Post your infection

[ajbosley2015]

Did you transfer these hops to the primary fermenter? If so, why? If not, once the wort is cooled they are no longer adding any bitterness. Grassy is often caused by dry hopping for too long.

the hop bill left a ton of sediment under my beer in the primary that I just didn’t want there...but understood

 

[KookyBrewsky]

20191110_111919

• dwhite60
• Nov 10, 2019

Definite infection. Those cloudy blobs at the bottom.

I was told to test the probiotics you're taking and spending good money on. Boiled two tablespoons of honey in a cup of spring water, added some yeast nutrient (diammonium phosphate) and pitched a capsule. It's been room temp so growing slowly. Does seem viable though.

All the Best,
D. White

I got one of those cloudy blobs in a mason jar when I was trying to propagate a basil plant. Life is weird.

 

[ajbosley2015]

Surely looks like the beginning of a pellicle: the broken-ice-like haze, and the white dots and strands forming at 1:00.

Bottle, let carbonate up and stick in fridge. Drink fast.

Stop using secondaries: a) they don't solve anything, b) can cause oxidation and infections. Dry hop in "primary," the one and only fermenter you need.

Update:
day two of the film and I am confident it was acetobacter. Very strong vinegar smell in the headspace. Racked from under, picked up a bit of yeast from the bottom, left one gallon, primed, and prepared for bottle. Gravity was near terminal for a NEIPA. Tasted, smelled and tested pH prior to bottling; all seemed perfectly fine. While I know the contaminants are throughout the entire batch, I hope they dont turn to vinegar in all of the bottle headspaces. Used CO2 purging positive pressure bottling system to remove all oxygen from bottles to lessen potential for reactivation. Roused bottles after 1 day. Will monitor over the next 5-7 days, then refrigerate and drink as fast as possible haha.

Thanks for the input. This was the 3rd time I have ever developed a film similar to that and the first two times I believe they were not any form of wild bacterial yeast as they either disappeared or never progressed and did not impact flavor in the slightest bit. This time could obviously be different, but if they survive I will post a picture in the glass. If they fail...well I will just come back and tell you

 

[RPh_Guy]

This was the 3rd time I have ever developed a film similar to that and the first two times I believe they were not any form of wild bacterial yeast as they either disappeared or never progressed and did not impact flavor in the slightest bit.

Brewers yeast does not form a pellicle, so you certainly had wild microbes those other times.
Most of the time contaminations have no obvious effect on flavor.

 

[ajbosley2015]

Brewers yeast does not form a pellicle, so you certainly had wild microbes those other times.
Most of the time contaminations have no obvious effect on flavor.

interestingly enough, a biofilm atop wort can be comprised of many different things and is by no means automatically indicative of wild bacteria or yeast. It could be dead yeast cells, proteins, lipids, sugars, or combinations of all.

*this is not my verbiage and is from a PhD in microbiology

 

[RPh_Guy]

this is not my verbiage and is from a PhD in microbiology

Source please. I'd love to hear more about pellicles forming without wild microbes.

I am confident it was acetobacter.

How did you rule out Gluconobacter?

 

[ajbosley2015]

Source please. I'd love to hear more about pellicles forming without wild microbes.


How did you rule out Gluconobacter?

you are confusing my comment as to say that a pellicle didn’t form. These biofilms are always considered “pellicle” as a pellicle is simply a biofilm that forms at the liquid-air interface.

Point being, the microorganisms in “brewers yeast” can form biofilms at the liquid-air interface without it being a byproduct of wild bacterial yeast

Gluconobacter oxydans is identical to Acetobacter suboxydans...ergo same ****

 

[RPh_Guy]

I wasn't questioning whether a pellicle formed. I was pointing out the fact that only wild microbes form pellicles.

Point being, the microorganisms in “brewers yeast” can form biofilms at the liquid-air interface without it being a byproduct of wild bacterial

Please point to a commercial strain of Saccharomyces that forms a pellicle, if you want to support that argument. I'm fairly certain none of them do.

Gluconobacter oxydans is identical to Acetobacter suboxydans...ergo same poopy

Actetobacter suboxydans was reclassified because it's in fact NOT Actetobacter. There are also other Gluconobacter species capable of producing acetic acid.

Furthermore, how do you know the contaminating microbe is bacteria and not yeast?

