Berliner Weiss, many ways

[Tinga]

I made a Berliner batch of 5 gallons by brewing three gallons of half pilsner and half wheat with like 7 IBUs. Then I added two gallons of wort off a sour mash I did for two days. So five gallons of wort into the fermenter then pitched sach of it. Obviously a quick ferment with an of of about 1030.

So my question is should I move that beer off the yeast if I plan on aging the beer for another couple months or should I just let it ride?

 

[bluesbaz]

2a I undertook 2a and I'm on my second batch.
The first batch:
5 gallons
2.5 pils
2 wheat
1 acidulated malt
no boil
pitched 1L lacto Starter @ 110˚f
The idea with the acidulated malt screwed up the conversion and I ended up at 1.020 OG. Since this was more experimental than anything else I continued. I pitched a white labs lacto starter which consisted of dme @ 1.020 for a week. I took a reading before pitching and got a ph6.5 I left the fermenter at room temperature for 3 days and took a sample showing no change to gravity or ph.

I decided to change gears I hiked over to the LHBS and purchased some unmilled wheat and pilsner malt brewed up another 1.020 starter and put a cup of the unmilled grains at a 50% mix into a 1L erlenmeyer. I wrapped the fermenter in a heating blanket and set the temp for 110˚F and rested the starter on top of the bucket. Two days later I took another sample from the fermenter with no change in gravity or ph. The starter was another story the ph had dropped to ph3.6 and had a nice fluffy pellicle. After 5 days of inactivity I decided to take my chances... I simply filtered out the grain from the starter and dumped the starter liquid into the fermenter. The next morning I had heavy airlock activity and a sample at ph4.2. 3 days after the second pitch under a constant 110˚F I was at ph3.2 and a gravity reading of 1.018. I dropped the temp to 65˚f and pitched some white labs german yeast. 6 days later airlock activity had stopped 2 days earlier and the gravity was at 1.003. The beer had a single dimension to the flavor lemony acidity with a dry finish. Given the luck other have had reaching desired acidity I was pleased.

Three days after the second pitch on the initial batch I brewed again
5 gallons
2.5 wheat
2.5 pilsner
OG 1.030
No boil no hops

Right after the initial success of the first starter I brewed a 1L 1.030 starter at ph4.2 (pure lactic acid) and added 1 cup of unmilled wheat and pilsner inoculant. By brew day, two days later, the ph was at 3.2 on the starter. I pitched the starter @ 110˚f and wrapped the fermenter in my heating blanket set to 110f˚. 2 days later the ph was at 3.4 and the gravity has dropped to 1.025.

I plan on bottling the first batch with some Brett L. to add some dimension. I will update further in the future. this thread has been rather helpful. One note is that acidity can be rather subjective if anyone could include ph readings as a more concrete measurement I would greatly appreciate your efforts.
Thoughts....
I will add more observations as they develop.....

 

[terrapinj]

trying my second attempt at a Berliner style beer - no boil this time

60% 2-row, 27% flaked spelt, 13% raw spelt - couple oz of Acid Malt in the mash for pH adjustment and another 4.5oz when sparging to help lower the pH (planned on using more but that was all I had)

ended up adding a few ml of lactic acid as well in the keg to help lower the pH to keep anything unwanted from growing that may have survived in the starter

souring the wort in a corny now to give me better control over 02 exposure, using a lacto starter from apple juice and grain.

will be pitching a healthy starter of Brett B trois later in the week to ferment once the sourness is at the target level

 

[terrapinj]

trying my second attempt at a Berliner style beer - no boil this time

60% 2-row, 27% flaked spelt, 13% raw spelt - couple oz of Acid Malt in the mash for pH adjustment and another 4.5oz when sparging to help lower the pH (planned on using more but that was all I had)

ended up adding a few ml of lactic acid as well in the keg to help lower the pH to keep anything unwanted from growing that may have survived in the starter

souring the wort in a corny now to give me better control over 02 exposure, using a lacto starter from apple juice and grain.

will be pitching a healthy starter of Brett B trois later in the week to ferment once the sourness is at the target level

Despite my efforts to keep o2 out and a clean smelling/tasting starter ive got that wretched butyric acid smell when I vented the keg (plus plenty of blow off). Taste is mildly tart and not too nasty but pretty bummed. Brett should clean it up but hopefully it doesn't require much aging

 

[bluesbaz]

