Lacto + Pedio vs Pedio Only

It seems that there is a lot of discussion in the sour beer community on lactobacillus and specifically the strains sold by White Labs and Wyeast. Many people report lackluster results in trying to use these strains on their own to produce styles such as berliner weisse, claiming that there just isn't enough sourness produced by some of these pure lacto cultures. In addition, many people make claims that if you get into the neighborhood of ~8-10 IBUs that lacto is basically useless since it is a gram positive bacteria. On the other hand many people seem to praise pedio due to its high souring potential and its relatively high tolerance to IBUs and alcohol levels. Obviously pedio has some issues with ropiness and diacetyl but these issues can be overcome by pitching Brett in conjunction.

Given this information it seems like many brewers would just give up on lacto and pitch only pedio (in addition to various strains of Brett) if they are trying to make sours using a mix of pure cultures. However, it seems like many of the best sour beer experts continue to add lacto to their sour concoctions. Some examples include the recent facebook post by Al of East Coast Yeast claiming that the latest Bug County release will have two strains of lacto in addition to pedio, as well as Vinnie Cilurzo of Russian River who seems to brew some sours with a pretty controlled methodology in which he pitches a standard S. Cerevisiae strain, followed by Brett, and then later Lacto and Pedio in conjunction (I tried to find a written reference for this, but I think I might have heard it on a video or podcast with Vinnie). 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?

I have recently started to collect various sour dregs as well as some pure cultures of Brett from WL and Wyeast or 100% Brett sources like Crooked Stave. I bought some Wyeast pedio, but I have been debating on keeping a lacto culture around as well. Any advice or anecdotal experience you can provide would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Phil

Not enough experience here to give any kind of input or recommendation, but I WILL say....

...what a thought-out, well-researched post with clear questions for one of your first.

Cheers to that!

(plus I get subscribed to the thread )

Interested in this as well. Sub'd

philiphirz said:

...as well as Vinnie Cilurzo of Russian River who seems to brew some sours with a pretty controlled methodology in which he pitches a standard S. Cerevisiae strain, followed by Brett, and then later Lacto and Pedio in conjunction (I tried to find a written reference for this, but I think I might have heard it on a video or podcast with Vinnie)...

Click to expand...

You are correct. Vinnie stated this on The Sunday Session of The Brewing Network titled "Meltdown and Sour Beer" on 07-07-2007, I believe the talk was originally from the NHC. He pitches lacto + pedio but says he likes pedio better (but must be used with brett for the diacetyl).

I was always curious about the poor outcomes with pure lacto cultures for berliner weisses, doesn't seem like it makes sense, but many HBTers have said they get better results with a handful of grain.

Wish I had something more to add, but definitely an interesting observation

Easy answers for problems people are having.

• Lacto doesn't grow in wort about 8-10 IBU - don't use hops
• Not sour enough - grow up your lacto and make sure it's ripping before adding it to beer. Yogurt is plenty sour. Also, try repitching your lacto/yeast slurry. IME it's much better the second or third time around once you get favorable lacto numbers
• Pedio can get more sour - yes but at the cost of time: to get rid of the ropiness and diacetyl often takes 6 months with Brett and then you have funky brett flavors in a beer that should be cleanly sour

Wyeast lacto works great. The 10 IBU 'rule' is BS.

I figure the best way to answer this question is to do some experimentation on my own to decide what sort of a difference Lactobacillus makes. Unfortunately with sours this is a long term proposition. That is why I am hoping that some other folks on the forum have already done this sort of experimentation.

I bought some Wyeast Lactobacillus this afternoon at my LHBS. I also started a pair of homegrown Lactobacillus cultures from some raw grains, one was made with 2 Tbsp of Dingeman Pilsner and the other was made with 2 Tbsp of Weyermann acidulated malt. I don't know if there will be any difference between the two, but since I had both lying around I figured what the heck. The grain starters and the Lactobacillus culture were added to sterile 1.025 wort in pint jars. The various lacto cultures as well as my pedio culture were all placed in my temp chamber at 90 F in an attempt to hasten the bacterial growth.



