Is 3711/Belle Saison a Contaminant?

[madscientist451]

Is there any data that indicates that diastaticus is anything new? Or has it been around for a long time? Put me in the camp that says this is much ado about nothing; (unless proven otherwise).

 

[Calder]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheBrewery...lks_any_experience_testing_for_s_diastaticus/

If you allowed the Diastaticus to ferment out, then you wouldn't have had a problem. The problem would be if the Diastaticus had been inadvertently introduced in small quantities.

Have you also used that gear on lots of other "clean" batches?

I have used 3711 for about 10 years, and as I said, probably about 15 times. I do not have that much equipment that it would not have been used in between batches. For the most part, I use the same two fermenters for primary for all batches.

I am not arguing that Diastaticus may be a contamination that could be a problem; I do have a problem with people saying that yeasts supplied by veritable yeast suppliers are the problem. My experience with 3711 (which is one of the yeasts identified) over many years, is that it is not a problem.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

I'm not even sure how 3711 came up in the discussion. The court case had nothing to do with 3711 and I've never heard of anyone having contamination problems with it. Home brewer or pro-brewer. It's not listed as a potential contaminant (STA1 gene) where a few others are, but the ones that are labeled nobody is mentioning.

 

[xico]

@bollinger: I am a very fortunate individual who enjoys access to some great equipment. When school is over I will miss the lab but I try to get the most from the opportunity.

Frankly, I would be shocked if White Labs doesn't have sufficient quality analysis to catch the contamination. You can get results from diastaticus tests in about 90 minutes. My only familiarity with the brewing world in Europe is Bavaria and they take diastaticus very seriously and have for a long time. Many breweries contract with the university systems in their areas and send samples from every batch to get results before shipping.

This is kind of on both of them actually and I'm sure that's a part of White Labs' argument. Left Hand is a formidable enough brewery to run its own internal QA which should catch contamination at any part of the process. Those beers should never have left the yeast pack let alone brite or cold room without lab approval. It's one thing to be a small brewery with limited means beyond a microscope. But when you are producing on that scale you need to be more responsible, divert dividends from owners a bit and invest in a damn lab or contract one.

Edit:
I don't mean to change the subject, the point is diastaticus becomes increasingly problematic for commercial brewing and that is compounded by beers that potentially spend a lot of time in warm storage before consumption.

 

[xico]

@SoCal-Doug can you please share any data you might have that specifies 3711 doesn't express the STA1 gene? I don't mean to challenge, I haven't tested it but some people whose opinions on yeast I regard in the highest esteem have told me it is diastaticus.

I am testing some samples on Monday anyway and can add 3711 to the batch.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

Holy $hit. All I said was their website does not carry the STA1 warning on 3711 but it does on other strains. I also said that 3711 is NOT a White Labs yeast, it is Wyeast Laboratories product. 3711 and Wyeast has absolutely nothing to do with the mentioned law suit with the brewery. Wrong company and wrong strain. Just because a strain is a high attenuator does not mean STA1 exists. But if it makes you feel better, there are a ton of stories and articles claiming 3711 and other strains being diastaticus scary.

If you are that damn paranoid about 3711 or any other strain, don't use them! Brew everything with WLP001 or sourdough bakers yeast if you like. Stay away from Brett's, Lacto's and Pedio's too. They chew for a long time and poor hygiene with them will bite you in the a$$.

I've many times, mixed 3711 with WLP566 (566 does carry the STA1 warning) It brewed perfectly and tasted great every time. I've done probably 20 other batches of completely different styles in the same erlenmeyer's, separatory flasks, stir plates, air locks, brew systems, fermenters, kegs, refrigerator and garage and still have not had any problems. I know off at least 3 breweries that use both those strains and they have not had any problems. So how about we don't create problems until a problem has been seen, isolated and identified.

The jury is still out on the presence of STA1, STA2, and STA3 being a positive indicator that glucoamylase enzyme will actually be produced. There are hypotheses on both sides of the argument with no positive proofing either way.

Honestly, I could care less because I'm not a commercial operation that packages at a prescribed gravity. Some strains are actually labeled against commercial operations from using them for that exact reason. I (as most home brewers do) wait for all critters to finish consuming sucrose, glucose, maltose, trisaccarides and whatever else they feel like eating (and even some dextrins if I'm unknowingly using a big bad scary infected earth ending yeast strain). I then decide if I like the results or not. If glucoamylase enzyme makes great beer, I'm happy to brew with it.

Real Saison's are all about the yeast flavor and there is nothing else like them. That's what makes a true Saison. It actually makes sense that the authentic strains that morphed over hundreds of years in non-sterile crappy conditions, must be something more and/or different than a basic boring S. Cerevisiae.

 

[dr_bollinger]

Holy $hit. All I said was their website does not carry the STA1 warning on 3711 but it does on other strains. I also said that 3711 is NOT a White Labs yeast, it is Wyeast Laboratories product. 3711 and Wyeast has absolutely nothing to do with the mentioned law suit with the brewery. Wrong company and wrong strain. Just because a strain is a high attenuator does not mean STA1 exists. But if it makes you feel better, there are a ton of stories and articles claiming 3711 and other strains being diastaticus scary.