I just tried a bottle of my first batch which I bottled with some white labs Bret. L. I bottled into 750ml heavy flip top bottles without racking or going to a secondary and enough dextros to get me to 3 atmospheres. Litmus on the beer in glass showed a ph of 3. The beer was tart, acidic, and lemony, and well carbonated with a dry apple finish. I am well pleased.
I obviously should have racked to a secondary as there is a good amount of sediment in the bottles about .25 inch.
All in all I couldn't be happier for a first attempt. My notes for the third attempt will be to mash for a drier finish, whirlfloc, a short boil for hot break, and a bit of time in secondary. I am also considering skipping the starter and just throwing some grain in the primary.
Thoughts, ideas, observations?
-s

 

[djturner]

About to brew my first Berliner. Thanks to all for the great info in this thread.

Does anyone think this style would benefit from brewing with spring water?

My tap water isn't horribly chlorinated, but it seems there's not a lot of darker/stronger malts to "hide" any less desirable flavors behind.

Cheers
dj turner

 

[mysteryshrimp]

All in all I couldn't be happier for a first attempt. My notes for the third attempt will be to mash for a drier finish, whirlfloc, a short boil for hot break, and a bit of time in secondary. I am also considering skipping the starter and just throwing some grain in the primary.
Thoughts, ideas, observations?
-s

If you boil for a short time, you bring DMS back into play. You really should go one or the other. Either don't boil at all or boil for 60. Good luck.

 

[TNGabe]

About to brew my first Berliner. Thanks to all for the great info in this thread. Does anyone think this style would benefit from brewing with spring water? My tap water isn't horribly chlorinated, but it seems there's not a lot of darker/stronger malts to "hide" any less desirable flavors behind. Cheers dj turner

You never want to brew with water that hasn't been dechlorinated.

 

[drawdy10]

If you boil for a short time, you bring DMS back into play. You really should go one or the other. Either don't boil at all or boil for 60. Good luck.

I wonder about this because this is what I do is a 15 minute boil and it does not have cooked corn flavors, I've had many taste it with comments of green apple, lemony, very tart, grainy, and delicious. I use pilsner malt and dechlorinated water. Seems like the water and primary yeast have minimal impact on this. The tartness really overrides many of the subtle flavors it seems.

 

[zeekage]

I wonder about this because this is what I do is a 15 minute boil and it does not have cooked corn flavors, I've had many taste it with comments of green apple, lemony, very tart, grainy, and delicious. I use pilsner malt and dechlorinated water. Seems like the water and primary yeast have minimal impact on this. The tartness really overrides many of the subtle flavors it seems.

I've done the same (short, 15 min boil) on all three batches of Berliner Weisse that I've made and have not noticed any DMS flavors. I've entered these batches in Competitions and never had any of the judges pick it up either. I can only assume the acidicty covers up any flavors that are there. My grain bills are close to 50% pils too. I know some people use more pils so maybe that's why it's worked out for me so far.

 

[tgmartin000]

So for those of you using method 2a (normal mash, pitch lacto a few days before pitching ale yeast), how long does the sourness take to develop?

Also, when would I add fruit using this method? Give it say 2 weeks in primary, then rack to fruit in secondary for a few months? I want to have a fruited BW ready for drinking next summer. ANy thoughts?

 

[FuzzeWuzze]

Quick question, so i made my Berliner pitched lacto and S05 at the same time, beer fermented out, lacto came in and was going along nicely, so i decided to transfer it to a secondary to get it off the yeast cake and let it sit...

My question is what temp should i hold this at? Is 70 ok? Should i bring it up to 75-80 or higher to really let the lacto take off? I dont see how going higher now that the fermentation is done and the yeast are mostly gone could hurt the beer, but ive never done a sour so i just dont know!

 

[Wyrmwood]

I brewed a Saison a while back that I wanted to sour a bit using the sour mash technique I described earlier. Because I only wanted it a little sour, I racked off a couple of gallons, added the grain and put it in the oven at 105F. After three days, it had a bit of a pellicle but was not very sour at all and a gravity check showed very little sugars had been consumed. I left it for another day but it did not improve. I then checked on my kettle (which I had left at cellar temp, ~62F). It had a giant pellicle and tasted quite sour, and was about 8 gravity points lower than where I started, so I proceeded I did before (did a normal boil, 105 minutes since I had Pils and for volume). It worked out great, but the portions I separated behaved completely opposite as anticipated.

