Bottling conditioning with Brett

[SRJHops]

There must be an Orval thread on here somewhere, but I'm wondering how many drops (or ml) of brett I should add to each 12 oz bottle? I want to dose my next Saison with some Brett B.

Tonsmeire says to dose a 12 oz bottle with 10 drops of "loose yeast slurry," which I take to mean harvested yeast or a starter(?). What about a packet of purchased brett (thinking WY5112)? I've seen recommendations anywhere from 2 drops to 1 ml (about 20 drops).

 

[VikeMan]

I think adding too much Brett is a common mistake with Orval clones. You want the Brett to work hard and fairly slowly in this beer.

When I did one, I researched the brewery's inoculation rate and did the math. It came out to 0.88 pipette drops (of WLP650, straight from the vial) per 750 ml bottle. 0.88 drops is really hard to dispense, so I used 1. If you use Wyeast, you may need to recalibrate based on the cell count per volume in the pack.

BTW, I'm not sure if you're trying to make an Orval-like beer or not, but Orval is not a saison. The perfect primary strain for Orval would be WLP510.

 

[SRJHops]

I think adding too much Brett is a common mistake with Orval clones. You want the Brett to work hard and fairly slowly in this beer.

When I did one, I researched the brewery's innoculation rate and did the math. It came out to 0.88 pipette drops (of WLP650, straight from the vial) per 750 ml bottle. 0.88 drops is really hard to dispense, so I used 1. If you use Wyeast, you may need to recalibrate based on the cell count per volume in the pack.

BTW, I'm not sure if you're trying to make an Orval-like beer or not, but Orval is not a saison. The perfect primary strain for Orval would be WLP510.

Thanks! Sounds like one drop worked for you. I of course want some interesting flavor notes, but also have some concerns about bottle bombs. My saisons finish near 1.000, so hoping that helps avoid problems.

I'd argue Orval is more saison than anything else. It's mostly its own thing, of course. But I am not really trying to clone it. Just want to add some Brett to see what happens.

 

[VikeMan]

Thanks! Sounds like one drop worked for you. I of course want some interesting flavor notes, but also have some concerns about bottle bombs. My saisons finish near 1.000, so hoping that helps avoid problems.

If you add Brett to a beer that has gone as low as 1.000, there's not going to be much for the Brett to work on. As far as bottle bombs go, Orval is very highly carbonated (about 5 volumes), so I used true champagne bottles. The specs looked like this:

OG: 1.054
FG: 1.006
Bottled with one drop WLP650 and 2.1 grams sucrose per 750 ml bottle

I'm skipping the tedious math that got me there, but can provide it if you want. The result was a very highly carbonated (about the same as Orval, subjectively) beer, no gushers, and no bottle bombs.

 

[SRJHops]

If you add Brett to a beer that has gone as low as 1.000, there's not going to be much for the Brett to work on. As far as bottle bombs go, Orval is very highly carbonated (about 5 volumes), so I used true champagne bottles. The specs looked like this:

OG: 1.054
FG: 1.006
Bottled with one drop WLP650 and 2.1 grams sucrose per 750 ml bottle

I'm skipping the tedious math that got me there, but can provide it if you want. The result was a very highly carbonated (about the same as Orval, subjectively) beer, no gushers, and no bottle bombs.

This is great info, thanks! I will try to leave few points for the Brett to eat, though I wonder about the residual sugars (there must be some in there, right?).

I'll be trying to keep the carbonation down a bit, though, because I am just going to use old St. Bernardus 12 ouncers.

 

[SRJHops]

Found this article below on BYO, which says 5 - 10 drops.

It also suggests that for each .001 the yeast consumes, it makes .5 volumes of C02. So, it seems to me if I I'm at 1.003 FG, and the Brett eats the rest, it would produce 1.5 volumes. So if I target 1.5 volumes with the bottling sugar, I should hit around 3.0 and likely avoid bottle bombs. Right?

