Controlling Brettanomyces flavours w/ brewing techniques

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.

metic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
337
Reaction score
36
Location
Chicago
I've been thinking about a lot of the material out there from Chad Yakobson over the last few months, and one thing he constantly emphasizes is that if you understand how brett works, you can exert some control over beers brewed with it by modifying your techniques and ingredients based on your desired final result.

There's some good information out there about ways to do this. For instance, this set of slides distills a lot of the information from Chad's dissertation, and has some great stuff about pitching rates and acidifying the wort, as well as things he's talked about elsewhere like using adjuncts to improve the final mouthfeel of brett beers.

But there's still a lot I'm unclear on, and I think it would be very useful to understand it better. I'm particularly interested in how ingredient choice and brewing techniques can affect final flavours.

One thing he mentions is deliberately increasing levels of precursors for various flavour compounds in the wort. So, for instance, if you want the spicy/smokey/phenolic characteristics associated with 4‐vinylguiacol and 4‐ethylguaicol, you can do a protein rest to increase ferulic acid levels in the wort (as you do with wheat beers). If you want to minimize these flavours, then there are other things he mentions you can do to minimize their precursors.

In the same vein, you could try to increase the levels of other acids that are precursors to various esters. In his Sunday Session interview, Chad talks about a beer that had high levels of caprylic acid, and jokes that he got a lot of stick for it because that's an unpleasant, goaty flavour, but he knew that the brett in the beer would eventually convert it to much more desirable flavours.

So, anyway, my point is that there isn't much information about other ways to control levels of these precursors, particularly fatty acids, in your wort. I was looking over Oldsock's blog the other day, and he talks about using buckwheat in an attempt to increase caprylic acid levels (here and here). This didn't seem to work for him, but I wonder if one might have better luck by combining such ingredients with particular mash schedules or something similar (as above with ferulic acid).

I'm still researching all of this, and I haven't put any of it into practice yet. But I thought it might be helpful to have a thread here to discuss these kind of techniques, especially as others might have more experience or more knowledge of the chemistry behind wort production.
 
I listened to Chad Yakobson's Sunday Session interview again after posting this, and picked up a few more things.

First, the beer he talks about had lots of butyric acid (not caprylic as I said above), which apparently tastes like bile, but which brett can use to make ethyl butyrate, which he describes as passion fruit and pineapple. It sounds like the level of butyric acid wasn't necessarily deliberate, even if he knew the brett would deal with it eventually. It came from a no-boil batch, and he says that he would use more control if doing it again. Basically, reading between the lines a little, I think it may have been like when a sour mash goes badly and you get lots of unpleasant smells and flavours. He talks about the brett taking a long time to clean it up anyway, so this might not be the most desirable way of getting these flavours. Unfortunately there is not much else about it in the show. I sent Chad an email asking a few questions, so we'll see if he gets back to me.
 
I'm completely interested in this thread, and your premise, but I've got nothing to add.
 
Well, I've done a bit more research tonight, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Many of the precursors are fatty acids associated with off-flavours, so most of the information out there is about how to avoid them. And it seems strange to brew a deliberately awful tasting beer in the hope that brett will transform it.

A number of sources associated certain fatty acids with cheesy, oxidized hops (e.g. here). That sounded promising, given that lambic producers use aged hops in their beers. But I seem to remember that even though the hops are old, they are not necessarily cheesy. Yes, Jeff Sparrow suggests as much in Wild Brews:

As hop resins oxidize, they can produce a cheesy aroma ad flavor. Some people believe this character represents an important contribution to the flavor of lambic. The hops I've seen used in lambic production are old and oxidized but not stinking to the point of hop-cheddar. Aged hops actually may retain a bit of their natural aroma. Any aromatic compounds transferred to lambic wort should dissipate during the requisite long boil.

Nevertheless, I think aged hops might be worth considering further. Also, these notes on off-flavours were interesting.
 
Interested & subscribed. I'd also like to know if anyone has experience with the changes in flavors based on the pH prefermentation... I know brett can handle a low pH and it is advertised as being desirable.
 
Yes I like this thread very much.
It's always good to understand WHY we take the steps we do, and how we achieve that certain effect that strikes a cord with our pallet.

I hope I can find some time to contribute.
 
I'd also like to know if anyone has experience with the changes in flavors based on the pH prefermentation... I know brett can handle a low pH and it is advertised as being desirable.