 

[Tiroux]

Next week i'm trying a new method. Here it is:

3lbs Pils
3lbs Red Wheat Malt

Step Mash
Filtration
15 minutes boil with 10g EKG (4 IBU) (1.030-1.035)
Active lacto culture pitch in the kettle after cooled to 100°F (Lacto D.)
2 or 3 days sour worting
60 minutes
1/4oz Cascade 20m
1/4oz Cascade 5m
(11 IBU final)
Us05 fermentation
Bottling with Brett Lambicus addition

It should give me, after carbonation and some brett over work, a 4% really sparkly BW.

 

[bknifefight]

Why are you doing two boils?

 

[Tiroux]

Why are you doing two boils?

The first one is just to sterilise the wort prior to the sour worting. Then I'm sur I have nothing else than lacto going on. The second is to sterilize again, boil off DMS and hop the wort.

 

[fc36]

The first one is just to sterilise the wort prior to the sour worting. Then I'm sur I have nothing else than lacto going on. The second is to sterilize again, boil off DMS and hop the wort.

Your first boil is completely unnecessary. Mashing at 150 takes care of most beasties and anything that tries to take root in there will be discouraged by heat (100-110F or 38-43C) and by covering your vessel and purging the headspace with CO2. Butyric Acid bacteria and Acetobacter are your main culprits of Berliner problems and both work to convert alcohol to the dreaded butyric acid and acetic acid (vinegar) respectively.

However, your initial fermentation is using Lactobacillus Delbrueckii to convert sugar to lactic acid. Lacto D. is a known homofermentative species and as such will not produce anything but lactic acid during its fermentation process. Your wort will contain sugar, starch, proteins, lactic acid and water, but no alcohol until you introduce yeast after your proposed second boil.

Furthermore, once the wort is inoculated with Lacto D., it will crowd out competitors like a yeast when introduced in a large enough quantity, like let's say, a smackpack. And once it takes root, it will work rather quickly to lower the pH below 4.5. Again, the low pH is in your favor and makes it hard for undesirables to gain any headway.

Like any other beer, with proper sanitation and a little preparation, you can sour mash easily and safely with very little to worry about.

 

[Tiroux]

I know all that (and by the way, lacto D is hetero, blowing out a lot of co2, wich is impossible if producing only lactic acid). But hey, could it hurt to take 15 minutes more? Better be too safe than not enough.


Envoyé de mon iPhone à l'aide de Home Brew

 

[fc36]

I know all that (and by the way, lacto D is hetero, blowing out a lot of co2, wich is impossible if producing only lactic acid). But hey, could it hurt to take 15 minutes more? Better be too safe than not enough.


Envoyé de mon iPhone à l'aide de Home Brew

Just because you have airlock activity does not mean its exclusively CO2. During any fermentation gaseous byproducts are produced. Check this out...http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Lactobacillus_delbrueckii
and this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactobacillus

Both sources list Lacto D. as an obligately homofermentative species. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just give you a little food for thought. The first boil is unnecessary, but can certainly give someone peace of mind. I've done several berliners with no pre-inoculation boil and I've also done a few with the always scary sour mash technique, all to spectacular results.

 

[Tiroux]

Just because you have airlock activity does not mean its exclusively CO2. During any fermentation gaseous byproducts are produced. Check this out...http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Lactobacillus_delbrueckii
and this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactobacillus

Both sources list Lacto D. as an obligately homofermentative species. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just give you a little food for thought. The first boil is unnecessary, but can certainly give someone peace of mind. I've done several berliners with no pre-inoculation boil and I've also done a few with the always scary sour mash technique, all to spectacular results.

Well, that shakes my knowledge... My lacto culture is going on in a erlenmeyer right now, since over a week, with an airlock. I have a massive gaz expulsion, for several days, and no pellicule at all, wich means no oxygen. I also did a 100% lacto D fermentation for 3 weeks in a carboy, (wich I after blended with a 100% brett fermentation), and I never had any sign of pellicule. And I can tell it was alcoholic at the end.

That said...
1- What might be, if not CO2, that is pushing out?
2- Well, maybe Wyeast Lacto D isn't a pure lacto D culture?

