Is 3711/Belle Saison a Contaminant?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

SoCal-Doug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
885
Reaction score
619
Location
Earth
My 3711/566 blend of earth destroying saison contaminants went into the keg at 1.001 FG from a 1.058 OG, cleared, and carbonated. Sampled it tonight... As always, absolutely scrumpulously wonderfully yummy. If that's what disaster and evil tastes like, bring on the Armageddon :)
 

hotwatermusic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
434
Reaction score
220
Location
gardena
Now the question is, if you were to brew a high fg porter and then bottle that using the same equipment would those bottles remain shelf stable at room temps for a prolonged time. Kudos on 1.001 though...
 

beerlover77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
360
Reaction score
120
Location
parksville
Now the question is, if you were to brew a high fg porter and then bottle that using the same equipment would those bottles remain shelf stable at room temps for a prolonged time. Kudos on 1.001 though...
Yes it's called 'oxyclean', 'brush', 'starsan'. Glass and SS are not getting infected and plastic will be fine with good sanitation.
 

SoCal-Doug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
885
Reaction score
619
Location
Earth
Now the question is, if you were to brew a high fg porter and then bottle that using the same equipment would those bottles remain shelf stable at room temps for a prolonged time. Kudos on 1.001 though...
Yes. I rotate through my "always available" brews which normally include Saison, Red Ale, Vanilla Porter and Wit. Occasionally we throw in a Kolsch, Sour whatever, Milk Stout, or some other style. Been brewing on and off for over 20 years. Been doing Saison's with "real" Saison yeasts for at least 10 years. I have NEVER had a bottle bomb, unexplained keg overcarb, or a batch go flavor/growth south (definitely had a few that I wasn't happy with, but it was obviously the recipe or process/equipment malfunction). We also sometimes do multiple or double batch brew days where friends/neighbors bring their fermenters and ingredients over. I don't ever remember hearing of them having an issue in the last 5 to 7 years either. Lucky? maybe. But I have always practiced proper hygiene. Losing the money on a batch from being sloppy is bad enough, losing 6 to 8 hours of brew day efforts would piss me off. When you play with ANY yeast, brett's, pedio's, lacto's, or ingredients that yeast and bacteria feed on, be sanitary!

Arm yourself with knowledge and use it to your advantage and gain. Don't run away paranoid, ignorant and unarmed.
 
Last edited:

SoCal-Doug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
885
Reaction score
619
Location
Earth
Yes it's called 'oxyclean', 'brush', 'starsan'. Glass and SS are not getting infected and plastic will be fine with good sanitation.
Don't forget... Clean your refrigerators/kegerators inside and out, work area, brew rig, and work surfaces occasionally. Lysol is a wonderful thing before starting a brew day but I never hear anyone mention it. Also sani-spray all those nasty bags, ziplocks and bottles of hops, yeast, and whatever else that you held with drippy wort hands, before you put them back in the fridge. They are just asking for all kinds of crap to grow on them. I have no problem dipping my hands in the sanitizer bucket throughout brewing, kegging, yeast starting or bottling.

Most people I know (including myself) start the night before with a nice big bucket or tub (and a spray bottle) of sanitizer. Even as the brewday finishes and cleanup is happening, tools and parts are going right back into that bucket for a while before being rinsed off, dried and put away. When emptying a fermenter or keg, clean it immediately, get some sanitizer in it, swish it around a few times over the course of your cleanup. Empty it and let everything dry. Don't forget your beer lines and taps, those things get sticky nasty too. Worse yet, "beer stone" can build up if you slack in cleaning responsibilities.

It's not rocket science. Vintners, cheese makers, brewers, and any other food preparation area has the same risks.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
3,977
Reaction score
3,756
Location
Chicago
My 3711/566 blend of earth destroying saison contaminants went into the keg at 1.001 FG from a 1.058 OG, cleared, and carbonated. Sampled it tonight... As always, absolutely scrumpulously wonderfully yummy. If that's what disaster and evil tastes like, bring on the Armageddon :)
I agree, 3711 is scrumtrilescent, but what's 566?
BTW, if Diastaticus is a wild strain commonly found in nature, why aren't whole cone hops a vector for infection via dry-hopping? I know this doesn't happen in practice, but why are hops not covered with wild yeasts like just about all other vegetation? Is it the kilning? Is the handling post-kilning so well isolated from the raw hop processing areas that reintroduction of spores is prevented? Seems like a hop farm would be permeated by whatever wild spores raw hops contain.
 