We simply can't really determine what microbe(s) are present just by the appearance of a pellicle and a whiff of acetic acid. There are lots of different organisms that can contaminated beer.

 

[ajbosley2015]

I wasn't questioning whether a pellicle formed. I was pointing out the fact that only wild microbes form pellicles.

Please point to a commercial strain of Saccharomyces that forms a pellicle, if you want to support that argument. I'm fairly certain none of them do.

Actetobacter suboxydans was reclassified because it's in fact NOT Actetobacter. There are also other Gluconobacter species capable of producing acetic acid.

Furthermore, how do you know the contaminating microbe is bacteria and not yeast?

We simply can't really determine what microbe(s) are present just by the appearance of a pellicle and a whiff of acetic acid. There are lots of different organisms that can contaminated beer.

I know you have a hard-on to belittle people and claim superiority, but it took me all of two seconds to locate a scientific journal that cites typical ale yeast (S. cerevisiae) producing biofilm

https://academic.oup.com/femspd/article/65/2/169/681089

I suppose I will go further:
It certainly isn't gluconobacter oxydans (or acetobacter suboxydans) as neither of those are pellicle forming,

See:
STUDIES OF CERTAIN NON-PELLICLE-FORMING VINEGAR BACTERIA' S. C. VANDECAVEYE From the Division of Bacteriology, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station

It is instead likely acetobacter aceti (a vinegar producing bacteria that DOES create a pellicle) but the group of bacteria that produce acetic acid are all part of the Acetobacteraceae family...if you receive an acetic acid production from wild bacteria, it is bacteria from the Acetobacteraceae family. Now it could be a yeast strain, but it would have to be one of the 60-ish yeasts of the Brett or Dekkera families. The likelihood of finding will Brett or Dekkera strains in wort when you have never utilized any yeast from those families is highly improbable, in fact near impossible.

So in short, if you have produced acetic acid in beer, have a pellicle, and you have used S. cerevisiae, you have a wild bacterial contamination from the Acetobacteraceae family. Gluconobacter oxydans DOES NOT FORM A PELLICLE

 

[ajbosley2015]

Edit...near impossible unless you have a fruit orchard nearby, but then you wouldn’t be introducing a strain of Brett that produces acetic acid would you?

 

[RPh_Guy]

I know you have a hard-on to belittle people and claim superiority

That's not at all what I'm trying to do, so I'm sorry you feel that way. I want to make sure we all have the facts straight.

it took me all of two seconds to locate a scientific journal that cites typical ale yeast (S. cerevisiae) producing biofilm

https://academic.oup.com/femspd/article/65/2/169/681089

Some strains of S. cerevisiae can form a pellicle (e.g. Σ1278b).
However, no commercial brewing strains of Saccharomyces form a pellicle.
Therefore pellicle = wild microbes.

Again, I'd love to see if there's any evidence to the contrary so I could correct my thoughts on this. Perhaps you could simply point out which commercial Sacc strain you used that forms a pellicle.

So in short, if you have produced acetic acid in beer, have a pellicle, and you have used S. cerevisiae, you have a wild bacterial contamination from the Acetobacteraceae family.

That was my point. It certainly could be any of the acetic acid bacteria family, not just Acetobacter. Other bacteria do also produce acetic acid, such as Lactobacillus, Pectinatus, Megasphaera, etc., but these would likely have other noticable byproducts besides acetic acid.

Fair point about Brett, although it may not be as rare as you might think. Some wild yeast wranglers claim to be able to frequently isolate Brett strains growing on local plants in their area.

One important piece is missing: Who's to say the contamination isn't polymicrobial? You could have one microbe producing acetic acid and another that forms a pellicle. Given the extreme abundance and variety of microbes all around us, wouldn't you say it's possible there could be more than just a single species that got into the beer through whatever means?

I only argue this point with the hope that I may protect you or other people from thinking "huh, vinegar, must be just bacteria so I'm safe from bottle bombs." This assumption overlooks the fact that a high-attenuation wild yeast strain could possibly also be present and bottles could explode. That's why I don't think it's wise to make assumptions about the identity and exclusivity of contaminating microbes.

Edit...near impossible unless you have a fruit orchard nearby, but then you wouldn’t be introducing a strain of Brett that produces acetic acid would you?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do some strains of Brett not produce any acetic acid under semi-aerobic conditions? I know there's some variability but I haven't heard of any strains that just don't produce it.