 

[fc36]

Well, that shakes my knowledge... My lacto culture is going on in a erlenmeyer right now, since over a week, with an airlock. I have a massive gaz expulsion, for several days, and no pellicule at all, wich means no oxygen. I also did a 100% lacto D fermentation for 3 weeks in a carboy, (wich I after blended with a 100% brett fermentation), and I never had any sign of pellicule. And I can tell it was alcoholic at the end.

That said...
1- What might be, if not CO2, that is pushing out?
2- Well, maybe Wyeast Lacto D isn't a pure lacto D culture?

This might clear some of your confusion up...http://inst.bact.wisc.edu/inst/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=95

It's interesting to note that homofermentative species of lactbacilli ferment 1 mole of glucose directly to 2 moles of lactic acid with no byproducts, whereas heterfermentative species ferment out several things including CO2. My guess is that Wyeast 5335 Lacto D has a collection of lacto bugs in it. The bio on it can be found here...http://www.wyeastlab.com/rw_yeaststrain_detail.cfm?ID=148

All it says is that it was isolated from a Belgian brewery, but my guess is that they chose several species of lacto and weeded out any sacch, brett, or pediococcus that may have been present in order to give a more well-rounded flavor. It's entirely possible that CO2 is being made by one of the hetero species, but other gases can be byproducts of fermentation including H2S.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the homofermentative reaction of 1 glucose --> 2 lactic acids is an ideal situation. In the real world, wort contains many other sugars besides only glucose and all of those will have their own unique reaction to fermentation by lactic acid bacteria. Long chain sugars like maltose and maltotriose will throw lots of different byproducts and simpler sugars like sucrose and fructose may only produce lactic acid and one or two additional byproducts, just by virtue of how much shorter their molecules are and the ability to metabolize and chop it into lactic acid.

 

[Indytruks138]

Your first boil is completely unnecessary. Mashing at 150 takes care of most beasties and anything that tries to take root in there will be discouraged by heat (100-110F or 38-43C) and by covering your vessel and purging the headspace with CO2. Butyric Acid bacteria and Acetobacter are your main culprits of Berliner problems and both work to convert alcohol to the dreaded butyric acid and acetic acid (vinegar) respectively.

However, your initial fermentation is using Lactobacillus Delbrueckii to convert sugar to lactic acid. Lacto D. is a known homofermentative species and as such will not produce anything but lactic acid during its fermentation process. Your wort will contain sugar, starch, proteins, lactic acid and water, but no alcohol until you introduce yeast after your proposed second boil.

Furthermore, once the wort is inoculated with Lacto D., it will crowd out competitors like a yeast when introduced in a large enough quantity, like let's say, a smackpack. And once it takes root, it will work rather quickly to lower the pH below 4.5. Again, the low pH is in your favor and makes it hard for undesirables to gain any headway.

Like any other beer, with proper sanitation and a little preparation, you can sour mash easily and safely with very little to worry about.

So are you stating that a 100% lacto fermentation doesn't produce alcohol? I know J wakefield does 100% lacto on his berliners.

 

[fc36]

So are you stating that a 100% lacto fermentation doesn't produce alcohol? I know J wakefield does 100% lacto on his berliners.

When you say "...a 100% lacto fermentation doesn't produce alcohol?", you need to qualify that statement with what type of lactobacilli that you are referring to. In terms of Wyeast's 5335 strain Lacto D. it does indeed not produce alcohol during fermentation. J Wakefield and a handful of other brewers are doing 100% lacto beers, but again, it's all about which strain you use. Perfect example of some characteristics of 100% lacto beers would be from someone that most people are familiar with...The Mad Fermentationist.

http://www.themadfermentationist.com/2012/06/100-lactobacillus-berliner-weisse.html

This is an awesome article, which should quickly put some myths straight about some of the more popular commercially available lacto strains out there.

 

[Calder]

I know all that (and by the way, lacto D is hetero, blowing out a lot of co2, wich is impossible if producing only lactic acid). But hey, could it hurt to take 15 minutes more? Better be too safe than not

You will boil off any alcohol created! Depending on how far the laccto fermented the sugars, you could have a very low alcohol conntent. I've had hetero-lacto take a 1.040 down to 1.018.

:
Another thing to consider is the fact that the homofermentative reaction of 1 glucose --> 2 lactic acids is an ideal situation. In the real world, wort contains many other sugars besides only glucose and all of those will have their own unique reaction to fermentation by lactic acid bacteria. Long chain sugars like maltose and maltotriose will throw lots of different byproducts and simpler sugars like sucrose and fructose may only produce lactic acid and one or two additional byproducts, just by virtue of how much shorter their molecules are and the ability to metabolize and chop it into lactic acid.