I will evaluate the starters individually for taste, smell, and acidity. In addition, I am planning to make some Berliner Weiss soon so I will likely make a split batch with the various lacto cultures if the starters show promise. I will also have to try a split sour batch using the Vinnie method, one with pedio only and one with lacto+pedio. It will probably take a year or more, but I will try to report back with my results.

Hopefully others will still chime in with additional information or experimental results.

Phil

Brewers keep using lacto because its the best souring bacteria for quick brews. Pedio produces diacetyl that requires Brett and time to clean up. Pedio can also go through sick stages. So, while pedio is more resilient and, I believe, produces a stronger/cleaner acidity, lacto still has its benefits.

I took some extra lambic wort (turbid mash) and fermented it with just brett brux and pedio. After a year it turned out very well. Acidity wise, there doesn't seem to be much need for both lacto and pedio.

I've never tried adding this to ferment beer, but I take lacto from greek yogurt and ferment pepper mash to make hot sauce. The results are very good. I wonder if this would be a good substitute to the hops intolerant WY lacto strain?

I sent an old bottle of rodenbach grand cru, from when they didn't pasteurize it, to Al Buck. Apparently they had a really nice strain of pedio, so he is going to try to culture that. Wish him luck resurrecting the strain, as if it works, he may be able to supply us all with it.

I think different lacto strains have different tolerances to hops.

For my Berliners I use Lacto acidopholis (from probiotic tablets). It works, and I don't even want to try grain after what I have read about it. It works for me, so why change.

My Berliner wort has no hops. I once tried to make a starter using Lacto A, and my standard starter wort, and it failed. My standard starter wort is 1.030 with a couple of hop pellets tossed in for about 5 minutes in a gallon batch. Repeated the starter with no hops and it worked fine.

I suspect WL and WY cultures are more resistant than Lacto-A, but be aware that hops do make a difference.

Thanks for the info Levi. I suspected that you could achieve a perfectly respectable sour with just Pedio and Brett, but it is good to hear confirmation from someone who has actually done it. However, my question still remains as to why pro brewers add both Lacto and Pedio to their sour beers, especially when the sour beers have 20+ IBUs?

I stumbled across another reference to adding both Lacto and Pedio to a sour in an article by Chad Yacobson in the May/June 2012 Zymurgy magazine. On page 26 Chad describes how Vinnie adds both Lacto and Pedio to his Temptation beer. In addition, Chad mentions that he does the same to his L'Brett d'Or beer. Based on typical clone recipes for Temptation it appears to have ~25 IBUs. I don't know about L'Brett d'Or. What good does Lacto do in a beer with 25 IBUs, especially when you are already adding Pedio and Brett?

That is awesome news about the Rodenbach Grand Cru. Hopefully Al is able to work his magic on it. How old was the bottle?

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.

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

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/troy-casey-of-ac-golden-qa-part-2/

philiphirz said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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 said:

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!

Click to expand...

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?

TNGabe said:

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?

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TNGabe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TNGabe said:

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.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I read a lot about yeast, primarily scientific litereature, and I've never heard that. Well, here's my source for my claim:

http://biocyc.org/YEAST/NEW-IMAGE?type=PATHWAY&object=PWY3O-981

Would you mind posting a source for one of the "well respected brewers" that claims Saccharomyces cerevisiae is not capable of reducing diacetyl created by Pediococcus below threshold levels? From a purely scientific standpoint, I'd be interested to see how that conclusion was reached.

Again, I'm not saying all strains can do it, but clearly that pathway exists in Saccharomyces, and these reactions are typically driven foremost by concentration of enzyme, reactants and/or products. Translation: given viability of Saccharomyces in beer and the ability to make enzyme, and high diacetyl concentrations, there is little reason I can deduce that would drive the reaction in any direction except the reduction of diacetyl. That's just what the literature tells me, though, my anecdotal experience also supports that.

Cheers!

