WLP644 -Brett B Trois

This thread might need to be moved out of the Lambic and Wild Brewing section. ;D

In Milk the Funk, a PDF was just posted of the results of a genetic analysis of Trois. result: it's a sacch.


cue the conspiracy theorist and WL apologists...

so is it like the Xmen of Sacchs? I;ve never heard of any Sacch strians being able to produce a pellicle...

Sherry Flor is supposed to create a pellicle. It's genetically possible if the right genes are activated. Following the discussion on MTF and it's fascinating but WAY over my head.

I was curious about the results, and did some ITS-PCR and HaeIII digestion on WLP644 (from a pure culture) myself. Below is the gel:



The results also suggests that WLP644 is in fact Saccharomyces cerevisiae (or at least contains S. cerevisiae if it is a mixed culture). Unfortunately I wasn't able to include a positive control for Brettanomyces (produces a band at ~500 bp, and after HaeIII digestion bands at ~380 and 100 bp), as I didn't have any easily and rapidly accessible, but the results are quite clear. Some more info in this blog post.

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...

It is possible that the organism was misidentified somewhere along the line, but to put that all on White Labs is a bit unfair. I’ve seen a number of threads where people are questioning how White Labs could let something like this slip, but there are a lot of people who have used this in products, including Lance from Omega yeast, who initially was the one looking into all of this and has raised the issue. He was selling products for months with this strain (and supposedly with the ECY03b which he also claims is Sacch) before doing any due diligence and sequencing the strain for himself. I myself have been using the strain in The Yeast Bay Funktown blend. Of course I didn’t sequence this either, as it was obviously obtained from a reputable source. Often times in these instances when a strain is procured from another company or from a yeast bank, there is no reason to spend $100 to sequence the organism. If Brett Trois is in fact Sacch, then we’re all guilty of not doing our due diligence and for putting too much faith in a reputable source, and it’s unfair to lay it all on White Labs. We’re human and mistakes happen. When they do occur, all we can do is take the proper steps to correct them, learn from it, and move forward.

I have to admit, I’ve been mulling over how this has all come to light and I have to say I’m a little disappointed to see the owner of Omega yeast being initially so open about this when there was still a lot of investigating to be done. I think the respectful thing to do here would have been to correct his own discrepancies in the descriptions of in his own products (which was a mistake of his own making) by correctly identifying what is in them based off the information he has obtained, and leave the sources of the material out of the conversation for the time being. Then working behind the scenes with White Labs (and East Coast Yeast), inform them of his findings and allow each company to address what may be an issue on their end. At that point, perhaps they could all release the information they have collectively gathered and agree upon, and we could have some kind of consensus. If there is one thing I’ve learned from starting a business in the homebrewing/craft brewing realm, it’s that everyone in this industry is big on respect and looking out not just for their own interests, but for the interests of others. Seeing as 98% of Omega Yeast cultures are apparently nothing more than re-cultured strains from other companies, I’d expect him to afford White Labs and East Coast Yeast the privilege of discretion up front out of mutual respect. While I’m a little disappointed at how this has all percolated, there is one major positive if it turns out that Brett Trois is in fact Sacch: people who worry about using Brett (both commercial and homebrew folks) will be way more open to using this strain. This is certainly one of my favorite all around yeast strains, and I think that wider spread use will only serve to increase the diversity of beers people make, which is a net positive.

I have also read some speculation from a lot of the same folks digging into this that I’d like to address, with some suggesting that White Labs single strain products (specifically their Brett strains) actually have a number of organisms in them including bacteria, which is essentially accusing them of lying to their customers. A misidentification of a strain either by White Labs or the reputable source from which they obtained the yeast is hardly grounds to start questioning the quality/integrity of their other cultures. I can’t imagine they would deliberately add bacteria to something they sell as a pure culture and not make note of it in the description. I also can’t imagine their vials are unintentionally contaminated, as their quality control system is quite robust, and I know for a fact that they test their cultures throughout the propagation to ensure foreign organisms are not present (for example, lacto or pedio in a pure culture of Brett). They are the contract manufacturer for The Yeast Bay, and the incredibly high quality of our products is in direct proportion to the skill, knowledge and vigilance that embodies the White Labs operations and QC staff. I have complete confidence that only the cells that are supposed to be in White Labs and Yeast Bay products are in them. We stand by their operations and QC procedures 100%, and are incredibly proud to be partnered with them for our manufacturing and yeast banking needs.