Maybe it's not really the amount of Brett that matters? Given time, maybe any amount, from 1 drop to 10 drops, will ferment down those last gravity points.

(This all assumes the sacc yeast eats the additional bottling sugars, and the FG stays the same before the Brett yeast starts working on those final gravity points.)

So, if all of the above is true, the next question is will the 10 drops speed this process up? I'd rather not have to wait a year if I can get the Brett to do its work in 3 months...

https://byo.com/article/all-about-brett/#:~:text=Add 5–10 drops of,your choice to each bottle.

 

[monkeymath]

The flavour impact of Brett is not tied to residual sugars for brett to eat.
Here's an interesting article on the various ways in which brett changes the ester profile of a beer:
http://www.sourbeerblog.com/understanding-esterification/

 

[SRJHops]

The flavour impact of Brett is not tied to residual sugars for brett to eat.
Here's an interesting article on the various ways in which brett changes the ester profile of a beer:
http://www.sourbeerblog.com/understanding-esterification/

That's interesting. I'll give it a read. Does this mean the Brett will still do its thing even if I add it to conditioning beer that has an FG of 1.000 or lower?

 

[VikeMan]

The flavour impact of Brett is not tied to residual sugars for brett to eat.
Here's an interesting article on the various ways in which brett changes the ester profile of a beer:
http://www.sourbeerblog.com/understanding-esterification/

Nothing in that article states that "the flavour impact of Brett is not tied to residual sugars for brett to eat" (or the opposite for that matter). Brett makes its own esters (in different types/proportions) to Sacch strains, and it also transforms esters and other compounds produced by Sacch strains. In both cases, Brett has to be active in order to work its magic. And it won't be active without energy, which it gets from sugar (or from complex carbs it converts to sugar). Brett (or any yeast), can't make esterases for free. And the more it makes, the more are available to make or transform esters.

That's interesting. I'll give it a read. Does this mean the Brett will still do its thing even if I add it to conditioning beer that has an FG of 1.000 or lower?

It will do its thing, but it won't do as much of it. It's worth keeping in mind that a gravity of 1.000 doesn't mean that there are no carbs.

 

[Dr_Jeff]

I traded some beer with another homebrewer and what I received was a strong ale bottled with Brett.
I've had the bottles for several years and those that I have opened up have been gushers.
I'll pull one from storage, put it in to cool for a week or so, and still have gushers, only have 2-3 left.

 

[SRJHops]

Nothing in that article states that "the flavour impact of Brett is not tied to residual sugars for brett to eat" (or the opposite for that matter). Brett makes its own esters (in different types/proportions) to Sacch strains, and it also transforms esters and other compounds produced by Sacch strains. In both cases, Brett has to be active in order to work its magic. And it won't be active without energy, which it gets from sugar (or from complex carbs it converts to sugar). Brett (or any yeast), can't make esterases for free. And the more it makes, the more are available to make or transform esters.

It will do its thing, but it won't do as much of it. It's worth keeping in mind that a gravity of 1.000 doesn't mean that there are no carbs.

Thanks. Not sure what to hope for, but I am thinking my best bet would be to have a FG around 1.003 or at least over 1.000. That way I have a good shot at being able to calculate the Co2 the Brett will produce.

Going back to your earlier post, when you say some have too much Brett... Do you think if I add 5 drops or 10 drops of slurry to each 12 ounce bottle it would be too much? I am thinking the amount doesn't really matter, because any amount will eat those last three points given enough time. If I add 5 or 10 drops, maybe it can do its work in three months, rather than a year.....unless there is some reason a year is substantially better?

 

[SRJHops]

I traded some beer with another homebrewer and what I received was a strong ale bottled with Brett.
I've had the bottles for several years and those that I have opened up have been gushers.
I'll pull one from storage, put it in to cool for a week or so, and still have gushers, only have 2-3 left.

