Post your infection

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

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

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 

Attachments

  • 15875467935081559457856.jpg
    15875467935081559457856.jpg
    897.1 KB · Views: 80
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...!!
 
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?
 
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
 
Lager yeast bottom ferments. It wasn’t finished attenuating. Hence rousing the yeast started a second fermentation.

look at the yeast cake in his bottle.
 
My first batch of beer was in glass, every other has been in stainless where I never really see the beer until it’s in my glass. This thread has me wondering what could potentially be floating on top of my beer! All have tasted good though, which is the important thing.
 
My first batch of beer was in glass, every other has been in stainless where I never really see the beer until it’s in my glass. This thread has me wondering what could potentially be floating on top of my beer! All have tasted good though, which is the important thing.

I love my 1bbl stainless fermenter, but I hate not seeing my beer. It’s one of those things...sometimes I stop and don’t worry because I can’t see it, other times I just really want to see through the stainless wall for peace of mind!

I guess seeing it has been a crutch and really allows you to over analyze!

what stainless fermenter do you use?
 
An unopened bottle with multiple CO2 sites.

The cake appears to have started releasing gas while in the bottle
OK, but there is always fermentation that occurs when bottle conditioning. How could you say it was due to residual extract and not just the priming sugar?
 
OK, but there is always fermentation that occurs when bottle conditioning. How could you say it was due to residual extract and not just the priming sugar?

I’m not going down this road again so I will close with this

If he is having excessive rousing of yeast when he opens the bottle, and we see what this bottle looks like, chances are what I said is accurate.

he provided enough information to show that he did not over prime, and there isn’t significant time for it to have overcarbonated simply from priming, ergo it appears that his yeast continued metabolizing available sugars. The aspiration sites in his yeast cake are indicative of lagering fermentation, not of priming.

If you have further input that is contrary or suggests otherwise, please address the OP as this is for recommendations and suggestions to him, not us.

cheers
 
I love my 1bbl stainless fermenter, but I hate not seeing my beer. It’s one of those things...sometimes I stop and don’t worry because I can’t see it, other times I just really want to see through the stainless wall for peace of mind!

I guess seeing it has been a crutch and really allows you to over analyze!

what stainless fermenter do you use?

After scanning through this thread I’m kinda happy I can’t see my beer while it’s fermenting because I probably would have have a post or two “is my beer infected”.

I use a SS Brewtech 7 gallon unitank. I love using it and couldn’t imagine ever going back to glass. What kind is your 1 barrel?
 
After scanning through this thread I’m kinda happy I can’t see my beer while it’s fermenting because I probably would have have a post or two “is my beer infected”.

I use a SS Brewtech 7 gallon unitank. I love using it and couldn’t imagine ever going back to glass. What kind is your 1 barrel?

I use the Stout 1bbl (or actually 40gallon) conical with cooling lid. I love it!
I also have two Spike conicals, a 5 gallon flex and a CF15 (who knows what batch size I am going to do next!)
 
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.

How long was this fermenting? Did you check gravity to make sure that it was stable a few days apart? That amount of priming sugar should be fine if you know your volume was perfect and the temperature of your beer coming out of the fermenter was correct, so it's possible that what ajbosley2015 is saying is correct.

Lager yeast bottom ferments. It wasn’t finished attenuating. Hence rousing the yeast started a second fermentation.

look at the yeast cake in his bottle.

I'm really not sure how you can tell by looking that the yeast on the bottom of the bottle is eating residual sugar from the original wort rather than priming sugar with that kind of certainty. What you're saying is certainly possible, though, which is why I asked about stable gravity checks.
 
How long was this fermenting? Did you check gravity to make sure that it was stable a few days apart? That amount of priming sugar should be fine if you know your volume was perfect and the temperature of your beer coming out of the fermenter was correct, so it's possible that what ajbosley2015 is saying is correct.



I'm really not sure how you can tell by looking that the yeast on the bottom of the bottle is eating residual sugar from the original wort rather than priming sugar with that kind of certainty. What you're saying is certainly possible, though, which is why I asked about stable gravity checks.


I cant really say with any certainty...I just predict that is what is occurring because it isn't enough priming sugar to be indicative of over-priming, and in my limited experience, fully attenuated lagers don't have that aspiration evidence on the yeast cake in the bottle. It really appears to be another fermentation, it looks remarkably similar to a well-cleared lager while fermenting. If I wouldn't have seen the large aspiration sites, I would just say overpitched or overprimed...but seems like we have enough info for that to not be the case.