TANSTAAFB

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
532
Location
Western Slope
I agree, 3711 is scrumtrilescent, but what's 566?
BTW, if Diastaticus is a wild strain commonly found in nature, why aren't whole cone hops a vector for infection via dry-hopping? I know this doesn't happen in practice, but why are hops not covered with wild yeasts like just about all other vegetation? Is it the kilning? Is the handling post-kilning so well isolated from the raw hop processing areas that reintroduction of spores is prevented? Seems like a hop farm would be permeated by whatever wild spores raw hops contain.
Is diastaticus susceptible to the antibiotic properties of hops like lacto?
 

SoCal-Doug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
885
Reaction score
619
Location
Earth
I agree, 3711 is scrumtrilescent, but what's 566?
566 is another one of those masochistic earth ending bacteria's from Russia or North Korea that will contaminate every brew within 500 miles, It even has the warning on it :)

Blending it with 3711 makes for some awesome flavors. You can also culture Dupont dregs and grow them up to use alone or mixed with 3711. I've been washing and saving both blends for quite a while. I'm sure I've contaminated most of the west coast by now.

https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-bank/wlp566-belgian-saison-ii-yeast
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
3,977
Reaction score
3,756
Location
Chicago
566 is another one of those masochistic earth ending bacteria's from Russia or North Korea that will contaminate every brew within 500 miles, It even has the warning on it :)

Blending it with 3711 makes for some awesome flavors. You can also culture Dupont dregs and grow them up to use alone or mixed with 3711. I've been washing and saving both blends for quite a while. I'm sure I've contaminated most of the west coast by now.

https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-bank/wlp566-belgian-saison-ii-yeast
Thanks!

Edit: Reading that warning about Diastaticus made my nipples go pointy! I love monster yeasts!
 
Last edited:

SoCal-Doug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
885
Reaction score
619
Location
Earth
Reading that warning about Diastaticus made my nipples go pointy! I love monster yeasts!
I kegged half and bottled half, so I figure within a week, my garage and fridge should be destroyed by the pending explosions. I'm guessing by now its down to 0.915 or so ;)
 

TANSTAAFB

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
532
Location
Western Slope
I made a split batch with Us05 as a control and WLP590 French Saison & WLP644 Saccharomyces Bruxellensis Trois, both potential diastaticus variants I believe, and they're freaking delicious and nothing has exploded. Then I made a pale ale and pitched both, fermenting now. So far the saison tastes best when I blend all three brews equally. Still has not brought on the zombiepocalypse
 

SoCal-Doug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
885
Reaction score
619
Location
Earth
WLP590 French Saison & WLP644
Now i'm getting a case of the pointys. Did the 644 come through with any sour or was it just generally more funky? I like brett's but i'm just not patient enough. I've heard that 644 is kind of a fake and fast replacement.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
3,977
Reaction score
3,756
Location
Chicago
Kinda OT but, I'm planning on brewing a belgian pale this weekend with 3522 Ardennes, I want to make this one hop-forward, but not quite an IPA. I'm thinking of using mandarina Bavaria hops which are primarily for flavor and aroma, can i bitter with this too? Or is that a waste? I have lots of Opal on hand at 5.9%. I just really want to try dry hopping with the mandarina.
 

TANSTAAFB

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
532
Location
Western Slope
It's a little tart, but nowhere near what I consider to be "funky" in the aged Brett sense.
The 644 and 590 batches are different in that you could easily tell them apart in a triangle test but not significantly different in character if that makes sense. I will be taking these to my club meeting next week to get more feedback (we've got a few BJCP judges) but I think I like the blend better than any one single variant. I've been tasting them individually and blended and I'm still having a hard time describing unique characteristics of each. Wish I could be more helpful and I hope better palates than mine can contribute more useful descriptors!
 

SoCal-Doug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
885
Reaction score
619
Location
Earth
Any early hop is going to bitter. Oils will isomerise and infuse, aroma goes away in the boil. Late additions won't lose as much in the boil and hence some aroma stays around to be enjoyed.