I've soured with lacto acidophillus before and had zero airlock activity. It did a great job. Used all wheat extract in that batch.

 

[Tiroux]

fc36: After 3.5 days of sour worting (OG 1038), I have a 1014 gravity, with a not very sour thing. I have boiled and pitched the lacto culture at 110-115°F.

If that doesn't mean an heterofermentative strain, I don't what It could mean.

 

[fc36]

fc36: After 3.5 days of sour worting (OG 1038), I have a 1014 gravity, with a not very sour thing. I have boiled and pitched the lacto culture at 110-115°F.

If that doesn't mean an heterofermentative strain, I don't what It could mean.

My guess is that it has yeast as well as bacteria going on to be honest with you. I've said this before. The only way to tell would be to plate some out on Petri dishes direct from the smackpack and see what all is in there. Now I've never done that straight from a smackpack, but it'll be really apparent under a microscope. Anyone ever done that with either white labs or wyeast lacto blends?

 

[Tiroux]

My guess is that it has yeast as well as bacteria going on to be honest with you. I've said this before. The only way to tell would be to plate some out on Petri dishes direct from the smackpack and see what all is in there. Now I've never done that straight from a smackpack, but it'll be really apparent under a microscope. Anyone ever done that with either white labs or wyeast lacto blends?

The sacch would have die in a pitch at 110+ °F no?
And other bacteria... it was an anaerobic medium, pre-boiled... and to take it down from 1038 to 1014 in 3 days...?...

 

[fc36]

The sacch would have die in a pitch at 110+ °F no?
And other bacteria... it was an anaerobic medium, pre-boiled... and to take it down from 1038 to 1014 in 3 days...?...

Sacch won't completely die at 110. However, I'm thinking wyeast lacto d is a mix of several lacto strains and very well could contain some sacch as well. True lactobacillus ddelbrueckii is (pardon my French) homo as stated in several of my earlier sources, but there are plenty of lacto strains that are hetero. At this point, I'm not entirely sure what the point of this convo has become.

Your original post was about doing a double boil and many people including myself have said that it is redundant. It may serve to sterilize your wort before introduction of lacto, but unless you intend to later pitch sacch, there is no point to a second boil. And many brewers including myself have made wonderful Berliners without the need to sterilize the wort before introducing lacto. Only when later adding sacch is it even necessary.

 

[Tiroux]

Sacch won't completely die at 110. However, I'm thinking wyeast lacto d is a mix of several lacto strains and very well could contain some sacch as well. True lactobacillus ddelbrueckii is (pardon my French) homo as stated in several of my earlier sources, but there are plenty of lacto strains that are hetero. At this point, I'm not entirely sure what the point of this convo has become.

Your original post was about doing a double boil and many people including myself have said that it is redundant. It may serve to sterilize your wort before introduction of lacto, but unless you intend to later pitch sacch, there is no point to a second boil. And many brewers including myself have made wonderful Berliners without the need to sterilize the wort before introducing lacto. Only when later adding sacch is it even necessary.

Yes, my plan is to boil and ferment with sacch, then bottle with brett. But now i'm just wondering what I'm gonna do with a sour wort that finished at 1014. Whatever.

Sorry if I may seam rude, my english isn't so good, and I probably don't show the tone I want to I don't argue your infos, I read the articles and find it really interesting. I'm just trying to find what is ''wrong'' with this ''strain'' of white labs. We'll have to check on a petri has you said I guess.

 

[fc36]

Yes, my plan is to boil and ferment with sacch, then bottle with brett. But now i'm just wondering what I'm gonna do with a sour wort that finished at 1014. Whatever.

Sorry if I may seam rude, my english isn't so good, and I probably don't show the tone I want to I don't argue your infos, I read the articles and find it really interesting. I'm just trying to find what is ''wrong'' with this ''strain'' of white labs. We'll have to check on a petri has you said I guess.

SUre, sure, blame it on your English... JK. No, I didn't think you were being rude. I just thought we had gotten is all. I hope the beer turns out well. I'm interested to here feedback. I'm surprised it's not more sour having dropped from 1.038 to 1.014 with no sacch or brett added yet. It's not necessarily odd, but it certainly leaves me scratching my head.