jfrank85
Well-Known Member
Can I pitch a vial into a one gallon secondary or will that be too many cells?
WLP644 -Brett B Trois
- Thread starter AmandaK
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
youreanimpulse
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 50
A vial is designed for 5 gal secondary. In 1 gal it's plenty, but not too much I'd say since it really isn't that many cells.
I understand that it is is recommended to ferment the starter for this yeast for a week.
Anecdotally, the krausen on my starter on a stirplate came and went within a day, no different from a regular sacc starter.
Will follow Chad's recommendation nevertheless.
Anyone else had similar experience?
Anecdotally, the krausen on my starter on a stirplate came and went within a day, no different from a regular sacc starter.
Will follow Chad's recommendation nevertheless.
Anyone else had similar experience?
Max_Chavez
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2014
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 8
I just did a brett dregs(crooked stave) starter and saw a bit of surface activity after day one, but then activity moved to the bottom and stayed there for the rest of the week. No stir plate, just shaking twice a day. Smelled awesome at the end of the week. Took off great in a batch of funky cider!
Anyone mess around with wlp644 in secondary. I did a table saison with rye then split it, added mangos and then some wlp644 i had saved from a previous batch. Forgot about it for 2 months, checked it out yesterday and theres a pretty wicked pellicle on it. Should I let it rock for a little longer?
Last edited:
Coff
Well-Known Member
Its almost certainly finished, but whats the gravity? So long as its dry and stable you should package.
Ive been using Trois to bottle condition a lot of Saisons, it great to see the beer change over time as the bottles age. It works great with Nelson Sauvin hopped Saisons in secondary, super fruit.
![Craft A Brew - Safale BE-256 Yeast - Fermentis - Belgian Ale Dry Yeast - For Belgian & Strong Ales - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [3 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51bcKEwQmWL._SL500_.jpg)
y'all ready to have your minds blown?
according to what i consider a reliable source trois is a sacch, not a brett.
source: DNA analysis done by Omega Labs, as posted in the Milk the Funk FB group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/MilkTheFunk/ - scroll down to the "Wee heavy brett project in full swing" post). Omega Labs' founder and CEO Lance Shaner wrote, about his brett blend #1 (OYL-210):
"It's the Trois strain and the ECY-03b strain, which we found had a similar and complementary flavor profile to Trois with slightly more robust performance. However, since releasing the blend, I got rDNA sequencing results back from a friend (post doc at Princeton University) with access to better equipment than I. Surprisingly, it turns out that neither of those strains are actually Brettanomyces. Both of them are plain old Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Anyone that has ever used Trois knows that it definitely has a different flavor profile than other Sacch, but it is, in fact, Sacch. Future versions of our Brett Blend #1 will include some other mild Brett strains that we have been isolating from various sources. So it won't be a 100% Brett blend, but it will at least have some Brett in it. Shocked? We were."
"The DNA doesn't lie. The way I look at it, 3711, chico, and countless other brewing strains give vastly different results and come from the same species. Some saison strains produce what I would describe as "funk." And the 1388 strain (Duvel) produces a decent amount of acidity (it gets to a pH of about 3.8 when propped). The reason we had those sequenced in the first place is because they propped as easily as any other Sacch strain I've dealt with. Every other Brett strain I'd ever propped had crazy lag times and took a long time to reach saturation (all completely consistent with Chad Yakobson's growth curves). Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Trois is Sacch."
he went on to say that BSI's "Drie" strain is brett.
according to what i consider a reliable source trois is a sacch, not a brett.
source: DNA analysis done by Omega Labs, as posted in the Milk the Funk FB group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/MilkTheFunk/ - scroll down to the "Wee heavy brett project in full swing" post). Omega Labs' founder and CEO Lance Shaner wrote, about his brett blend #1 (OYL-210):
"It's the Trois strain and the ECY-03b strain, which we found had a similar and complementary flavor profile to Trois with slightly more robust performance. However, since releasing the blend, I got rDNA sequencing results back from a friend (post doc at Princeton University) with access to better equipment than I. Surprisingly, it turns out that neither of those strains are actually Brettanomyces. Both of them are plain old Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Anyone that has ever used Trois knows that it definitely has a different flavor profile than other Sacch, but it is, in fact, Sacch. Future versions of our Brett Blend #1 will include some other mild Brett strains that we have been isolating from various sources. So it won't be a 100% Brett blend, but it will at least have some Brett in it. Shocked? We were."
"The DNA doesn't lie. The way I look at it, 3711, chico, and countless other brewing strains give vastly different results and come from the same species. Some saison strains produce what I would describe as "funk." And the 1388 strain (Duvel) produces a decent amount of acidity (it gets to a pH of about 3.8 when propped). The reason we had those sequenced in the first place is because they propped as easily as any other Sacch strain I've dealt with. Every other Brett strain I'd ever propped had crazy lag times and took a long time to reach saturation (all completely consistent with Chad Yakobson's growth curves). Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Trois is Sacch."
he went on to say that BSI's "Drie" strain is brett.