Cheers

 

[ajbosley2015]

That's not at all what I'm trying to do, so I'm sorry you feel that way. I want to make sure we all have the facts straight.


Some strains of S. cerevisiae can form a pellicle (e.g. Σ1278b).
However, no commercial brewing strains of Saccharomyces form a pellicle.
Therefore pellicle = wild microbes.

Again, I'd love to see if there's any evidence to the contrary so I could correct my thoughts on this. Perhaps you could simply point out which commercial Sacc strain you used that forms a pellicle.


That was my point. It certainly could be any of the acetic acid bacteria family, not just Acetobacter. Other bacteria do also produce acetic acid, such as Lactobacillus, Pectinatus, Megasphaera, etc., but these would likely have other noticable byproducts besides acetic acid.

Fair point about Brett, although it may not be as rare as you might think. Some wild yeast wranglers claim to be able to frequently isolate Brett strains growing on local plants in their area.

One important piece is missing: Who's to say the contamination isn't polymicrobial? You could have one microbe producing acetic acid and another that forms a pellicle. Given the extreme abundance and variety of microbes all around us, wouldn't you say it's possible there could be more than just a single species that got into the beer through whatever means?

I only argue this point with the hope that I may protect you or other people from thinking "huh, vinegar, must be just bacteria so I'm safe from bottle bombs." This assumption overlooks the fact that a high-attenuation wild yeast strain could possibly also be present and bottles could explode. That's why I don't think it's wise to make assumptions about the identity and exclusivity of contaminating microbes.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do some strains of Brett not produce any acetic acid under semi-aerobic conditions? I know there's some variability but I haven't heard of any strains that just don't produce it.

Cheers

so it was easy to find without doing any research that WLP700 for mead and cider (but often used in port wine beer) creates a biofilm. Now I’m not saying that my pellicle was not from the yeast, I’m just giving you a quick example with very little research of a S. Cerevisiae strain of brewers yeast that creates a biofilm (pellicle)

mad far as multiple microbes entering the beer...sure it’s possible. I’m fact it’s probable, however I am referring to what caused the acetic acid development and did not impact anything else.

I had a pellicle, I had acetic acid production, I had no off flavors...I had a evidence of Acetobacter. Now if you would like me in future posts to refer to the full Latin name, I will, but saying you have Acetobacter implies a member of the Acetobacteraceae family, not a specific species. Acetobacter is an informal name for the family, with dozens of species carried within.

there was already sufficient information provided by admin that one should watch for bottle bombs so your suggestions after digging around and realizing you were wrong are simply reiteration a of previous knowledge given so...thanks.

and to touch back on my initial claim that you act like an authority and belittle...perhaps you should go back and analyze your comments to all. You act like you know everything, and if someone questions you, you instantly go on the defense with snarky comments and emojis. It’s pretty evident that it’s supposed to be Rphguy’s show and no one else’s if you are commenting.

if it’s not your intent, cool; perhaps you should do a little self-evaluation and reflection. We are ALL here to learn

 

[RPh_Guy]

so it was easy to find without doing any research that WLP700 for mead and cider (but often used in port wine beer) creates a biofilm. Now I’m not saying that my pellicle was not from the yeast, I’m just giving you a quick example with very little research of a S. Cerevisiae strain of brewers yeast that creates a biofilm (pellicle)

Ken Schramm says in his book The Compleat Meadmaker (page 59) that WLP700 is Saccharomyces fermentati (syn. Torulaspora delbrueckii).

Acetobacter is an informal name for the family,

If it's all the same to you, "acetic acid bacteria" or AAB would be correct because this term includes other the genera.

 

[cipranif]

does my beer got infection?
i pick up my homebrewed beer and i look at it....very clear beer with a little sedinent on the botton.

Once i open it all the sediments come to the top and the beer is not clear anymore.

do you know what's is going on??

at the taste is quite yeasty but looks like there is no diacetil or any other bad smell

 

[RPh_Guy]

does my beer got infection?
i pick up my homebrewed beer and i look at it....very clear beer with a little sedinent on the botton.

Once i open it all the sediments come to the top and the beer is not clear anymore.

do you know what's is going on??

at the taste is quite yeasty but looks like there is no diacetil or any other bad smell

It doesn't sound like a contamination.
Is the level of carbonation normal or is it too much?

