WLP644 -Brett B Trois

Oophaga said:

Recently did a saison with belle saison and wlp644 pitched at the same time, modest gravity of 1.062. Late hop centennial and whirlpool citra. Plan on dry-hopping with a bit of citra and Amarillo. Hoping for a juicy slightly tart saison. Low IBU and I know that aerated the brett should sour a bit along with the reports of tartness from the belle saison itself. Hopefully it'll be sour/tart enough to make it juicy and thirst quenching. Been fermenting since Tuesday.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I'd like to try something similar. I've only used the Belle Saison one time and it became a 19 month going sour so I didn't get to taste a lot of the yeast characteristics. I've read some interesting things on it.

I've grown up a bunch of Brett Trois and I'm planing on brewing a series of beers with it I was wondering if others could comment with their experience on a few things:

1)Pitching rate - With all of my yeast I grow up several liters of starter, cold crash, decant then measure out yeast solids after the solids have settled out over 2 days. I then use the re-pitching volume in ml from Mr Malty to measure out the yeast to pitch. Will this approach work for Brett yeast solids? How do Brett dregs compare to Sac dregs as far as cell count to volume goes?

2)Phenol interaction - This strain seems like it is a very low producer of the funky Brett character I'm familiar with, instead it produces some very fruit like esters. How does it interact with phenols and esters produced by Sac in mixed fermentations? I know the American sour book and several other resources say that the funk character of Brett increases in the presence of these phenols but does anyone have first hand experience with that happening in this strain? Does the funk overwhelm the fruit character? Does it even get funky at all?

3) Fermentation temp - White labs suggests 70-85, has anyone fermented below this like in the 65-68 range? I'm sure it will ferment there just fine but I'm wondering what you think changed at this lower temp: lower attenuation, slower fermentation, different taste and aromatic profile?


I've read through a lot of this thread and looked at comments on some of these questions but many of the comments are 2 years old, I was hoping now that the strain has been available for a bit longer there might be a few people with several batches of experiance now. Thanks for any comments.

I can only comment on #1, #3. Give the starter an extra day or so, pitch at ale rates. Haven't noticed any normal Brett funk ever. It seems to me that temps in the low-mid 70's work great. Lots of flavor and aroma, no off flavors noted. I'd guess lower temps would just slow down the ferment time.

Just made a starter for a vial I'm going to give a week then step it up for a witbier with citrus. Should be interesting!


Santé!

Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

WhamFish said:

1)Pitching rate - With all of my yeast I grow up several liters of starter, cold crash, decant then measure out yeast solids after the solids have settled out over 2 days. I then use the re-pitching volume in ml from Mr Malty to measure out the yeast to pitch. Will this approach work for Brett yeast solids? How do Brett dregs compare to Sac dregs as far as cell count to volume goes?

Click to expand...

remember that brett cells are smaller than sacc cells, so you will really only be able to estimate pitch rate by counting cells. however i have had good success with trois by pitching a similar volume of yeast cake as for a sacc beer. i tend to pitch a little bit more actually, but there is no rationale behind this. it works so i go with it.

dinnerstick said:

remember that brett cells are smaller than sacc cells

Click to expand...

i thought that they were about the same size, with brett occasionally being slightly bigger (mind you, there is a lot of variability within these two genus). i would be interested in getting confirmation of this, the online sources i've found aren't conclusive IMO:
http://eurekabrewing.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/brettanomyces-bruxellensis-microscopy-pictures/
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/plants/Milo/images/YeastSize-Feb2010.pdf

sweetcell said:

i thought that they were about the same size, with brett occasionally being slightly bigger (mind you, there is a lot of variability within these two genus). i would be interested in getting confirmation of this, the online sources i've found aren't conclusive IMO:
http://eurekabrewing.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/brettanomyces-bruxellensis-microscopy-pictures/
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/plants/Milo/images/YeastSize-Feb2010.pdf

Click to expand...

In American Sour Beers, Mike points out a couple times that they are smaller than Sacc cells. I just re-read over the 100% chapter yesterday while I was flying to Detroit. I can't remember if he references anywhere but I don't have the book with me at the moment to look.

I've got my 1.6 L starter going after growing up one vial of WLP644 Brett. trois pitched into 300 mL of standard yeast starter wort (1.040) for 8 days. Both starters have a kickass fruity aroma with more complexity and pineapple than my normal sacc. yeast starters.