Indeed, that is what I am afraid of. I don't want bottle bombs, and I also don't want gushers. I try to brew all of my beers for competition, even if I don't end up entering them. A gusher - or worse (an exploding bottle) -- would certainly not score well!

If I hit 1.003 FG, my current plan is to condition for a volume of 1.5 volumes, then let the Brett add another 1.5 volumes by eating the remaining 3 points.

 

[Dr_Jeff]

I can give no advice on your Brett situation other than, consider bottling in the thicker Belgian style bottles.

I keg most all of my beers and ocasionally bottle up a small portion of what I feel is and exceptional big beer to "save for later" or share with special friends. My beers that have Brett in them have time to :age out" in wood barrels.

And @SRJHops tell us, "Why did the rabbit like NEIPA's so much?", inquiring minds want to know. lol

 

[VikeMan]

Going back to your earlier post, when you say some have too much Brett... Do you think if I add 5 drops or 10 drops of slurry to each 12 ounce bottle it would be too much? I am thinking the amount doesn't really matter, because any amount will eat those last three points given enough time. If I add 5 or 10 drops, maybe it can do its work in three months, rather than a year.....unless there is some reason a year is substantially better?

IMO, pitch rate matters. Just as with Sacch yeast, lower pitch rates will produce more esters, because the growth is happening in your beer instead of in the yeast manufacturer's facility. But yes, attenuation of carbs would happen faster with more brett than with less brett. With brett beers, patience is a virtue, IMO. I enjoy opening bottles periodically and seeing how they have evolved.

That's not to say that 5 or 10 drops wouldn't be great for whatever you're trying to accomplish. But the one drop (of WLP650...remember that Wyeast may have a different "density" of cells) is what worked well for me in an Orval clone. It's funny, but at about 9 months, a pro brewer told me that he would have believed he was drinking the real thing. And that brewer was (indirectly) mentioned in @monkeymath's post. Small world.

 

[SRJHops]

I can give no advice on your Brett situation other than, consider bottling in the thicker Belgian style bottles.

I keg most all of my beers and ocasionally bottle up a small portion of what I feel is and exceptional big beer to "save for later" or share with special friends. My beers that have Brett in them have time to :age out" in wood barrels.

And @SRJHops tell us, "Why did the rabbit like NEIPA's so much?", inquiring minds want to know. lol

Because they have a lot of hops.
(Joke courtesy of my 6 year old daughter.)

 

[Dr_Jeff]

Because they have a lot of hops.
(Joke courtesy of my 6 year old daughter.)

Well I asked.
She came up with that on her own?
Is she also your brew helper?
If so, what does she do other than provide levity and entertainment? Add the hops? or Yeast?

 

[SRJHops]

IMO, pitch rate matters. Just as with Sacch yeast, lower pitch rates will produce more esters, because the growth is happening in your beer instead of in the yeast manufacturer's facility. But yes, attenuation of carbs would happen faster with more brett than with less brett. With brett beers, patience is a virtue, IMO. I enjoy opening bottles periodically and seeing how they have evolved.

That's not to say that 5 or 10 drops wouldn't be great for whatever you're trying to accomplish. But the one drop (of WLP650...remember that Wyeast may have a different "density" of cells) is what worked well for me in an Orval clone. It's funny, but at about 9 months, a pro brewer told me that he would have believed he was drinking the real thing. And that brewer was (indirectly) mentioned in @monkeymath's post. Small world.

We're talking micro pitch rates, but your point is well taken.

I'm still trying to figure out pitch rates... I have actually been getting really nice esters from increasing my pitch rates.. On the Brewers Friend calculator I use, there are .35, .5, .75, 1.0 and 1.25 rates for ales. Once I started using 1.0 my (Belgian) beers got way better and they won medals. I was previously pitching .35 or .5 (manufacturer's rate). I am too chicken to go back to those lower rates, even though I often read/hear that lower rates increase esters..

But back on track... It would be really easy to try different dosing rates of Brett and see if fewer drops leads to better beer after a year. So I will give it a go!