Sediment in the bottle is normal and expected, because it's the yeast that produced the carbonation and then settled to the bottom.

When you open the bottle, the change in pressure causes the release of carbon dioxide gas. The yeast at the bottom acts as "nucleation points" for the gas, which causes it to float up.

How long are you refrigerating it before opening? It would help to leave it refrigerated for several days before opening.

Welcome to HBT!

 

[ajbosley2015]

Lol ...

Torulaspora is non-Saccharomyces and therefore not "brewers yeast".

So juvenile. We don't need all the drama, we're just here to talk about beer.

while this has been fun and all in the name of actual science...I believe it should end here. That said: you have been provided a lot of information on biofilm and pellicle, as well as some classifications that you may not have known before. All in a good days work.

it is my intent to encourage others to recognize that one answer is not always the case, especially in terms of wild bacterial infection. We should be careful to instantly classify everything, but provided enough resources and markers, we can narrow things down.

truth is, narrowing down to Acetobacteraceae doesn’t really do anything for us nor does narrowing down to lacto, Brett, etc. all we are really accomplishing is putting a name to a face...but if we can classify using enough information (and sometimes throw it under a scope, put it in some agar and intentionally grow it) we can truly classify and begin to learn about the inherent differences.

we are all here to learn, perhaps we got too combative and failed to recognize the real goal here

At any rate: just as you made claim of people instantly thinking it’s bacterial infection, I want to put out enough information so that people don’t instantly think it’s a bad thing to have a biofilm. There is plenty of research available and at our disposal (especially now) leading us down the path of recognizing that unintended biofilm is sometimes just a product of your fermentation conditions. (Oh, if you are interested, I have a pretzel honey brown ale that’s been in fermentation for over a year...that has S. Cerevisiae brewers yeast on top of one fermenter that certainly formed a biofilm that many would call “yeast rafts” it’s fairly evident that it’s a typical book film that dead yeast cells created. If you are interested in pictures you can message me)

 

[RPh_Guy]

No commercial Sacc strains form the extracellular matrix that constitutes a pellicle. If you have an actual biofilm (pellicle), then you have wild microbes present.

Yeast rafts on the other hand are simply flocculated yeast (cell-cell adhesion) kept afloat by CO2 bubbles. The appearance is very different.

Dead yeast falls to the bottom of the fermenter, certainly after a year.

 

[lowtones84]

does my beer got infection?
i pick up my homebrewed beer and i look at it....very clear beer with a little sedinent on the botton.

Once i open it all the sediments come to the top and the beer is not clear anymore.

do you know what's is going on??

at the taste is quite yeasty but looks like there is no diacetil or any other bad smell

Thank you for posting a question about infection!

I agree with RPh guy. If the beer is bottled and a bit overcarbonated, carbonation can cause the yeast from the bottom of the bottle to rise. Store it at least two days in the fridge, preferably more.

 

[ajbosley2015]

does my beer got infection?
i pick up my homebrewed beer and i look at it....very clear beer with a little sedinent on the botton.

Once i open it all the sediments come to the top and the beer is not clear anymore.

do you know what's is going on??

at the taste is quite yeasty but looks like there is no diacetil or any other bad smell

I think it would be helpful to all of us if you could post a picture or two. From how it sounds, we are all in agreement that what you have going on is normal.

Quick questions:
When did you bottle?
How long has it been under refrigeration?
What was your final gravity before priming?
What style, and how much priming sugar did you use?

 

[ajbosley2015]

No commercial Sacc strains form the extracellular matrix that constitutes a pellicle. If you have an actual biofilm (pellicle), then you have wild microbes present.

Yeast rafts on the other hand are simply flocculated yeast (cell-cell adhesion) kept afloat by CO2 bubbles. The appearance is very different.

Dead yeast falls to the bottom of the fermenter, certainly after a year.

I guess we didn't beat the dead horse so we shall continue.
the FLO11 gene is proven to be responsible for biofilm production. That said, FLO11 is present in Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus
and OYL033 Jovaru Lithuanian Farmhouse contains the STA1 gene that makes it a Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus strain. That said, this commercial S. Cerevisiae strain must contain the FLO11 gene. A yeast containing the FLO11 gene can in fact cause multi-cellular aggregates with proteins at the liquid-air interface (hence pellicle without the presence of wild microbes)

News to me, but I hope you will appreciate it.