To the OP...there are many commercially available brews that upon opening rouse the yeast cake from purposeful overcarbonation (Deliruim Tremens is a great example)
 
i belive Aj got it right...i didn't check if my primary fermentation was stable on 1.009, i took it like done but apparently wasn't.

thank you guys for help me out to make clear my mistake!!
i really appreciate.

i drunk one beer been stored for two days in the fridge and this time the yeast didn't mix up..lovely!!!

cheers guys stay home stay safe!!
 
Hi everyone,

I need your help, beginner brewer and my batch looks suspicious. Is it infected? Should I dump it?

First week:

20200503_225503.jpg


Close up:

Screen Shot 2020-05-11 at 2.09.54 AM.png


Third week:
20200509_230656.jpg


Thanks,
Naz
 
Hi everyone,

I need your help, beginner brewer and my batch looks suspicious. Is it infected? Should I dump it?

First week:

View attachment 679758

Close up:

View attachment 679760

Third week:
View attachment 679759

Thanks,
Naz
Hi, welcome to HBT!

It does look suspicious for a pellicle in my opinion. You may consider doing a "forced pellicle test".
See here:
https://***************.com/wiki/Pellicle
-----
BTW, my article addresses the earlier debate about whether commercial Saccharomyces can form a pellicle. I contacted the major yeast labs to get statements from them, and I hope those put any uncertainty to rest.

WLP644 can form a pellicle according to White Labs R&D although it must be a rare occurrence because brewers generally don't see pellicle formation. WLP700 is in fact S. cerevisiae and "flor"/sherry yeast are a clade that can form a pellicle. No other commercial Sacch strains form pellicles, and therefore a pellicle is a sign of contamination.
 
Last edited:
Hey, This is my first time brewing in quite a while and I just wanted to make sure my wort isn't contaminated. This was just a simple DIY kit called "cascade imperial voyage Pale Ale" I used an old dextrose mix I had called "Coopers Brew Enhancer 2". Unfortunately, I don't have the yeast packet anymore so I can't provide any information about that. This is day 12 of the ferment and it is very slow compared to past brews I have done. Any guidance would be great :)
20200612_072947.jpg
20200612_072944.jpg
 
Hey, This is my first time brewing in quite a while and I just wanted to make sure my wort isn't contaminated. This was just a simple DIY kit called "cascade imperial voyage Pale Ale" I used an old dextrose mix I had called "Coopers Brew Enhancer 2". Unfortunately, I don't have the yeast packet anymore so I can't provide any information about that. This is day 12 of the ferment and it is very slow compared to past brews I have done. Any guidance would be great :)View attachment 684608View attachment 684609
That looks like mold :(
 
I know :/ Everything was sanitary though and I have never had this issue before. I Assume I may have to dump it?
Sorry this happened!
If I had to guess the cause of your mold infection lies in insufficient or improper cleaning and sanitation of your cold side equipment, your fermenter, especially the lid and surrounding area, as well as the airlock being viable suspects. How many times have you removed the lid to check progress of your fermentation?

You need to find out what or where in your process this infection may have come from, and fix/avoid it next time, or chances are it will crop up again. Cleaning, sanitation, brewing process, how the ingredients were used, how you transferred the wort, yeast health, etc. can all play a role.

Before dumping, you could take a hydrometer reading of that beer, to see if it fermented and how far. If the gravity is high, the yeast may not have been viable enough.

On a side note, from what I've read the beer from those kind of kits is not very good. For a Pale Ale that beer looks overly dark. There are much, much better ways to brew, yielding excellent beer.
 
Hello,
I brewed this beer 10 days ago, all grain pale ale with US-05. Since then it is sitting in primary, 5.5 gallons in 6.5 gallons carboy at stable ambijent temperature 65f in my basement. Fermentation started on day one and there was ~2 inch foam composed of tiny white bubbles slowly dropping untill day 6/7, the foam dropped compleetly. One day after these bigger bubbles started to appear on clear surface. I'm a newbie, this is my 7th batch and I didn't have those before. I get 5 bubbles/min in the airlock now.
Any idea why foam dropped completly and then those bigger bubbles started to appear?
Is this infection that started after fermentation?
IMG_20200622_124216.jpg
 
Hello,
I brewed this beer 10 days ago, all grain pale ale with US-05. Since then it is sitting in primary, 5.5 gallons in 6.5 gallons carboy at stable ambijent temperature 65f in my basement. Fermentation started on day one and there was ~2 inch foam composed of tiny white bubbles slowly dropping untill day 6/7, the foam dropped compleetly. One day after these bigger bubbles started to appear on clear surface. I'm a newbie, this is my 7th batch and I didn't have those before. I get 5 bubbles/min in the airlock now.
Any idea why foam dropped completly and then those bigger bubbles started to appear?
Is this infection that started after fermentation?
View attachment 686176
That's not a pellicle, so there's no reason to believe it's contaminated just looking at the photo.