Going to follow this recipe at the mad fermentationist for Brett pitching fermenting parameters, but going to use my Kern River Citra IIPA clone recipe from the Can You Brew It Archives https://www.brewtoad.com/recipes/kern-river-citra-double-ipa-2

Already made this recipe once with San Diego super yeast and it was fantastic. I'll post my progress.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

Please do.

http://www.themadfermentationist.com/2012/07/100-brett-trois-ipa-recipe.html

100% Brett IPa recipe with the pitching parameters...


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

Can I pitch a vial into a one gallon secondary or will that be too many cells?

A vial is designed for 5 gal secondary. In 1 gal it's plenty, but not too much I'd say since it really isn't that many cells.

I understand that it is is recommended to ferment the starter for this yeast for a week.

Anecdotally, the krausen on my starter on a stirplate came and went within a day, no different from a regular sacc starter.

Will follow Chad's recommendation nevertheless.

Anyone else had similar experience?

cpa4ny said:

I understand that it is is recommended to ferment the starter for this yeast for a week.

Anecdotally, the krausen on my starter on a stirplate came and went within a day, no different from a regular sacc starter.

Will follow Chad's recommendation nevertheless.

Anyone else had similar experience?

Click to expand...

I just did a brett dregs(crooked stave) starter and saw a bit of surface activity after day one, but then activity moved to the bottom and stayed there for the rest of the week. No stir plate, just shaking twice a day. Smelled awesome at the end of the week. Took off great in a batch of funky cider!

Anyone mess around with wlp644 in secondary. I did a table saison with rye then split it, added mangos and then some wlp644 i had saved from a previous batch. Forgot about it for 2 months, checked it out yesterday and theres a pretty wicked pellicle on it. Should I let it rock for a little longer?

poobaca said:

Anyone mess around with wlp644 in secondary. I did a table saison with rye then split it, added mangos and then some wlp644 i had saved from a previous batch. Forgot about it for 2 months, checked it out yesterday and theres a pretty wicked pellicle on it. Should I let it rock for a little longer?

Click to expand...

Its almost certainly finished, but whats the gravity? So long as its dry and stable you should package.

Ive been using Trois to bottle condition a lot of Saisons, it great to see the beer change over time as the bottles age. It works great with Nelson Sauvin hopped Saisons in secondary, super fruit.

y'all ready to have your minds blown?

according to what i consider a reliable source trois is a sacch, not a brett.

source: DNA analysis done by Omega Labs, as posted in the Milk the Funk FB group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/MilkTheFunk/ - scroll down to the "Wee heavy brett project in full swing" post). Omega Labs' founder and CEO Lance Shaner wrote, about his brett blend #1 (OYL-210):
"It's the Trois strain and the ECY-03b strain, which we found had a similar and complementary flavor profile to Trois with slightly more robust performance. However, since releasing the blend, I got rDNA sequencing results back from a friend (post doc at Princeton University) with access to better equipment than I. Surprisingly, it turns out that neither of those strains are actually Brettanomyces. Both of them are plain old Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Anyone that has ever used Trois knows that it definitely has a different flavor profile than other Sacch, but it is, in fact, Sacch. Future versions of our Brett Blend #1 will include some other mild Brett strains that we have been isolating from various sources. So it won't be a 100% Brett blend, but it will at least have some Brett in it. Shocked? We were."
"The DNA doesn't lie. The way I look at it, 3711, chico, and countless other brewing strains give vastly different results and come from the same species. Some saison strains produce what I would describe as "funk." And the 1388 strain (Duvel) produces a decent amount of acidity (it gets to a pH of about 3.8 when propped). The reason we had those sequenced in the first place is because they propped as easily as any other Sacch strain I've dealt with. Every other Brett strain I'd ever propped had crazy lag times and took a long time to reach saturation (all completely consistent with Chad Yakobson's growth curves). Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Trois is Sacch."
he went on to say that BSI's "Drie" strain is brett.

What? trois and ecy-03b are plain old sach!? What about the pellicle?

Guess you learn something new everyday

I've read that thread 15 times and I still can't believe it. I want to hear from WLP about this though.

No, ECY03b is in a blend with Trois that he is mentioning.

But he says "both" are sacc.

youreanimpulse said:

But he says "both" are sacc.

Click to expand...

Youre right, he corrected me in that thread.

However, Al's ECY vials are never very clean at all. Actually they are riddled with bacteria so I would venture a guess that something got into that vial at packaging. But I am guessing.

I used WLP644 in a mosaic saison secondary for nearly 4mo. At bottling, I tasted a bit and it turned out much more tart than I was anticipating. It tastes fantastic, but almost more sour than funky. Anyone else with similar experience?