I would still like to send you pictures of two fermenters with differing versions of my pretzel honey brown ale in them so you can see yeast (and only yeast) on top of the surface after over a year. It could be quite interesting to you

 

[RPh_Guy]

We can continue until you stop spreading false information.

When you have recurrent contamination, it might seem like a pellicle is "normal", but assuredly it is not.

FLO11 gene is proven to be responsible for biofilm production.

Source please.

I would still like to send you pictures of two fermenters with differing versions of my pretzel honey brown ale in them so you can see yeast (and only yeast) on top of the surface after over a year. It could be quite interesting to you

Just post it here if it's a pellicle because it would belong in the infection thread.

 

[ajbosley2015]

We can continue until you stop spreading false information.

When you have recurrent contamination, it might seem like a pellicle is "normal", but assuredly it is not.


Source please.


Just post it here if it's a pellicle because it would belong in the infection thread.

I have spread zero false information and please do not call me a liar. That is markedly impolite.

No one said anything about recurrent contamination.

It isn't an infection, so it doesn't belong in this thread.

As far as sources: As a former university lecturer of physics, I have access to certain databases that most do not but:


Adam, A.C., Latorre‐García, L. and Polaina, J. (2004), Structural analysis of glucoamylase encoded by the STA1 gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (var. diastaticus). Yeast, 21: 379-388. doi:10.1002/yea.1102

Bumgarner SL, Dowell RD, Grisafi P, Gifford DK & Fink GR (2009) Toggle involving cis-interfering noncoding RNAs controls variegated gene expression in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 18321- 18326.

Giaever G, Chu AM, Ni L, et al. (2002) Functional profiling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Nature 418: 387-391.

Halme A, Bumgarner S, Styles C & Fink GR (2004) Genetic and epigenetic regulation of the FLO gene family generates cell-surface variation in yeast. Cell 116: 405-415.

Koschwanez JH, Foster KR & Murray AW (2011) Sucrose utilization in budding yeast as a model for the origin of undifferentiated multicellularity. PLoS Biol 9: e1001122.

Van Mulders, S.E., Ghequire, M., Daenen, L. et al. Flocculation gene variability in industrial brewer’s yeast strains. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 88, 1321–1331 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-2843-5

It's a difficult task to cross-reference the information, but I trust you will do so with the sources you can reference in my list of citations. They are all actually very deep reads and being a wild yeast enthusiast I think you will really love them.

 

[RPh_Guy]

Wow, lots of articles, thanks.

It's important to understand something when talking about genetics: Just because a gene is present does not mean that it is expressed.

For example, there are many commercial strains that contain the STA1 gene (which encodes a glucoamylase), but it's clear that not all of those strains actually express that gene because not all of those strains ferment dextrins (i.e. have a high level of attenuation).

The second article you cited (Bumgarner et al 2009) states this explicitly with regard to FLO11 (which encodes a membrane-bound mucin):
"FLO11 is transcribed at high levels (“on”) in some cells and is completely transcriptionally silenced (“off”) in others."

Furthermore, even the expression of this gene wouldn't mean that the strain forms a pellicle (the proteins produced have variable functions).

Also, "biofilm" doesn't equate to "pellicle". Belle Saison is actually one strain that reportedly may produce a biofilm, but it does not produce a pellicle.

The genetic discussion is purely academic. There are simply no commercial Sacc strains (including any of the diastaticus variants) that produce a pellicle. You haven't been able to find a single example of one because there are none. Compare that to any of the non-Sacc commercial strains like Brett and the Torulaspora you mentioned, which readily and consistently form pellicles.

 

[ajbosley2015]

Wow, lots of articles, thanks.

It's important to understand something when talking about genetics: Just because a gene is present does not mean that it is expressed.

For example, there are many commercial strains that contain the STA1 gene (which encodes a glucoamylase), but it's clear that not all of those strains actually express that gene because not all of those strains ferment dextrins (i.e. have a high level of attenuation).

The second article you cited (Bumgarner et al 2009) states this explicitly with regard to FLO11 (which encodes a membrane-bound mucin):
"FLO11 is transcribed at high levels (“on”) in some cells and is completely transcriptionally silenced (“off”) in others."