Biobrewer said:

Interesting. I read a lot about yeast, primarily scientific litereature, and I've never heard that. Well, here's my source for my claim:

http://biocyc.org/YEAST/NEW-IMAGE?type=PATHWAY&object=PWY3O-981

Would you mind posting a source for one of the "well respected brewers" that claims Saccharomyces cerevisiae is not capable of reducing diacetyl created by Pediococcus below threshold levels?

Again, I'm not saying all strains can do it, but clearly that pathway exists in Saccharomyces, and these reactions are typically driven foremost by concentration of enzyme, reactants and/or products. Translation: given viability of Saccharomyces in beer and the ability to make enzyme, and high diacetyl concentrations, there is little reason I can deduce that would drive the reaction in any direction except the reduction of diacetyl. That's just what the literature tells me, though, my anecdotal experience also supports that.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

Again, not saying sacc won't reduce diacetyl, but doesn't it have to be active to do so? How active can 1056 be after a month, much less three by the time pedio really gets going? Even if it's possible, it must be very rare given how many awful buttery beers there are.

Any of the interviews with Vinnie Cilurzo where he talks about Pedio. Sorry I don't have anything in writing, but if you're interested in wild beers, both good interviews to listen too.

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/596

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/...unday-Session-07-07-07-Meltdown-and-Sour-Beer

TNGabe said:

Again, not saying sacc won't reduce diacetyl, but doesn't it have to be active to do so?How active can 1056 be after a month, much less three by the time pedio really gets going?

Click to expand...

After a month... very. After three, definitely still active. I've used old yeast like that stored under lower alcohol beer and had no issues. Also, it definitely doesn't take three months to get pedio activity if the temperature is kept in the appropriate range.

TNGabe said:

Any of the interviews with Vinnie Cilurzo where he talks about Pedio. Sorry I don't have anything in writing, but if you're interested in wild beers, both good interviews to listen too.

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/596

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/...unday-Session-07-07-07-Meltdown-and-Sour-Beer

Click to expand...

Hmm... Vinnie doesn't say anything about Saccharomyces being unable to clean up diacetyl from Pediococcus in either one... They touch a little bit on sickness, but the breakdown of the complex carbohydrate slime produced by Pediococcus and reduction of diacetyl are completely different topics and independent of one another.

I don't wanna put you on the spot. Just post a link to something about Sacharomyces not being unable to clean up diacetyl from Pediococcus whenever you find the source(s) you initially got it from. I'm genuinely interested to hear about it and why that phenomenon occurs.

Biobrewer said:

Hmm... Vinnie doesn't say anything about Saccharomyces being unable to clean up diacetyl from Pediococcus in either one... They touch a little bit on sickness, but the breakdown of the complex carbohydrate slime produced by Pediococcus and reduction of diacetyl are completely different topics and independent of one another.

I don't wanna put you on the spot. Just post a link to something about Sacharomyces not being unable to clean up diacetyl from Pediococcus whenever you find the source(s) you initially got it from. I'm genuinely interested to hear about it and why that phenomenon occurs.

Click to expand...

Wow, you're a quick listener. I'll relisten, but I'm fairly certain he touches on brett being needed to clean up pedio.

Uh, not being unable? No you've lost me. It's what you remember hearing against what I remember hearing, so why don't you listen again, too.

Also, I really don't see where pedio is mentioned in the link you posted.

TNGabe said:

Wow, you're a quick listener. I'll relisten, but I'm fairly certain he touches on brett being needed to clean up pedio.

Click to expand...

I've heard both of those interviews posted from individuals on Reddit. I did re-scan them to the parts where he discusses the relevant topics. He absolutely does touch on Brettanomyces and Pediococcus. However, he doesn't mention anything about Saccharomyces being unable to clean up diacetyl produced by Pediococcus. Gotta be careful when drawing parallels: Just because Brettanomyces can do something doesn't mean Saccharomyces cannot.