In the grand scheme of things, whether Trois is Sacch or Brett is largely meaningless to everyone who has used it or will use it, as its characteristics that define the strain (optimal temperature, growth rate, attenuation, flavor profile, alcohol tolerance, etc.) are well documented. You can incorrectly call an apple a peach and it will look, grow and taste and like an apple. And when you start correctly calling the apple an apple, guess what… it still looks, grows and tastes and like an apple.

I have total confidence White Labs will address this “controversy” as they do everything else: quickly and professionally.

White Labs and Chris White specifically have already replied to the "Trois Controversy" on their FB page.


Adam

I don;t see what the big deal is or why some people are upset. This doesn't change anything about Brett Trois or how it performs in brewing....

biertourist said:

White Labs and Chris White specifically have already replied to the "Trois Controversy" on their FB page.


Adam

Click to expand...

I'm aware of that post that they shared. They put out a release saying they are doing their own due diligence, but I wouldn't say that they've fully addressed the issue until they have some results from the experiments they're conducting on their end, which I imagine are on going.

biertourist said:

White Labs and Chris White specifically have already replied to the "Trois Controversy"

Click to expand...

the thing that caught my eye about their pseudo-answer:

"We have been doing experiments on this in-house and sending the strain to independent laboratories for some time. When we have a definitive genetic answer we will be happy to share that information."

i added the emphasis. if Trois is indeed sacch (looking pretty likely), and if the folks at WL has been testing the strain for some time, then shouldn't they have known for some time now that it isn't brett?

sweetcell said:

if Trois is indeed sacch (looking pretty likely), and if the folks at WL has been testing the strain for some time, then shouldn't they have known for some time now that it isn't brett?

Click to expand...

maybe they just figured if it pellicles like a brett, and funks like a brett, its probably safe to call it a brett. if they sold it as sacch theyd freak out a lot of ppl into thinking they had infections

There's several different tests that give different levels of detail and likelihood.

Omega's vendor, Charles River Laboratories has done less specific "5.5 S RNA" test (which is apparently "good enough" to provide 99%+ accuracy at determining the larger species. -This is the basis that's being currently used by them to assert that it's not Bret, but a Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain.

It sounds like White Labs is waiting for a full WGS Whole Genome Sequencing on it, but again to get a 99%+ likelihood of knowing that it's not Brett, 5.5 S RNA is all that's needed.


Omega even hinted in their early FB posts that they had talked to folks like White Labs and got feedback that they knew that it wasn't Brett but it was selling so well that no one wanted to stop the party to say as such; they probably wanted to wait for a full WGS test result to fully put the issue to rest, too.


Adam

Does this mean I need to change the name of my "All Brett IPA" I dry hopped 2 days ago, too "It'll be Beer IPA"?

Inkleg said:

Does this mean I need to change the name of my "All Brett IPA" I dry hopped 2 days ago, too "It'll be Beer IPA"?

Click to expand...

Yep!

How about "Faux Brett IPA"

FKA Brett IPA?

biertourist said:

Omega even hinted in their early FB posts that they had talked to folks like White Labs and got feedback that they knew that it wasn't Brett but it was selling so well that no one wanted to stop the party to say as such; they probably wanted to wait for a full WGS test result to fully put the issue to rest, too.

Click to expand...

i remember quickly reading something to that effect but i couldn't find it again. something to the effect that WL folks said "yeah, we know, but whatever." thanks for reminding/confirming.

Biobrewer said:

I’m a little disappointed to see the owner of Omega yeast being initially so open about this when there was still a lot of investigating to be done. I think the respectful thing to do here would have been to correct his own discrepancies in the descriptions of in his own products (which was a mistake of his own making) by correctly identifying what is in them based off the information he has obtained, and leave the sources of the material out of the conversation for the time being. Then working behind the scenes with White Labs (and East Coast Yeast), inform them of his findings and allow each company to address what may be an issue on their end. At that point, perhaps they could all release the information they have collectively gathered and agree upon, and we could have some kind of consensus.