Brewed 5gal saison. After primary, racked 1.75g into 2gal bucket with vial of WLP644. Pretty pellicle and left alone for nearly 4mo.

I will not argue genetics, but I can say I definitely got a pilicle with my Belle saison + trois. After checking gravity in secondary(introducing oxygen in the process of course) it had a wicked pellicle from then out. I did not add any other bacteria or brett either. Maybe contamination but I am have yet to have a contaminated batch, at least not one that was bad enough for me to detect. I even sent a picture to my friend who loves sours and was immediately grossed out that the beers he likes make them haha.

Long and multiple discussion about this on Milk the Funk..it acts like sach in many ways..growth and fermentation..but also acts like brett in several other ways..
in the end science does not lie..

discgolfin said:

Long and multiple discussion about this on Milk the Funk..it acts like sach in many ways..growth and fermentation..but also acts like brett in several other ways..
in the end science does not lie..

Click to expand...

Can you link some of that? I've never had any luck with Milk the Funk so I'm wondering if I'm looking somewhere in error.

mbbransc said:

Can you link some of that? I've never had any luck with Milk the Funk so I'm wondering if I'm looking somewhere in error.

Click to expand...

It's a closed group. You have to join, which is just a button click.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/MilkTheFunk

many people have reported that Trois in secondary produces little to no effect... this would explain it.

sweetcell said:

many people have reported that Trois in secondary produces little to no effect... this would explain it.

Click to expand...

Trois definitely has an effect in secondary. regardless if this DNA sequencing is actually correct, it acts like brett, so may as well continue to think of it as brett

The book is still open on whether it is a Brett or not, considering the contrary evidence comes from claiming someone's friend who is a postdoc at a university sequenced the strain, a task that is expensive and for sure not allowed by the University.

Ya agreed,

I would like to hear an official statement from WL, or one of its employees, not just email hearsay.

If it is sach, why does it form a pellicle and why is it called brett trois (the english translation for drie, leading one to believe it came from a certain gueuze...). However if it is sach, then WL has been very duplicitous and has some s'planin to do.

There have been some developments recently, and I think this will all be cleared up at some point. Most of what is coming to light behind closed doors leads a lot of us to beleive that WLP644 is indeed Brett and not sacch.

The DNA sequencing that was done has been torn apart by multiple folks who are well versed in this stuff. WL is looking into it though so we should know for sure soon enough.

My money is it being Brett though, as it had been since the beginning.

So I'm confused does this mean there really isnt a Brett Trois? Or that what White Labs / Wyeast label as "Brett Trois" should really be some new sach strain (most likely in the Belgian category?)

I seriously doubt that a company like White Labs would misrepresent one of their products.

Internet rumors spread quickly but until WL speaks on this rumor, I am going to believe that it is brett.

beergolf said:

I seriously doubt that a company like White Labs would misrepresent one of their products.

Internet rumors spread quickly but until WL speaks on this rumor, I am going to believe that it is brett.

Click to expand...

This has been my stance from the jump but figured it was still worth investigating. But in the last few days it appears that the data is in question, and that WL never admitted that it was sacch.

Not much news except that they are looking into it.

http://www.whitelabs.com/blog/wlp644-background

beergolf said:

I seriously doubt that a company like White Labs would misrepresent one of their products.

Internet rumors spread quickly but until WL speaks on this rumor, I am going to believe that it is brett.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't be the first time...

http://babblebelt.com/newboard/thread.html?tid=1108752780&th=1281111541

Pitched some of this into 1 gal of IPA that has Galaxy, Cent, Motueka, and Citra... Yeah you know!
FAT yeast cake at the bottom, should be enough for a future 5 gal batch.
I got the bug. The Brett bug.

If i brew a 3 gal IPA with this as the primary, do you think i need to make a starter? If i was going for a full 5 gal i would from what i read but is the vial enough to work on that?

scrub0bk said:

If i brew a 3 gal IPA with this as the primary, do you think i need to make a starter? If i was going for a full 5 gal i would from what i read but is the vial enough to work on that?

Click to expand...

I would, there's barely any yeast in those vials.

chefchris said:

I would, there's barely any yeast in those vials.

Click to expand...

Yeah tell me about it. When I got my white labs brett vial, I thought I had been ripped off! I was about to try calling them, btu did some research and found out they are all like that. The thing is, all their brett vials are intended to be used in the secondary, not as a primary yeast. Combine the savings of giving you such a miniscule amount with with the notion that stressing brett gives it more character, and I guess I understand why they do it...