looking for your brett

[Grod1]

new to the hobby I cant wait to get started i would love to get some of the funkidelic brettanomyces cultures that you guys have out there.If you have what im looking for then PM me and we can work out a trade. I will end first since i am so new

 

[MarshmallowBlue]

Have you looked on the online homebrew shops? Most of them have 2-4 strains of brett readily available.

 

[secondbase]

My LHBS stocks all the White Labs and Wyeast Brett strains. They aren't hard to find. It's yeast, not LSD.

 

[BierGut]

yEAH BUT i AM WILLING TO TRADE MY BRETT STRAINS FOR SOME lsd

 

[Grod1]

ergot would be very dangerous(responsible for the Salem witch trials) to culture. besides i have looked for years and found noone with it.You would have to cultures it from wild wheat.
I do however have a variety of edible mushroom cultures, or Psilocybe spores that are legal in ever sate except GA,CA,ID

 

[beergolf]

Look here..

http://www.themadfermentationist.com/p/dreg-list.html

This is a big list of commercial brews that have brett in the bottles. The dregs from a couple of bottle is a good way to add brett to your brews.

 

[Grod1]

maybe i should just crack a cascade or flora from hillfarmstead,i have cantillon on its way aswell. but for me diversity is king i would want 100 people Brett cultures 1 or 2 or 10 will never be enough

 

[MarshmallowBlue]

I don't think there are 100 strains of brett.

 

[Grod1]

you dont think, huh?Im pretty sure that with a single petridish in front of my laminar flow hood i could pick out a few "strains"
i bet you things like average temp and geographic location have changed bretts. You think anchorage is brewing with the same brett as funky Buddha?
i might be a beer brewing noob but i am advanced in mycology

 

[WhamFish]

If your looking for a Brett trade I'm up for it. I have several cultures just PM me and we can arrange a trade. Goes for anyone, I'm always willing to swap bugs in the mail as long as people are able to give accurate origins of their strains. I've got bugs from Cascade, Crooked Stave and Jolly Pumpkin. Also have "De Bom" mixture reharvested from a ferment. I've repitched it and the mixture seems to retain the same properties as the original mix.

 

[WhamFish]

Also, I think there are millions and millions of brett strains out there. Just at the species level I'd bet there are a 100 or so. I know that there's only 2 recognized currently but thats just because the taxonomy hasn't been updated. Once a molecular geneticist devotes some attention to the subject I'm sure this will change. On top of the species level there would be millions and millions of individuals, many of them would be more or less the same but still many would not. I guess for the purposes of brewing the real question is how many functionally different strains are there and to that I'd still say that the answer is in the hundreds. But just my guess.

 

[sweetcell]

I don't think there are 100 strains of brett.

there are thousands out there.

 

[MarshmallowBlue]

I stand corrected.

 

[hirschb]

Once a molecular geneticist devotes some attention to the subject I'm sure this will change.

Already being done: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/science/craft-beer-at-the-genetic-level.html?_r=0

 

[WhamFish]

Already being done: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/science/craft-beer-at-the-genetic-level.html?_r=0

Yea, the genomes will provide insights, I'm looking forward to having access to that data, however, more extensive genotyping of natural populations will be necessary to actually get a handle on the extent of natural diversity and how best to define species in these groups

 

[hirschb]

however, more extensive genotyping of natural populations will be necessary to actually get a handle on the extent of natural diversity and how best to define species in these groups

Yes and no. If you're interested in natural diversity, of course you'd need to sample lots of strains found in nature but not in beer. For species level classifications, this extra info is probably not needed.
The unique part about this project is they can hopefully learn something useful about gene function in relation to brewing related properties of the yeast. This info could then be used to make better/different brewing yeasts. Really ****ing cool stuff (and I think will settle the Brett trois debate once and for all).

 

[WhamFish]

Yes and no. If you're interested in natural diversity, of course you'd need to sample lots of strains found in nature but not in beer. For species level classifications, this extra info is probably not needed.
The unique part about this project is they can hopefully learn something useful about gene function in relation to brewing related properties of the yeast. This info could then be used to make better/different brewing yeasts. Really ****ing cool stuff (and I think will settle the Brett trois debate once and for all).

Im also very excited about the data being available, there will be lots of interesting questions that can be asked of that dataset. Indeed there should be a lot that can be learned about gene functions and could certainly inform a yeast domestication program for the directed development of new strains even if that requires starting with wild yeast.

As for the species question:
Whole genomes are unable to define species. You can only define species by testing or assessing the ability to exchange genetic material. That's a population genetics question, which requires lots of naturally occurring samples but not all that much depth of genomic coverage, you can do it with a hand full of genetic markers. Additionally, domesticated strains don't really fall under a natural species concept like the biological species concept so it's hard to say what constitutes a species in their case. I would generally favor an assessment of which natural species they originally were derived from and then a secondary demarcation as to indicate their domesticated clonal line.

As for WLP644:
The data I have seen show very clearly that it is saccharomyces, what's not clear is what species of Saccharomyces it is. The single gene used for identification was ITS which is generaly used for simple screening applications because it is easy to design universal markers that work across a wide variety of taxa because it is situated between conserved ribosomal genes. It however does a rather crappy job of resolving species because the full ribosomal array occures in tandem repeats which do not evolve under molecular clock assumptions, instead they undergo concerted evolution. For this reason it is difficult to conclude if it is truly S. cerevisiae. The genome will indeed be informative in making its classification more clear.

 

[hirschb]

I'm not 100% certain they'll publish the data. It depends on if the scientists want to publish in journals that have databanking requirements and/or they can come up with some highly lucrative reason to keep the data secret.

I have no doubt that Trois falls in with Sacch phylogenetically. The question to me is why does it act like a brett? What genes are responsible for the brett-like properties of the yeast, and did Trois get those genes from brett or random mutations?

 

[sweetcell]

The question to me is why does it act like a brett?

in what ways is Trois like brett?

it propagates like sacch, it doesn't super-attenuate in secondary, it can't digest complex sugars... its fruitiness is reminiscent of brett C, but there are other sacchs (saisons, for example) that can be just as fruity.

edit: as i re-read this, it's occurred to me that brett as a whole is so diverse in its flavors that it is pointless to try to characterize it based on flavors.

 

[hirschb]

in what ways is Trois like brett? .

I'm not sure about the digesting complex sugars (I thought it could), but aroma/taste and pellicle formation are pretty good indicators to me (although I recently read something that even sacch can form pellicles given the right conditions). But yeah, without better/further evidence, I'm doubting my own point now....