There's some good data on this in the Chad Yakobson slides I linked to above, starting on page 19. He looks at attenuation of different brett strains in pre-acidified wort, and also at the production of various esters and phenols.
 
I actually just submitted an article to Zymurgy on the influence of the mash on sour beers (I’ll be talking about something similar at NHC). Just grains and mash rests, not hops/fermentation etc. You’ve actually touched on a lot of it already, but I also get into the differences you might consider based on whether you’re doing Sacch/Brett, or Sacch/Brett/LAB.

Despite that initial tasting, my buckwheat beer does seem to have become noticeably fruitier than most of my sour beers. So I’m putting that one in the plausible category. Might just require more to get a more prominent flavor (mine was under 20%).

I’ve heard Belgian brewers credit the initial wave of enteric bacteria with producing some of the acids that are eventually turned into more interesting aromatics by Brett. Autolysis of the primary yeast also releases some fatty acids.

Certainly lots of interesting stuff on hops, glycosides, oxidation products etc. Not enough specificity in the research yet though, so it’s hard to draw direct relationships.
 
Ah, I've been waiting for a good book deal to come with AHA membership, but maybe it's time to join. Do you know when the article will be published?

I'm also curious where you find research related to this stuff. Google and the published books are only getting me so far. I'm excited for American Sour Beer to come out.
 
Ah, I've been waiting for a good book deal to come with AHA membership, but maybe it's time to join. Do you know when the article will be published?

I'm also curious where you find research related to this stuff. Google and the published books are only getting me so far. I'm excited for American Sour Beer to come out.

I think the article will be out May-ish.

For something like this it has to be a combination of publications/studies and personal experience (both brewing and tasting). I find many researchers conclusions may hold true in a lab, but may not necessarily be valuable in practice. When I can, I try to use science to either explain observations, or suggest new areas for investigation; I do not think they should be relied on as the singular decider of what is ideal in brewing.
 
definitely interested in this thread as well. I've done three 100% brett beers at this point, three sacc then brett (and a lacto then brett), and 3 or 4 sours with some brett (strain unknown).

I've been surprised at the "sweetness" in the brett beers; while the finish is dry; the "pineapple" and other tropical fruits (mainly from Brett B. Trois) ended up being perceived as malt sweetness in the initial taste; even with single digit F.G.

I also noticed an enhanced hop bitterness; an ESB and an IPA I hopped like I would with a sacc strain, existing recipes that I know, but with Brett fermentation, the beers came off more bitter than they did with sacc.

Another data point; these are all really young; a couple months at most. Almost all from the keg.

Given the info from Chad Y. re: refermentation in the bottle; I've now started bottling the bulk of these batches instead of kegging them, but I've got to wait them out to see if the flavor profile changes significantly.
 
When I can, I try to use science to either explain observations, or suggest new areas for investigation; I do not think they should be relied on as the singular decider of what is ideal in brewing.

Yes, I was hoping that would be the purpose served by this thread: suggesting new areas for investigation.

I’ve heard Belgian brewers credit the initial wave of enteric bacteria with producing some of the acids that are eventually turned into more interesting aromatics by Brett.

I'd heard this too, and it got me thinking about whether there might be ways to introduce such bacteria as we do with other things we want to ferment our wort. Here's what I found out this evening. One such bacteria is Bacillus Subtilis, which is used in the fermentation of Natto as well as the production of butyric acid. Would deliberately introducing that to wort increase levels of butyric acid, and eventually, after a brett fermentation, ethyl butyrate? Worth a try, perhaps: if it does ferment some wort before other things take over, you might end up with something disgusting (butyric acid = "rubber, rancid, cheesy, fatty"), but you might end up with something delicious (ethyl butyrate = "Fruity, Juicy Fruit, Pineapple, Cognac").
 
Or, if Natto is not something most people have around fermenting, how about Kombucha? This also contains lots of the relevant fatty acids. Maybe if you pitched some actively fermenting tea along with a healthy pitch of brett you would get low level production of these acids before the yeast took over and finished the ferment.
 
I've been wanting to find a way to do that ever since Chad Y. spoke of his no boil beer that had a terribly high level of butyric acid, and the flavors present after it was converted to ethyl birthrate.