Click to expand...

if the above story is true, Omega did try talking to White Labs and they essentially brushed the issues aside. saying that you're waiting for a comprehensive study could easily be an excuse to not do anything. it's not unreasonable to think that he interpreted WL response as blowing him off, so he carried on without them. who knows.

http://beer.suregork.com/

Apparently it is not brett.

I have a vial of trois in the fridge. When I get a chance I will do two one gallon batches with it. One will remain a pure strain and one will get another brett after primary fermentation. I would suspect if trois is a sacc it would result in some brett funk coming through. I'm open to suggestions on what brett should go on top of the trois, I have most of the WL and Wyeast strains.

I have a beer me and and friend made that was supposed to be "100% Brett".
He made a starter with Brett Trois, ECY03-B, and Brett C.
We pitched it and cold crashes after 3 weeks and FG of 1.010. (Obviously we didn't wait long enough).
It has a slightly funky taste, but not nearly as much as what you would expect Brett to produce in the presence of a sach...
BTW The bottles are gushers but not bombs.

Some people have written posts on the Milk the Funk that are rather critical of White Labs for selling Trois as Brett. Others have come to their defense because "if it acts like brett, and you know how the yeast should act/taste, who cares what they call it." I think it's important to note that WL is doing a massive yeast phylogeny with full genomes, which is likely to be a game-changer in many respects. I would not be surprised if the Brett/Sacch differentiation which is deemed to be so important is in fact a much more complex story. Why should White Labs rush out some prelim data on one yeast strain, when many, many yeasts will likely need to be reclassified? I think WL is being prudent, waiting for all the data to come in, and will then publish their full results when they are ready. I'm a biologist, and I've recently had a case where after a personal communication from me about some preliminary work, someone from a state agency used this info to start up a policy conversation with USFWS about the management of an endangered species. Needless to say I was pissed off as hell that they would take my work out of context and not wait for me to finish my full analyses. Before getting upset at White Labs about not immediately disclosing info that they (presumably) knew about B trois, I think we should keep in mind that they are still in the process of genotyping yeast strains. The scientists at WL should have the right to publish the best science they can without being required to release bits and pieces of it as the data rolls in. In other words.... be patient my friends......

hirschb said:

I think it's important to note that WL is doing a massive yeast phylogeny with full genomes, which is likely to be a game-changer in many respects. I would not be surprised if the Brett/Sacch differentiation which is deemed to be so important is in fact a much more complex story. Why should White Labs rush out some prelim data on one yeast strain, when many, many yeasts will likely need to be reclassified? I think WL is being prudent, waiting for all the data to come in, and will then publish their full results when they are ready... The scientists at WL should have the right to publish the best science they can without being required to release bits and pieces of it as the data rolls in. In other words.... be patient my friends......

Click to expand...

Sage words hirschb. I was just commenting to someone in a private massage that there could easily be some logistical issues that we don't know about and they're rolling this out slowly. Everyone just needs to be patient, and I'm sure White Labs will chime in with info when the have all their ducks in a row. It looks like the analysis is pretty conclusive at the species level for the Trois strain at this point independently verified by a number of qualified folks, but White Labs is going to (and should) take as much time as they need if there are other logistics regarding this strain or others. All good things in time!

sweetcell said:

if the above story is true, Omega did try talking to White Labs and they essentially brushed the issues aside. saying that you're waiting for a comprehensive study could easily be an excuse to not do anything. it's not unreasonable to think that he interpreted WL response as blowing him off, so he carried on without them. who knows.

Click to expand...

I wasn't in on those conversations, so I'm not going to pretend to know what was said. From what I know about the White Labs folks though from working with them over the last year plus, it's that when any issue pops up, they aren't just going to start firing things out left and right. That all to often results in further misinformation. I doubt they "brushed the issue aside" and I'd imagine they are simply making sure everything is correct before they release anything. They may also be waiting for their whole genome sequence for the strain and maybe others to comment on something that may be much more complex than we currently view it. I"m sure we'll hear in due time.

I think the biggest consequence is that if it's Sacch, WL is going to have to increase cell counts in their packaging for it.

joshrosborne said:

I think the biggest consequence is that if it's Sacch, WL is going to have to increase cell counts in their packaging for it.

Click to expand...