If you are that damn paranoid about 3711 or any other strain, don't use them! Brew everything with WLP001 or sourdough bakers yeast if you like. Stay away from Brett's, Lacto's and Pedio's too. They chew for a long time and poor hygiene with them will bite you in the a$$.

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.

No one's saying not to use 3711 -- I'm just asking whether extra precautions (like using extra-anal sanitation practices or dedicated diastaticus gear) is merited in the same way that it's merited when brewing with brett and bacteria. It seems like a reasonable question -- definitely better than burying your head in the sand and saying, "I've brewed with 3711 lots of times and I've never injured anyone with a bottle bomb". Well ya, I hope not!

@bollinger: I am a very fortunate individual who enjoys access to some great equipment. When school is over I will miss the lab but I try to get the most from the opportunity.

Frankly, I would be shocked if White Labs doesn't have sufficient quality analysis to catch the contamination. You can get results from diastaticus tests in about 90 minutes. My only familiarity with the brewing world in Europe is Bavaria and they take diastaticus very seriously and have for a long time.

Apparently Left Hand determined that White Labs was not testing for diastaticus --that's apparently part of the argument they're making in the lawsuit.

 

[hotwatermusic]

What sanitation product(s) do you recommend instead of "the big name"?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't asked but I believe some form of Iodofor is generally the advice for wild yeast if Starsan ( oh my god I can't believe I actually said it) isn't working.

 

[hotwatermusic]

@bollinger: I am a very fortunate individual who enjoys access to some great equipment. When school is over I will miss the lab but I try to get the most from the opportunity.

Frankly, I would be shocked if White Labs doesn't have sufficient quality analysis to catch the contamination. You can get results from diastaticus tests in about 90 minutes. My only familiarity with the brewing world in Europe is Bavaria and they take diastaticus very seriously and have for a long time. Many breweries contract with the university systems in their areas and send samples from every batch to get results before shipping.

This is kind of on both of them actually and I'm sure that's a part of White Labs' argument. Left Hand is a formidable enough brewery to run its own internal QA which should catch contamination at any part of the process. Those beers should never have left the yeast pack let alone brite or cold room without lab approval. It's one thing to be a small brewery with limited means beyond a microscope. But when you are producing on that scale you need to be more responsible, divert dividends from owners a bit and invest in a damn lab or contract one.

Edit:
I don't mean to change the subject, the point is diastaticus becomes increasingly problematic for commercial brewing and that is compounded by beers that potentially spend a lot of time in warm storage before consumption.

Can you elaborate more on how you test for diastaticus? Other than genetic testing I was under the impression that most US brewers are depending on screening by plating with wild yeast media and I wouldn't think you could get a positive in 90 minutes. Thanks.

 

[xico]

The best method is genetic testing. Most microbes in the world don't actually grow well on media. This has been a challenge for breweries looking to identify contaminating organisms in their systems. The best we can do is make media from the wort made in the brewery but even then you have growth but that doesn't go far beyond examining cell and colony morphologies.

Using a bioanalyzer is a very quick method if you have a database established. Unfortunately, that takes a few years to build a significant enough system. The best method I am familiar with is using equipment called quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or qPCR for short. This device allows you to take a small amount of a yeast, extract the DNA with caustic to break cell walls and spun down in a centrifuge to separate the genetic material from the organism and run it in the system. When you add primers (small sections of DNA of certain genes or broad sections of DNA that determine the kind of organism, like yeast or bacteria) to the sample DNA and run it in a qPCR reaction it will multiply copies of the target section of your primer, if the sample has it. No copies made means the sample DNA didn't react with the primer and the result will be negative.

This process takes 90 minutes if you run about 40 cycles of DNA replication which is controlled by temperature fluctuations. The quantitative part of the machine comes in here. If the primers make enough copies of the target section then the machine will detect a fluorescence and show a spike in the software. You can run 96 samples (counting controls) on a single plate which covers quite a bit of ground. Making a primer of the STA1 gene is one way to screen quickly for diastaticus. A national brewery should be doing this or have a contract with a local lab to handle this. And a yeast company should definitely be doing this at every stage of their propagation and packaging.

Edit:
In regards to cleaning chemicals I switch off between StarSan, iodine, and a quick ethanol burn on the steel (done very carefully outdoors). I also run small steel and silicone hardware in a pressure cooker a few times a year for good measure. I haven't gotten around to testing starsan yet but hope to get some students in a microbiology course next quarter to look at its effectiveness against yeast and bacteria I've isolated over the years. I will most certainly share what is learned here when I know something.

 

[hotwatermusic]

Thanks so much. That was very edifying and interesting too.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

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.

 

[Jayjay1976]

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]

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]

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

 

[Jayjay1976]

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!

 

[TANSTAAFB]

Thanks!

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

In the immortal words of Delbert McClinton, You're the same kind of crazy as me!

 

[SoCal-Doug]

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]

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

I'll look for the mushroom cloud to the west...

 

[TANSTAAFB]

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

 

[Jayjay1976]

Still has not brought on the zombiepocalypse

Keep drinking it!

 

[SoCal-Doug]

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.

 

[Jayjay1976]

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]

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!

 

[TANSTAAFB]

Keep drinking it!

If my beer brought on the zombiepocalypse I would be soooooo happy[emoji48]

 

[SoCal-Doug]

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"