I've never used that type of hop but I have done a wit with citra at 60 and 7. It turned out good. Definately bittered and threw floral, fruity and citrus aromas. Saaz is another commonly used single hop in the lighter and floral catagory (albeit slightly earthy also).

If you want to experience that particular hop and what it has to offer, go for it early and late for sure. Just because a hop is labeled "for aroma" it doesn't mean "don't use for bitter"
 

xico

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
328
Reaction score
60
@Jayjay1976 Diastaticus is simply a saccharomyces and would be found where others exist. Hops are not likely locations to find them. The flowers are wind pollinated so no bees and wasps to transport them which means no nectar production which can encourage yeast growth. Flowers that attract insect or bird pollination and subsequent fruit will often be covered. Furthermore, many hops are cut down at the end of the season so there is little material to house organisms carried over from the previous years like you would bark in a tree.

The kilning process would be inhospitable for yeast but I think if they were covered in yeast we see some getting through.


@TANSTAAFB
Not a lot has been done to determine yeast strain ibu tolerance. That said, just because they can survive in the presence of iso-alpha and beta acids from hops doesn't mean it prefers it. The mechanism that makes it hard for bacteria to grow also challenges yeast budding, which is why you won't hear of anyone hopping their starters.

The threshold needed to control one strain of Diastaticus isn't necessarily going to help with another.
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
2,727
Location
UK
I'm not sure why this is so controversial. 3711 is diastaticus. Diastaticus contamination has caused recalls and a lawsuit. There seem to be reasonable grounds to treat diastaticus as a "wild" yeast like brettanomyces rather than a "clean" yeast.
Just to be clear - you seem to view diastaticus as some kind of separate yeast species. It's not, it's just a label for regular yeast that contains one particular gene (STA1 glucoamylase) that's particularly good at breaking down complex carbohydrates. Think of it like the label "redhead" or "blue-eyed" in humans rather than a species name like "gorilla" or "chimpanzee".

There's quite a few yeasts with the gene - aside from WLP566 White Labs have found it in WLP099 Super High Gravity ("Thomas Hardy" - which is actually a wine yeast) and WLP590 French Saison. Sequence analysis suggests it may be lurking in WLP026 Premium Bitter ("Marstons"), a British relative of the saisons which doesn't carry a warning at present - Burton brewers always looked for high attenuation in order to ferment out everything before sending the beer to export markets.There also seems to be non-functional STA1 genes in WLP045 Scotch Whisky and WLP570 Belgian Golden Ale ("Duvel") which may show up on PCRs without having functional genes (045 has a warning) - all those may be interesting ones to test if you can get them xico?

The original complaint Left Hand had was that they were buying pitches of WLP090 San Diego that had sufficiently high levels of STA1-containing contaminants that they were causing bottle bombs months later on the shelves of retailers - and that White Labs were not testing for STA1 whilst guaranteeing that their yeast was contamination-free. So if one assumes that now White Labs (and Wyeast!) are paranoid about STA1 in what they sell, then your only worry about diastaticus is the small amounts that survive your sanitation procedures and grow up sufficiently to chew significant amounts of dextrins in your homebrew. This really assumes that you're leaving your homebrew for long periods of time, at warmish temperatures - but it's not really an issue for the typical pale ale which goes into a cold kegerator and is drunk within weeks. It's only really a worry with Belgians etc that you're looking to keep - but then it's not dissimilar to worrying about Brett etc infections in that kind of thing. As mentioned above, it's not a problem if you're expecting Brett-levels of attenuation, the problem is when you expect an fg of 1.013 and there's something that takes it down to 1.003. That's a problem, that's when you get bottle bombs. Getting 1.003 when you expect 1.003 is not a problem.
 

TANSTAAFB

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
532
Location
Western Slope
The president of the local brew Club (also a biologist) tasted a saison in which I had tossed dregs of some good funky beers from Jester King, and said he could taste the diastaticus. Is that even possible?!
 

xico

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
328
Reaction score
60
@TANSTAAFB Tasting diastaticus is a funny claim to make as there is no defining flavor of the identified strains. Saccharomyces as a genus is highly variable and diastaticus is a member of the Sacch. cerevisiae species and just variants of it.

If he can taste diastaticus then he needs to start charging breweries as a one-mouth quality analysis laboratory and we can throw away our molecular biology equipment!

