter could pass for a urinal in color.

Thinking I would get a few sour bonus points, I pitched half (1L) of a 2L starter of Wyeast 5335. This, by estimation, should have yielded 10 mil cells / ml. I pitched this into 90F wort. 12 hours later this thing is going ape. Furious bubbling, krausen, smells sour, tart, citrusy. Plan was to wait 72 hours, taste, and then pitch 1007.

I checked it just now, about 30 hours post innoculation. This fricking lacto has dropped the wort from 1.030 to 1.010. It's nuts. I thought the Wyeast lacto was supposed to be kind of sissy, doesn't mess with the sugars too much, and leaves plenty for the yeast to ferment. That's not at all what I'm looking at. I'm looking at a big ass tub of yogurt beer.

Question 1 Of the products produced by the bacteria messing with the wort, what value is the SG? Is the SG value still valid in terms of attenuation and alcohol content? Or are so many off products produces that I can no longer rely on the starting-final to calculate alcohol?

Question 2: Is this experience typical of this strain and these conditions?

Subscribed. Have a batch of same wort fermenting with Bo Pils yeast after 5 days of White Labs Lacto Delbruekii. Wort was at 1.012 post Lacto. I racked it to kettle added DME, 18 IBU Sterling hops and boiled for 15 min. Pitched Bo Pils into the resultant 1.026 wort 4 days ago. Lacto ferment was vigorous by contrast lager ferment has been very retarded probably due to Low gravity and acidic conditions.

I do wish I could help, but I haven't gotten to this style yet.

Subscribed for sure. I'm sure someone around here has experiences to share.

I can help. 5335 does produce alcohol. Finding the true SG is very difficult as lactic acid messes with the reading.

I'm not sure about the strain you used, but when I use lacto cultured from grain at 90 degrees, the fermentation is more vigorous than anything I've ever seen sacc do.

When I use lacto, I split the wort 50/50 and use lacto on half and sacc or brett on the other. Then I blend them together. I think that is the best way to keep one organism from running away with your beer.

The easiest way I've found to do a berliner weisse is mash 30% separately, then inoculate that mash with a small amount of grain to culture lacto. From there keep it about 95-100F. I start mine on the evening of wednesday for a saturday brew day. Then I mash the remaining 70% and when it's time to sparge I dump my sour mash in, sparge and finish with a 15 min boil.

FWIW, some of the historical accounts of this style I could find talked about this being a no boil, mash hopped thing. The used a single decoction and you'd get some isomerization there and temp from the mash would kill the vast majority of the bacteria while not completely inhibiting lacto, where it would remain in the wort and gradually sour in the fermenter and bottle.

I had 1809 and it's what inspired me to try this style and do some digging.

Well I got pissed that the bacteria were running amok so I pitched an army of 1007 to get in there and kick some ass. I didn't cool the wort enough when I pitched the 1007 so the bacteria worked in cahoots with the 1007 to cause some serious mayhem. It was a gusher. The fermenter stayed a good 20F higher than ambient for a long time. I set the thing outside in the cold and rain for a few hours. Now I think they're all hung over and bruised because there's no more action in the fermenter. 48 hours and it looks about done.

I put in an email to Wyeast to get some more information about this. I'm a little put off at the wildly inaccurate information on the interwebs about 5335. I know, how could random information on the internet be so wrong? But NOTHING suggest it was capable of fermenting wort like this. But everyone on this thread is saying otherwise. I think its time the internet get its crap together and start reading this thread instead of saying that 5335 is a nancy boy strain. It would be super easy to go with a pure lacto fermentation on this.

highgravitybacon said:

I think its time the internet get its crap together and start reading this thread instead of saying that 5335 is a nancy boy strain. It would be super easy to go with a pure lacto fermentation on this.

Click to expand...

White Labs' lacto strain is a nancy boy strain, at least at 90 degrees. Wyeast isn't. But I wouldn't even bother spending the money on lacto, it's all over the grain you have. Just throw a handful of uncrushed grain in. If you're worried about brett or pedio, you can pasteurize when it's done.

I emailed the people at Wyeast. They said that the fermentation and attenuation described was unlikely to be caused by the lacto itself, and most likely due to contamination with unwanted yeast(s). I asked if temperature could be the cause. They said no, the fermentations the lab has done were performed at 90F and no attenuation like this occurred. The lacto is slower to ferment which leaves ample time and food for foreign yeasts to come in and mayhem.

So there you have it. The official source says it's a sanitation issue. Apparently with sacchromyces, the rampant growth drives out infection but the lacto is a bit weak.

I don't know. I guess we'll see.

highgravitybacon said:

I emailed the people at Wyeast. They said that the fermentation and attenuation described was unlikely to be caused by the lacto itself, and most likely due to contamination with unwanted yeast(s). I asked if temperature could be the cause. They said no, the fermentations the lab has done were performed at 90F and no attenuation like this occurred. The lacto is slower to ferment which leaves ample time and food for foreign yeasts to come in and mayhem.

So there you have it. The official source says it's a sanitation issue. Apparently with sacchromyces, the rampant growth drives out infection but the lacto is a bit weak.

I don't know. I guess we'll see.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure. I've talked to the folks at wyeast about their lacto and gotten conflicting info. Taste it.

rexbanner said:

I wouldn't be so sure. I've talked to the folks at wyeast about their lacto and gotten conflicting info. Taste it.

Click to expand...

I agree totally. It smells sour and tastes lightly tart. This is only after 4 days though. It still has a white gooey krausen on it that does not look anything like the 1007 krausen typically does.

I honestly wonder how often Wyeast/White Labs ends up sending contaminated cultures in their homebrew servings. I only say that because how many times will a homebrewer chalk it up to THEIR sanitation procedures and not the supplying laboratory's cleanliness.

I doubt White Labs or Wyeast ever send out contaminated cultures. They both are major suppliers for many commercial breweries. Not to say it's not possible, just unlikely that any makes it past quality control. Plastic buckets, old hoses and poor cleaning practice are all more likely culprits. You can't sanitize if it's not 100% clean first. Remember, they're working in a sterile lab environment. We're working in a bacteria filled kitchen or dusty garage. Where is the more likely source of contamination?

I made a Berliner with White Labs lacto and it fermented out like this as well. A frothy krausen formed and a nasty smell came from it. Beer came out delicious

Bottled aforementioned beer today. Appx 3 weeks primary. The bugs and yeast formed a bizarre gooey sludge at the bottom of the carboy. By themselves, they didn't do this in the respective starters. It seems like some biofilm.

SG 1.030. FG 1.004. 86.6% apparent attenuation. Crisp and tart, but not quite as tart as I had hoped.

Bottled half as is. In the other half, pitched a little slurry of wlp644 brett to see the outcome. Hopefully no exploders in the coming months.

In the future, I'm going to do a 100% lacto ferment then pitch the brett at bottling to see the outcome. The wyeast lacto seems perfectly capable to do this.