If there are no off-flavors, I wouldn't worry about it.
 
Any idea why foam dropped completly and then those bigger bubbles started to appear?
Is this infection that started after fermentation?
The sliminess of those bubbles surely seems to point to an infection. Any idea where that may have come from?
Dirty stopper perhaps? Have you smelled anything off through the airlock?
 
Thanks for the fast replys RPh_Guy and IslandLizard. When I pitched the yeast and added the airlock the cooling od the beer and air in the carboy sucked a bit of demineralised water from the airlock to the wort. That's one place i know that mighed caused an infection but you can never ne shure.
I didn't get any off smells in the airlock, only citric smells from citra. Now that seems to fade as bubbling in airlock ceises.
Can i rack to secondary if the Bubbles go away in a few days and if there are no off flawors?
I was planing to dry hop in secondary but I think that i might skip this time. If it is infected that would be a waste od hoops :-(
 
Thanks for the fast replys RPh_Guy and IslandLizard. When I pitched the yeast and added the airlock the cooling od the beer and air in the carboy sucked a bit of demineralised water from the airlock to the wort. That's one place i know that mighed caused an infection but you can never ne shure.
I didn't get any off smells in the airlock, only citric smells from citra. Now that seems to fade as bubbling in airlock ceises.
Can i rack to secondary if the Bubbles go away in a few days and if there are no off flawors?
I was planing to dry hop in secondary but I think that i might skip this time. If it is infected that would be a waste od hoops :-(
Why not use Starsan in your airlock?

Secondaries aren't needed, avoid them! Leaving beer where it is, is best. You can dry hop right in that (primary) fermenter.
Only in very, very few cases they offer a benefit, none for regular beers. They only cause more problems, infections, oxidation, while there's nothing they cure or need to cure.

Keep an eye on it, see how it progresses, and if it gets any worse. Hopefully it all subsides...
I would hold off on dry hopping until this is resolved.
 
Hello, I'm not sure if this is an infection or not. I just opened this after 2 weeks, first time since fermentation started. Have not done a gravity reading, literally just checked it, cursed repeatedly, and then posted. Thoughts?
 

Attachments

  • what happened.jpg
    what happened.jpg
    161.2 KB · Views: 61
Unfortunate Starsan is temporary banned from my market. The replacement that is available foams eaven more than Starsan and when i put it in the airlock the fluid foams out and the airlock loses the functionality. I hope we get Starsan back soon. I guess that a lower concentration is needed in the airlock.
I will keep an eye on it and keep fingers crossed that iz turns out fine.
 
Unfortunate Starsan is temporary banned from my market. The replacement that is available foams eaven more than Starsan and when i put it in the airlock the fluid foams out and the airlock loses the functionality. I hope we get Starsan back soon. I guess that a lower concentration is needed in the airlock.
I will keep an eye on it and keep fingers crossed that iz turns out fine.
Instead of Starsan, you can use cheap vodka, if there's such a thing in your country, or "grain alcohol" in the air lock. Keep an eye on it, you may need to top it up periodically.

Check the dilution instructions, a lower concentration may work better for you, at least something that protects against infection vectors better than water. Now if that water was clean, not tainted, you definitely got it elsewhere.

Definitely review your sanitation practices on everything that touches your chilled wort or beer. Maybe something got missed. Kettle valves, pumps, tubing, fittings, chiller.
 
@danKapLu
To me it just looks like normal kraüsen.
It's not a pellicle and therefore there's no clear sign of contamination.

@ThaddyBrews
Any idea what all those black specks are? Something in the recipe?

In my opinion, the floating stuff in your photo is probably "yeast rafts", i.e. leftover kraüsen. It's not a pellicle.

FYI it's better to use a fermenter closer to the batch size.
Welcome to HBT!
 
Back
Top