@Northern Brewer I have 099 and 590 but not the other strains you mentioned. I can throw them into the mix when I get the next round of tests.
 

TANSTAAFB

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
532
Location
Western Slope
@TANSTAAFB Tasting diastaticus is a funny claim to make as there is no defining flavor of the identified strains. Saccharomyces as a genus is highly variable and diastaticus is a member of the Sacch. cerevisiae species and just variants of it.

If he can taste diastaticus then he needs to start charging breweries as a one-mouth quality analysis laboratory and we can throw away our molecular biology equipment!

@Northern Brewer I have 099 and 590 but not the other strains you mentioned. I can throw them into the mix when I get the next round of tests.
My thoughts exactly. He's a good guy but bombastic is not an inaccurate descriptor!
 

Azura

Banned
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
188
Reaction score
49
Location
USA
The amount of paranoia regarding brett and most recently diasticus is waaay overblown. After hundreds of funky and clean brews I have never had an over attenuation problem and freely mix my fermenters with whatever microbes I want. Cleaning and sanitation works very well. Funky fermenters get hit with bleach first, then iodine just to be extra sure.
 

SoCal-Doug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
885
Reaction score
619
Location
Earth
The president of the local brew Club (also a biologist) tasted a saison in which I had tossed dregs of some good funky beers from Jester King, and said he could taste the diastaticus. Is that even possible?!
I'll hoist the BS flag on that, unless some bio guru can prove it throws detectable and tastable chemistry not similar to that of any other sacc c. The result of an "active" STA1 gene (or maybe STA2 or STA3) would result in a decrease of body, head, and maybe a little less malty. All of those vary anyway and can be caused by many things other than the very rare diastaticus muching down on more than we wanted them too. Having the gene does not mean it will show itself. Lots of brunettes have the redhead gene but you would never know it unless they throw a ginger offspring.
 

xico

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
328
Reaction score
60
@Azura I agree good cleaning practices will generally keep contaminations in the background. But that doesn't mean you don't have contaminants in your process, you are just doing well to keep their populations in the noise. Homebrewing is allowed to be more forgiving than commercial setups for reasons you can review in this thread.

It's not paranoia to discuss organisms that can cause undesired effects in fermentations, especially not when those effects can potentially hurt someone. Just because you have had only impeccable brews and your process is better than an auto-clave doesn't mean the information shared is not valuable to someone else.

No one has advised not to use brett, diastaticus, or lactic acid bacteria. I use them all along with a bunch of other yeast. Like any tool in the trade, it's important for people to know their functions and their flaws so they can be best utilized. It's science, not paranoia fella.
 

Azura

Banned
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
188
Reaction score
49
Location
USA
@Azura I agree good cleaning practices will generally keep contaminations in the background. But that doesn't mean you don't have contaminants in your process, you are just doing well to keep their populations in the noise. Homebrewing is allowed to be more forgiving than commercial setups for reasons you can review in this thread.

It's not paranoia to discuss organisms that can cause undesired effects in fermentations, especially not when those effects can potentially hurt someone. Just because you have had only impeccable brews and your process is better than an auto-clave doesn't mean the information shared is not valuable to someone else.

No one has advised not to use brett, diastaticus, or lactic acid bacteria. I use them all along with a bunch of other yeast. Like any tool in the trade, it's important for people to know their functions and their flaws so they can be best utilized. It's science, not paranoia fella.
Oh..OK, 'science brewer' that claims to not be paranoid. Brett and diasticus don't require an autoclave to die. Fact. Simple sanitation is all that is required. Regardless, I'll bet the majority of homebrew is infected to a degree that doesn't matter. A reliable way to avoid bottle bombs is to buy a keg or be a very patient bottler which few people are.

What is your solution to ease the diasticus paranoia that the homebrew pod casters and other media have exacerbated?
 

Calder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
8,545
Reaction score
1,034
Location
Ohio
I know this doesn't happen in practice, but why are hops not covered with wild yeasts like just about all other vegetation? Is it the kilning? Is the handling post-kilning so well isolated from the raw hop processing areas that reintroduction of spores is prevented? Seems like a hop farm would be permeated by whatever wild spores raw hops contain.
Hops don't necessarily get heated. Many of them are just air-dried. For Commercial purposes, the maximum temperature they can be exposed to during the drying process is 140 F

Now i'm getting a case of the pointys. Did the 644 come through with any sour or was it just generally more funky? I like brett's but i'm just not patient enough. I've heard that 644 is kind of a fake and fast replacement.
644 is just a sacc yeast. No Brett in the mix.
 

xico

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
328
Reaction score
60
@Azura, every development in sophistication the homebrew community achieves the better brewers we all become. Reducing this thread to being alarmist is essentially saying "I'm taking time out of my life to assert that your discussion is meaningless to me." That doesn't contribute a thing to the conversation and dismisses the participants' interest.