 

[SRJHops]

Well I asked.
She came up with that on her own?
Is she also your brew helper?
If so, what does she do other than provide levity and entertainment? Add the hops? or Yeast?

Just the jokes so far. I find it best to brew when the kids are at school....

 

[monkeymath]

Nothing in that article states that "the flavour impact of Brett is not tied to residual sugars for brett to eat" (or the opposite for that matter). Brett makes its own esters (in different types/proportions) to Sacch strains, and it also transforms esters and other compounds produced by Sacch strains. In both cases, Brett has to be active in order to work its magic. And it won't be active without energy, which it gets from sugar (or from complex carbs it converts to sugar). Brett (or any yeast), can't make esterases for free. And the more it makes, the more are available to make or transform esters.



It will do its thing, but it won't do as much of it. It's worth keeping in mind that a gravity of 1.000 doesn't mean that there are no carbs.

The article describes how various compounds present in beer, be it byproducts of primary fermentation, hop compounds, oak compounds, or others, can be transformed by brettanomyces, often into compounds with a very different flavour. So something that smelled like vomit could turn into papaya. These transformations are often more important than the aromatic compounds created by the brett's own fermentation (i.e. the conversion of sugar to alcohol).
Yes, all these processes required energy, but bretts are hardy little critters and they can make do with various substances, not only residual sugars. If there's something left for them to eat, that'll certainly help them multiply and possibly get the job done quicker, but I don't think it's a prerequisite.

In the beers I've dosed with Orval in secondary, I have often seen very little to no change in gravity, and nonetheless the beers were transformed fundamentally.

 

[VikeMan]

Yes, all these processes required energy, but bretts are hardy little critters and they can make do with various substances, not only residual sugars.

What non-carbohydrate substances do you propose Brett can metabolize to make energy?

 

[SRJHops]

The article describes how various compounds present in beer, be it byproducts of primary fermentation, hop compounds, oak compounds, or others, can be transformed by brettanomyces, often into compounds with a very different flavour. So something that smelled like vomit could turn into papaya. These transformations are often more important than the aromatic compounds created by the brett's own fermentation (i.e. the conversion of sugar to alcohol).
Yes, all these processes required energy, but bretts are hardy little critters and they can make do with various substances, not only residual sugars. If there's something left for them to eat, that'll certainly help them multiply and possibly get the job done quicker, but I don't think it's a prerequisite.

In the beers I've dosed with Orval in secondary, I have often seen very little to no change in gravity, and nonetheless the beers were transformed fundamentally.

I appreciate the comments, though I'm now left with a quandary. Let's say I'm ready to bottle condition a beer that's 1.003 FG, and plan to add some Brett to each 12 oz bottle. Should I assume it will eat those last three points and add C02, or not? Depending on what is more likely, it would change the amount of sugar I use at bottling.

 

[VikeMan]

Let's say I'm ready to bottle condition a beer that's 1.003 FG, and plan to add some Brett to each 12 oz bottle. Should I assume it will eat those last three points and add C02, or not? Depending on what is more likely, it would change the amount of sugar I use at bottling.

I have never seen Brett not produce CO2 when added to beer.

 

[monkeymath]

I appreciate the comments, though I'm now left with a quandary. Let's say I'm ready to bottle condition a beer that's 1.003 FG, and plan to add some Brett to each 12 oz bottle. Should I assume it will eat those last three points and add C02, or not? Depending on what is more likely, it would change the amount of sugar I use at bottling.

I don't recommend bottling a beer that is not "stable". If you add a new microbe to the mix, you"ll need to wait. Predicting the amount of extract consumed by brett is largely impossible unless you've made the exact some beer several times.

 

[SRJHops]

I don't recommend bottling a beer that is not "stable". If you add a new microbe to the mix, you"ll need to wait. Predicting the amount of extract consumed by brett is largely impossible unless you've made the exact some beer several times.