Definitely. I expect a full vial for my 100%... Sacch beer please!

a new analysis indicating that Trois is a sacch: http://suigenerisbrewing.blogspot.ca/2014/12/brett-trois-riddle-wrapped-in-mystery.html

most interesting take-away i got is that while it's a sacch, it may or may not be cerevisiae:

...while the "B." trois is most genetically similar to Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it is much more different from S. cerevisiae than other species of the Saccharomyces genus are from each other - for example, there appears to be ~40X more difference between "B." trois & S. cerevisiae as there is between S. baryanus, S. uvarium and S. pastorianus. What this may mean - although a lot of additional testing would be required top confirm - is that "B." trois is a new species within the Saccharomyces genus.

Click to expand...

sweetcell said:

a new analysis indicating that Trois is a sacch: http://suigenerisbrewing.blogspot.ca/2014/12/brett-trois-riddle-wrapped-in-mystery.html

most interesting take-away i got is that while it's a sacch, it may or may not be cerevisiae:

Click to expand...

That's my post! I should clarify though that the total amount of DNA sequenced (~500bp) is tiny in comparison to the genome (~12.5 Mbp). The region we sequenced is often used for differentiating species, but that sequence alone is not sufficient to declare an organism a new species.

Bryan

Has anyone here used WLP644 in a cider? I made a batch a few months ago and just kegged it. It's pretty tasty. I'm sure it would be better if I let it age longer but I'm liking it young.

jrfehon said:

Has anyone here used WLP644 in a cider? I made a batch a few months ago and just kegged it. It's pretty tasty. I'm sure it would be better if I let it age longer but I'm liking it young.

Click to expand...

yep, i have. in fact a year ago october i made a big batch of juice from father-in-law's trees, and a bit of crabapple for the tannin, and fermented half with s05 and half with 644, whatever 644 is. i just tried them for the first time yesterday. overall quite similar, 644 is more flavorful, slightly sharper, more 'fruity' impression. but none of the mango/passionfruit you get in an american-hoppy ipa with 644. s05 seems more rounded, softer, perhaps easier drinking. but not by much. kind of like the impression you get from non-MLF (644) vs MLF (s05), but maybe not as pronounced. i'm going to sweeten them a tiny bit, carbonate, and do a real taste test.

I actually have stopped using this strain entirely. In the many pale ales I've brewed with it they start great with lots of fruit flavors and body and then keep drying out for the next several weeks until the beers becomes mediocre.

Either way if it's not brett it is a sacch strain that does a great imitation!

jrfehon said:

Has anyone here used WLP644 in a cider? I made a batch a few months ago and just kegged it. It's pretty tasty. I'm sure it would be better if I let it age longer but I'm liking it young.

Click to expand...

I did a cider with it last winter. When it was young, it was fruity/tropical. After 3 months or so, the best description I have is "goaty." I enjoy brett beers and I have recognized this flavor to some degree in some brett beers but this cider is so funky/goaty it's hard to even get it close to your face let alone take a sip. It's got more stanky sweaty funk than the first four Funkadelic albums combined. I am by no means new to brewing so I'm 99.99999% positive it was not infected with any other organisms (I've never had an infected batch unless I put the "infection" there purposely). If trois is a sacch strain, it might be better at being brett than brett is...

DrKnow said:

I did a cider with it last winter. When it was young, it was fruity/tropical. After 3 months or so, the best description I have is "goaty." I enjoy brett beers and I have recognized this flavor to some degree in some brett beers but this cider is so funky/goaty it's hard to even get it close to your face let alone take a sip. It's got more stanky sweaty funk than the first four Funkadelic albums combined. I am by no means new to brewing so I'm 99.99999% positive it was not infected with any other organisms (I've never had an infected batch unless I put the "infection" there purposely). If trois is a sacch strain, it might be better at being brett than brett is...

Click to expand...

I kegged my cider after 1 month of fermentation. I added potassium sorbate and back sweetened so it ended up semi-dry. I have the same opinions about 644 as Petekiteworld just posted. I prefer it young when it's fruity vs. after it ages. I'm guessing the potassium sorbate I added will prevent the yeast from turning the cider funky. I don't have a ton of cider making experience but this strain works really well if you don't let it age.

i made a strong ale and i would like to add some brett wlp 644 in secondary.
previously i thought to add wlp 650 but my homebrew shop haven't got it...
my question is:
is wlp 644 a good strain to secondary fermentation in this type of beer or should i wait wlp 650?