@Northern_Brewer biofilms of yeast are something I don't know much about. I've read about biofilms in bacteria at some length but it's interesting to know yeast can do so as well. Thanks for the share.
 

Azura

Banned
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
188
Reaction score
49
Location
USA
@Azura, every development in sophistication the homebrew community achieves the better brewers we all become. Reducing this thread to being alarmist is essentially saying "I'm taking time out of my life to assert that your discussion is meaningless to me." That doesn't contribute a thing to the conversation and dismisses the participants' interest.
3711 has been available for many years. Many homebrewers have used it and sanitized their 'clean' fermenters with nothing more than Oxiclean and Starsan. 3711 has not created a homebrew over attenuation pandemic for many thousands of users.

The reason this is a discussion right now is White Labs is being sued for diasticus contamination by Left Hand. WL isn't famous because they produce containment free products 100% of the time. ;) Podcasters and bloggers dropped a diasticus paranoia bomb on some of the homebrew community. The rest of us just shrugged.

You have falsely claimed I intended to render this discussion "meaningless" simply because I have never had a problem fermenting clean beers in 'dirty' fermenters that have previously contained diasticus, brett, pediococcus, lactobacillus and at least 50 other nasty wild bugs from real Belgian Lambics. Strong sanitation is a helluva drug!
 

SoCal-Doug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
885
Reaction score
619
Location
Earth
Did some tasting at a Karl Strauss brewery today. While chatting with the waiter and the local brewer we got on the subject of contamination and paranoia. They have 3711, 566 and Brett in many of their brews, none of their locations have had a problem due to (in the brewers own words) "we know how to keep our $hit clean and we are patient enough to not bottle early".

I highly recommend their 29th anniversary Saison. 1 year Pino Nior barrel aged, heavily Brett'ed, STA1 fermented, and all da funk you could want. Freaking yummy. I actually bought a growler knowing it would be gone soon.

Their Brett'ed stout was quite nice too. More like a light porter, but seriously tasty. Finally, the Kolsch was heavenly and pure german textbook flavor. I couldn't get him to cough up which yeast they use though.
 

TANSTAAFB

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
532
Location
Western Slope
Took my split batch saison (WLP644 Saccharomyces Bruxellensis Trois, WLP590 French Saison, and US-05 as a clean comparison to see what flavors were yeast driven and what were recipe driven) to the club meeting and the French Saison was the overwhelming favorite. I need to do another with DuPont. I think the diastaticus issue is interesting and I get why contamination is an issue for breweries that have to deal with shelf stability, but on a homebrew basis? Don't really care. Apparently diastaticus is delicious!
IMG_20180206_203017.jpg
 
Last edited:

xico

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
328
Reaction score
60
My lab partner ran 3711 and it is a diastaticus. It's what we already knew but I will bring more news as we start testing more strains with our new primers.
 

Smellyglove

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
801
From what information I've gathered from just reading forums. 3711 is a diastaticus, but does not leave a biofilm like Belle Saison does. It's the biofilm which is "dangerous". I've read several people having troubles after using Belle, but not after using 3711. I have myself never used Belle Saison because I got suspicious after reading initial first hand experiences with it (before I even know what Diastaticus is), and will never use it because of the biofilm it often leaves behind.

there are lots of strains which carry the STA1 (or the other) genes. Many of them exhibit a Diastaticus behavior. Most common are the ones called "French Saison". I guess some of them might be sourced from the same brewery/place/area.

Belle Saison
3711
BE-256
MJ M29
WLP590

Are the ones i know from the top of my head.
 

Miraculix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,677
Reaction score
3,074
Location
Bremen
So how long does it take for those diastatic strains to reach final gravity? Do they chew on the long carbohydrates for months after botteling so that you might have an unpleasant surprise after three months?
 
Top