Furthermore, even the expression of this gene wouldn't mean that the strain forms a pellicle (the proteins produced have variable functions).

Also, "biofilm" doesn't equate to "pellicle". Belle Saison is actually one strain that reportedly may produce a biofilm, but it does not produce a pellicle.

The genetic discussion is purely academic. There are simply no commercial Sacc strain (including any of the diastaticus variants) that produce a pellicle. You haven't been able to find a single example of one because there Are none. Compare that to any of the non-Sacc commercial strains like Brett and the Torulaspora you mentioned. which readily and consistently form pellicles.

The biggest issue with your defense is that biofilm doesnt equate to pellicle. A pellicle is a thin membrane formed at the liquid-air interface. A biofilm is a thin membrane formed on a surface-air interface. If you have a pellicle, it is in fact a biofilm no matter how you slice it.

If FLO11 is present there is a potential for biofilm formation dependant on the environment. Granted, there are tons of examples of wort where a brewers yeast caused biofilm will NEVER be present, but there are plenty of environments in the world of brewing where a circumstance could activate the STA1 gene or FLO11 marker. The fact that they are present, and that they cause biofilm means there is potential.

I gave you examples where biofilms could be produced without the presence of foreign bacteria, you just choose to relent and accept them.

Question for you, in all honesty: did you read all of the articles I cited? If not, you don't have a clear picture of the defense.

I shared these because I hoped that you were genuinely interested. The fact that your response was that it is "purely academic" as if brewing is not deeply rooted in microbiological academia is telling.

Hopefully you will further research and learn as much as I have through this exercise, because it was not in the interest of futility (at least for me)

I would like to close, however, with the notion that diastaticus variants of S. cerevisiae are highly susceptible to biofilm production from interactions with proteins, and that is in fact contained within my citations at mutliple locations

 

[cipranif]

I think it would be helpful to all of us if you could post a picture or two. From how it sounds, we are all in agreement that what you have going on is normal.

Quick questions:
When did you bottle?
How long has it been under refrigeration?
What was your final gravity before priming?
What style, and how much priming sugar did you use?

Thank you for your help Family!!!

The batch in question is a lager (MJ M54)
FG: 1.09
Bottled: 06/04
Priming 4,5gr\L
No days in the refrigerator jet.

I like to drink my beer from the Garage temp (16°c) but the yeast never act like a 'nucleation point' before.

Usually i use 0.33 bottle, this time i have used 0.66.

i have already put some in the refrigeretor yesterday

Thank you a lot for share info!!
have a great day and stay safe

 

[kenny_ip5]

Thank you for posting a question about infection!

I agree with RPh guy. If the beer is bottled and a bit overcarbonated, carbonation can cause the yeast from the bottom of the bottle to rise. Store it at least two days in the fridge, preferably more.

Say what...!!?? Leave beer in the fridge for two days??

Unheard of hereabouts...!!

 

[ajbosley2015]

Thank you for your help Family!!!

The batch in question is a lager (MJ M54)
FG: 1.09
Bottled: 06/04
Priming 4,5gr\L
No days in the refrigerator jet.

I like to drink my beer from the Garage temp (16°c) but the yeast never act like a 'nucleation point' before.

Usually i use 0.33 bottle, this time i have used 0.66.

i have already put some in the refrigeretor yesterday

Thank you a lot for share info!!
have a great day and stay safe

Ok so i think this is an easy one but before I give you an answer...what yeast did you use?

 

[cipranif]

Ok so i think this is an easy one but before I give you an answer...what yeast did you use?

MJ M54 (mangrove jack california lager m54

 

[ajbosley2015]

MJ M54 (mangrove jack california lager m54

Sorry I missed that in your answer previous. I believe your beer went through a second fermentation (lager being a bottom fermenter). I bet you have a potential for bottle bombs, only from this second fermentation trying to occur but having no usable oxygen.

This is all speculation, but from the looks of the layer of yeast on the bottom of your bottle and those sites where it looks like CO2 is tying to be released from the yeast cake...thats what is occurring

 

[RPh_Guy]

I believe your beer went through a second fermentation (lager being a bottom fermenter). I bet you have a potential for bottle bombs, only from this second fermentation trying to occur but having no usable oxygen.

Say what?