Coff
Well-Known Member
I've read that thread 15 times and I still can't believe it. I want to hear from WLP about this though.
No, ECY03b is in a blend with Trois that he is mentioning.
No, ECY03b is in a blend with Trois that he is mentioning.
youreanimpulse
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 50
But he says "both" are sacc.
Coff
Well-Known Member
Youre right, he corrected me in that thread.
However, Al's ECY vials are never very clean at all. Actually they are riddled with bacteria so I would venture a guess that something got into that vial at packaging. But I am guessing.
mbbransc
Well-Known Member
I used WLP644 in a mosaic saison secondary for nearly 4mo. At bottling, I tasted a bit and it turned out much more tart than I was anticipating. It tastes fantastic, but almost more sour than funky. Anyone else with similar experience?
Brewed 5gal saison. After primary, racked 1.75g into 2gal bucket with vial of WLP644. Pretty pellicle and left alone for nearly 4mo.
Brewed 5gal saison. After primary, racked 1.75g into 2gal bucket with vial of WLP644. Pretty pellicle and left alone for nearly 4mo.
I will not argue genetics, but I can say I definitely got a pilicle with my Belle saison + trois. After checking gravity in secondary(introducing oxygen in the process of course) it had a wicked pellicle from then out. I did not add any other bacteria or brett either. Maybe contamination but I am have yet to have a contaminated batch, at least not one that was bad enough for me to detect. I even sent a picture to my friend who loves sours and was immediately grossed out that the beers he likes make them haha.
discgolfin
Well-Known Member
Long and multiple discussion about this on Milk the Funk..it acts like sach in many ways..growth and fermentation..but also acts like brett in several other ways..
in the end science does not lie..
in the end science does not lie..
mbbransc
Well-Known Member
Can you link some of that? I've never had any luck with Milk the Funk so I'm wondering if I'm looking somewhere in error.
It's a closed group. You have to join, which is just a button click.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/MilkTheFunk
many people have reported that Trois in secondary produces little to no effect... this would explain it.
Trois definitely has an effect in secondary. regardless if this DNA sequencing is actually correct, it acts like brett, so may as well continue to think of it as brett
Petekiteworld
Well-Known Member
The book is still open on whether it is a Brett or not, considering the contrary evidence comes from claiming someone's friend who is a postdoc at a university sequenced the strain, a task that is expensive and for sure not allowed by the University.
Ya agreed,
I would like to hear an official statement from WL, or one of its employees, not just email hearsay.
If it is sach, why does it form a pellicle and why is it called brett trois (the english translation for drie, leading one to believe it came from a certain gueuze...). However if it is sach, then WL has been very duplicitous and has some s'planin to do.
I would like to hear an official statement from WL, or one of its employees, not just email hearsay.
If it is sach, why does it form a pellicle and why is it called brett trois (the english translation for drie, leading one to believe it came from a certain gueuze...). However if it is sach, then WL has been very duplicitous and has some s'planin to do.
Coff
Well-Known Member
There have been some developments recently, and I think this will all be cleared up at some point. Most of what is coming to light behind closed doors leads a lot of us to beleive that WLP644 is indeed Brett and not sacch.
The DNA sequencing that was done has been torn apart by multiple folks who are well versed in this stuff. WL is looking into it though so we should know for sure soon enough.
My money is it being Brett though, as it had been since the beginning.
The DNA sequencing that was done has been torn apart by multiple folks who are well versed in this stuff. WL is looking into it though so we should know for sure soon enough.
My money is it being Brett though, as it had been since the beginning.
beergolf
Well-Known Member
I seriously doubt that a company like White Labs would misrepresent one of their products.
Internet rumors spread quickly but until WL speaks on this rumor, I am going to believe that it is brett.
Internet rumors spread quickly but until WL speaks on this rumor, I am going to believe that it is brett.
Coff
Well-Known Member
This has been my stance from the jump but figured it was still worth investigating. But in the last few days it appears that the data is in question, and that WL never admitted that it was sacch.
Coff
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't be the first time...
http://babblebelt.com/newboard/thread.html?tid=1108752780&th=1281111541
TastyAdventure
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 731
- Reaction score
- 51
Pitched some of this into 1 gal of IPA that has Galaxy, Cent, Motueka, and Citra... Yeah you know!
FAT yeast cake at the bottom, should be enough for a future 5 gal batch.
I got the bug. The Brett bug.
FAT yeast cake at the bottom, should be enough for a future 5 gal batch.
I got the bug. The Brett bug.
chefchris
Well-Known Member
I would, there's barely any yeast in those vials.
Yeah tell me about it. When I got my white labs brett vial, I thought I had been ripped off! I was about to try calling them, btu did some research and found out they are all like that. The thing is, all their brett vials are intended to be used in the secondary, not as a primary yeast. Combine the savings of giving you such a miniscule amount with with the notion that stressing brett gives it more character, and I guess I understand why they do it...
Similar threads