Petekiteworld said:

I actually have stopped using this strain entirely. In the many pale ales I've brewed with it they start great with lots of fruit flavors and body and then keep drying out for the next several weeks until the beers becomes mediocre.

Either way if it's not brett it is a sacch strain that does a great imitation!

Click to expand...

This is my exact experience with it as a solo strain in a brew. I pitched it with Claus. and had better results with aging. When I did a Saison grist fermented with Trois solo, the young beer tasted super fruity and smelled amazing. Over time, it dwindled to muddled and simplistic. Actually very uninteresting. My BMC beer friends ended up finishing that off saying they could drink tons of it. It seems to work really well with other things though. I plan on adding it to secondary with Claus and Lacto Brevis for a barrel-aged Saison here in the future.

Nico93 said:

i made a strong ale and i would like to add some brett wlp 644 in secondary.
previously i thought to add wlp 650 but my homebrew shop haven't got it...
my question is:
is wlp 644 a good strain to secondary fermentation in this type of beer or should i wait wlp 650?

Click to expand...

From what I've gathered it is unimpressive at as a secondary yeast, most saying they didn't get any character from it. Which makes sense considering it's regular old sach.

chefchris said:

From what I've gathered it is unimpressive at as a secondary yeast, most saying they didn't get any character from it. Which makes sense considering it's regular old sach.

Click to expand...

From White Labs on WLP644: This Belgian strain, used traditionally for 100% Brettanomyces fermentations, produces a slightly tart beer with delicate characteristics of mango and pineapple.

This is a 100% Brettanomyces strain. It is unique from other strains of Brett in that it grows faster and ferments faster than most working similarly to Sacc strains but is definitely not Sacc.

Just drank the last bottle I had of a pale ale I brewed probably 4-5 months ago and it was still very good. Still very fruity and the hops had help up very well too. YMMV

I had used this strain to ferment half of a double (10G) batch of the "Abner" clone recipe from BYO last year. I kegged both halves. By the way, I really loved the regular Abner fermented with the Giga-Yeast Vermont IPA strain. Anyway, the 644 fermented beer was very fruity and estery - too much so in my opinion. I ended up racking into bottles after a while. I have recently opened one after several months in the bottle. It has definitely evolved into something very very different than it had been in the keg. Could be warmer temps? I don't really know. It is very brett funky. I had consumed this one last in a series of a 5 beers while watching that atrocious Green Bay vs Seahawks game, so nothing more specific as far as tasting notes.

TD

BrewinHooligan said:

From White Labs on WLP644: This Belgian strain, used traditionally for 100% Brettanomyces fermentations, produces a slightly tart beer with delicate characteristics of mango and pineapple.



This is a 100% Brettanomyces strain. It is unique from other strains of Brett in that it grows faster and ferments faster than most working similarly to Sacc strains but is definitely not Sacc.



Just drank the last bottle I had of a pale ale I brewed probably 4-5 months ago and it was still very good. Still very fruity and the hops had help up very well too. YMMV

Click to expand...

If you look back a few pages you'll see that it was recently discovered that this strain is indeed sacc. White Labs hasn't changed their description but they most likely will.

thanks to all,i'll wait for the wlp 650!

ps: i read the article in the penultimate page, the man who wrote it is a boss!

tagz said:

If you look back a few pages you'll see that it was recently discovered that this strain is indeed sacc. White Labs hasn't changed their description but they most likely will.

Click to expand...

My apologies and thank you for prompting me to read back through the thread. Apparently I've missed a bunch... I personally am excited this is a sacc strain easing my fears of cross-contamination with my other brewing equipment and bottles.

BrewinHooligan said:

My apologies and thank you for prompting me to read back through the thread. Apparently I've missed a bunch... I personally am excited this is a sacc strain easing my fears of cross-contamination with my other brewing equipment and bottles.

Click to expand...

Not too much to worry about with brett anyways. Brett is yeast and should be just as easy to get rid of as any other yeast strain. I think the fear of cross contamination with it is just hearsay and regurgitation. Either way, Trois is always invited to any party I'm having.