Agree it seems like a challenge. But it also seems like it's possible to avoid bottle bombs if we can assume the Brett will produce C02. How much is a pretty good question, but if I can get my beer down to single digit FG, I'd think I could make a reasonable guess. Assuming .5 volumes per .0001 gravity reduction - and the Brett eats it all down to 1.000.

With the Brett addition, my top priority is to not make bottle bombs or gushers, with a secondary goal of at least having somewhat proper carbonation. The third goal is to see what the Brett will do!

 

[VikeMan]

and the Brett eats it all down to 1.000.

Just be careful there... there's nothing special about an FG of 1.000. This is why champagne bottles are recommended for bottle conditioning with Brett, i.e. they provide some safety margin. (Off hand, I don't know how sturdy St. Bernardus bottles are.)

 

[SRJHops]

Just be careful there... there's nothing special about an FG of 1.000. This is why champagne bottles are recommended for bottle conditioning with Brett, i.e. they provide some safety margin. (Off hand, I don't know how sturdy St. Bernardus bottles are.)

Yeah, could turn into a disaster! That's part of the homebrewing adventure, right?

I do know those SB bottles are heavier than most. I weighed them the other day and they were all above 9 ounces, compared to some regular bottles that were under 6. So I'll at least have that going for me. If all goes well I will enter them into competition, so I have to use the 12 oz bottles. I'd use Orval bottles, but pretty sure they aren't allowed!

 

[monkeymath]

What non-carbohydrate substances do you propose Brett can metabolize to make energy?

I didn't say "non-carbohydrate", but "not only residual sugars". That's an important distinction.

Citing from the MilkTheFunk Wiki:

Some strains are able to utilize the cellulose of the wood as a carbon source, and occasionally form pseudohyphae within the wood which expands the surface area of the cells allowing them more access to nutrients and allowing them to survive in nutrient deficient environments. [See Reduction of Brettanomyces bruxellensis Populations from Oak Barrel Staves Using Steam]

And also

Unlike most genera of yeast, Brettanomyces has the characteristics of being very tolerant to harsh conditions, including high amounts of alcohol (up to 14.5-15% ABV [37][18]), a pH as low as 2 [38], and environments with low nitrogen [4] and low sugar sources [39]. It has been reported that some strains require a very low concentration of fermentable sugars (less than 300 mg/L) and nitrogen (less than 6 mg/L), which is less than most wines contain [40]. Some strains are able to utilize ethanol, glycerol, acetic acid, and malic acid when no other sugar sources are available. [See The carbon consumption pattern of the spoilage yeast Brettanomyces bruxellensis in synthetic wine-like medium]

More important than any "alternative sources of energy" is the fact they can sustain themselves in nutrient deficient environments, so you don't need any significant levels of residual sugars to keep the brett alive. The fact brett stays alive does not, per se, imply they also perform the aforementioned transformations of aromatic compounds.

Maybe the term "brettanomyces" is a bit too broad as a basis for such a discussion. Just like same species of saccharomyces (e.g. sacch cerevisiae) consume maltose, whereas (most?) others don't, there might be too much variance here.

 

[SRJHops]

In the beers I've dosed with Orval in secondary, I have often seen very little to no change in gravity, and nonetheless the beers were transformed fundamentally.

I think Orval uses brux. But is there any chance you dosed those beers with claussenii? I found something on Milk the Funk that said it's a strain of the species B. anomalus and doesn't ferment maltose very well. So, if you don't want the Brett to ferment those remaining points much, it might be the better strain to choose. But if you do want the Co2 from the Brett as part of your bottle conditioning volume calcs, then brux (or lambicus) might be the better choice.

I was originally thinking brux for my dosing, and trying to figure out the sugar addition calcs for bottling. But I'm now thinking if clauss doesn't add much Co2, in theory I could just bottle as usual and add it without worrying too much about bottle bombs and gushers.