Now, when it comes to breaking down the slime, I have heard that Brettanomyces has the necessary enzymes and Sacharomyces does not. I have, however, never had a "sick" beer that has a metric ton of carbohydrate-laden slime, so even with the Sacharomyces/ Pediococcus beers, I've had no issues with "ropiness".

TNGabe said:

Also, I really don't see where pedio is mentioned in the link you posted.

Click to expand...

The source of the diacetyl should be of no consequence to the reaction and the ability of the enzymes, reactants and products to drive the reaction in a given direction. It's concentration dependent (and perhaps pH, temperature and other environmental factors). The more diacetyl you add, the more it drives the reaction to acetoin. Given the fact that acetoin (product of diacetyl reduction) has it's own sink being converted to 2,3 butanediol, that will further drive the reduction of diacetyl.

Cheers!

Biobrewer said:

I've heard both of those interviews posted from individuals on Reddit. I did re-scan them to the parts where he discusses the relevant topics. He absolutely does touch on Brettanomyces and Pediococcus. However, he doesn't mention anything about Saccharomyces being unable to clean up diacetyl produced by Pediococcus. Gotta be careful when drawing parallels: Just because Brettanomyces can do something doesn't mean Saccharomyces cannot.

Now, when it comes to breaking down the slime, I have heard that Brettanomyces has the necessary enzymes and Sacharomyces does not. I have, however, never had a "sick" beer that has a metric ton of carbohydrate-laden slime, so even with the Sacharomyces/ Pediococcus beers, I've had no issues with "ropiness".

Cheers!

Click to expand...

Ok, you win the internet. Have a good night.

TNGabe said:

Ok, you win the internet. Have a good night.

Click to expand...

Lol. Please though, post that source if you find it. I'd be interested to read/listen to the rationale and how that can occur given the pathway. Not saying it isn't possible. There may be some strains that, as I mentioned before, my just produce woefully inadequate quantities of the necessary enzymes, or have a deficiency in the pathway that imports diacetyl into the cell.

Cheers!

Biobrewer said:

Lol. Please though, post that source if you find it. I'd be interested to read/listen to the rationale and how that can occur given the pathway. Not saying it isn't possible. There may be some strains that, as I mentioned before, my just produce woefully inadequate quantities of the necessary enzymes, or have a deficiency in the pathway that imports diacetyl into the cell.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

He doens't specifically exclude sacc, but does say you need to use brett with pedio at 1:41 in the 07 show. I know you'll argue and tell me that doesn't disprove your point and I don't care. I just don't want anyone to read your posts and think they can use pedio without brett and end up with sour buttery beer. I've had accidental sour buttery beer at a club meeting and it was really bad.

TNGabe said:

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.

Click to expand...

This forum is a big giant mound of anecdotal evidence. No need to prove anything here. Through sheer volume, the truth will rise and the BS will sink to the bottom.

TNGabe said:

He doens't specifically exclude sacc, but does say you need to use brett with pedio at 1:41 in the 07 show. I know you'll argue and tell me that doesn't disprove your point and I don't care.

Click to expand...

You're right, he doesn't exclude it. Also, it's not about proving or disproving any person's post. I was simply indicating that I used Wyeast 1056, and added apricots/Pedio/Lacto and after 6 months, it's incredibly good and butter free. As I openly stated, that doesn't mean every Saccharomyces cerevisiae will have the same result. I simply gave a scientific reason for why my beer likely turned out well.

TNGabe said:

I just don't want anyone to read your posts and think they can use pedio without brett and end up with sour buttery beer.

Click to expand...

Actually, as I posted above, I used Wyeast 1056 with Pedio and Lacto, and it seems to turn out really well.

TNGabe said:

I've had accidental sour buttery beer at a club meeting and it was really bad.

Click to expand...

Not sure how many sour beers you've made, but any seasoned sour beer brewer will tell you "accidental sours" are not the same as "sours". There are a ton of beer spoilage organisms that produce unsavory flavor compounds that will not breakdown and do not consitute "sour" beer. Pediococcus is far from the only contaminant that produces off flavors.

Cheers!

I think this has come to an end of its usefulness.