 

[monkeymath]

I think Orval uses brux. But is there any chance you dosed those beers with claussenii? I found something on Milk the Funk that said it's a strain of the species B. anomalus and doesn't ferment maltose very well. So, if you don't want the Brett to ferment those remaining points much, it might be the better strain to choose. But if you do want the Co2 from the Brett as part of your bottle conditioning volume calcs, then brux (or lambicus) might be the better choice.

I was originally thinking brux for my dosing, and trying to figure out the sugar addition calcs for bottling. But I'm now thinking if clauss doesn't add much Co2, in theory I could just bottle as usual and add it without worrying too much about bottle bombs and gushers.

I used Orval bottle dregs.
I've heard the same thing about Brett C, but don't get too caught up with the "characterisations" of the various brett species: there might be significant variation between strains of the same species, much like between ale yeasts (which are all saccharomyces cerevisiae, but display very diverse fermentation characteristics). Establishing clear dividing lines between species is often difficult; In some cases, species turned out to be identical (iirc Brett Lambicus and Brett Bruxellensis), some supposed brett strains turned out to be sacch ("brett" trois), etc

And just to reiterate: I really wouldn't dose a beer with brett at bottling until you've made the exact same recipe with the exact same microbes and know the final gravity.
The carbonation we're usually shooting for is a rather narrow range. Depending on the amount of extract chewed away by the brett, you could either end up with a beer an Englishman would send back for "being too flat" or a beer that will immediately jump out of the bottle. I think there's no way around letting it ride in secondary for 3-4 months to find out where it ends up. Then next time you can do the straight bottling thing if you feel so inclined.

It might be an entirely different game if you co-pitch sacch and brett, which can often lead to a final gravity similar to a sacch-only fermentation. Once more, the MilkTheFunk wiki has quite a bit of info on it. I haven't given it a shot yet myself, but I plan to do it for a "Brett Best Bitter" of sorts, hoping to combine mild brett character with the goodness of English hops. (I'll probably try and make a very fermentable wort, then co-pitch and English ale yeast and Brett clausenii, hoping to turn it around within 4-6 weeks so there'll still be some bright hop aromatics.)

 

[SRJHops]

I used Orval bottle dregs.
I've heard the same thing about Brett C, but don't get too caught up with the "characterisations" of the various brett species: there might be significant variation between strains of the same species, much like between ale yeasts (which are all saccharomyces cerevisiae, but display very diverse fermentation characteristics). Establishing clear dividing lines between species is often difficult; In some cases, species turned out to be identical (iirc Brett Lambicus and Brett Bruxellensis), some supposed brett strains turned out to be sacch ("brett" trois), etc

And just to reiterate: I really wouldn't dose a beer with brett at bottling until you've made the exact same recipe with the exact same microbes and know the final gravity.
The carbonation we're usually shooting for is a rather narrow range. Depending on the amount of extract chewed away by the brett, you could either end up with a beer an Englishman would send back for "being too flat" or a beer that will immediately jump out of the bottle. I think there's no way around letting it ride in secondary for 3-4 months to find out where it ends up. Then next time you can do the straight bottling thing if you feel so inclined.

It might be an entirely different game if you co-pitch sacch and brett, which can often lead to a final gravity similar to a sacch-only fermentation. Once more, the MilkTheFunk wiki has quite a bit of info on it. I haven't given it a shot yet myself, but I plan to do it for a "Brett Best Bitter" of sorts, hoping to combine mild brett character with the goodness of English hops. (I'll probably try and make a very fermentable wort, then co-pitch and English ale yeast and Brett clausenii, hoping to turn it around within 4-6 weeks so there'll still be some bright hop aromatics.)

Thanks. Good stuff. Of all the beers I make, I have the most confidence in my Saisons. They always finish near 1.000 or so. They seem like good candidates for this experiment.

I do think/agree that co-pitching or secondary conditioning with Brett seems like the way to go. On the other hand, if I use drops at bottling, I can try different doses - and also just skip the dose in some bottles too.