The funny thing was that he then went on to suggest safeguard measures he should have taken, when those very measures would have surely kept him from having such high levels of ethyl butyrate, and completely change the complexion of the beer.
 
I for one am not afraid of a beer that tastes like bile for 9 months, if you can end up with pineapple and cognac flavors.
 
However, I can go on record as not being particularly excited about eating slimey soybeans in the morning. No thank you. Just coffee please.
 
If you are dealing with anything as offensive as butyric acid, I'd be more inclined to do it to a small portion of the wort and blend. Honestly I couldn't get by the old Parmesan flavor in CS Petite Sour.
 
Blending with smaller batches seems like a great idea.

I've also never tasted any of Chad Y's beers, which I guess puts you at a slight disadvantage in trying to understand some of what he's talking about. But then again, it's nice to let your imagination run wild---Yvan de Baets chapter in the Farmhouse Ales book has the same effect.
 
Oh you got to taste it? Well that would certainly puts the conversation in context.

Chad said there was a lot of bottle-to-bottle variation. The one we had seemed to be in the middle of the range: some fruit, some cheese. The issue seems to be that these ester conversions aren't 100% and some of the fatty acids are pretty potent as is. He changed his process after that first batch.
 
The issue seems to be that these ester conversions aren't 100% and some of the fatty acids are pretty potent as is.

This was my experience as well. I had a sour-worted beer that ended up picking up some butyric nose; I pitched some additional brett to help clean it up after I heard the Sunday Session show with Chad. It definitely helped lessen the aroma, but after 6 months, it's still there in the background.
 
Chad said there was a lot of bottle-to-bottle variation. The one we had seemed to be in the middle of the range: some fruit, some cheese. The issue seems to be that these ester conversions aren't 100% and some of the fatty acids are pretty potent as is. He changed his process after that first batch.

I remember his changes to the process, primarily more attention paid to having a lower ph going into the fermenter.

What I wonder about is whether he was still able to get a level of ethyl butyrate that he was pleased with.
 
I remember his changes to the process, primarily more attention paid to having a lower ph going into the fermenter.

I couldn't really piece together what his original process was from the interview. He mentions that there was no boil, but I was unclear as to whether he pitched some combination of bacteria/yeast, or alllowed whatever survived the mash temps to ferment the beer, or something else. I thought I heard him say something about bring the wort up to 120 then cooling it, but that seems strange since that's surely lower than his mash temps.
 
I'm going through it again now. He says it was "spontaneously soured in a berlinerweisse style where it was a no boil ... knockout at 120F into fermenter and let it go". Then a few minutes later he says that the "souring was only with the bugs because there wasn't any yeast in the malt", so maybe he just pitched in a handful of grain? Or some bugs survived the mash?

He does recommend pitching a culture later on, when he's talking about what he's going to change about the process.
 
I love this thread! I have breweda few Brett beers and they are ever evolvingin the bottle and there is some variation bottle to bottle. I get a LOT of smooth fruity flavors a year into my saisons....wish I could keep my hands off em early so I had more this far down the road!
 
He does say knockout at 120, but I feel like he misspoke considering.
Sounds like he just left it 7 days and pitched his Brett.

He then says he would target a 4.5 ph in the future. Then he of course recommends pitching a culture rather than the no boil. Haha.
 
I think by knockout at 120 he means he cooled it to 120, then transferred it to the fermenter. That would make sense I think if he wanted to encourage lactobacillus to grow.
 
BTW reading this thread sipping a Jester King Wytchmaker, smoking a Romeo y Julieta Capulet, and freezing my ass off...couldn't be happier!
 
So if we've got his process right, I would guess that the butyric acid probably came from enteric bacteria that survived the mash and fermented some of the wort before the lacto dropped the pH.
 
So if we've got his process right, I would guess that the butyric acid probably came from enteric bacteria that survived the mash and fermented some of the wort before the lacto dropped the pH.

That's what I get out of it.
 
Do the enteric bacteria fall asleep or die outright in lower pH? Perhaps the enteric bacteria hang out in microenvironments in the fermenting wort where the pH is higher. Then fall asleep to the bottom in colonies and the autolyzing yeast raise the pH again. The enteric bacteria wake up and continue their activity well below the areas the lactic acid bacteria are changing the environment to a lower pH. I think we're looking at the beer as one environment where its really a series of microenvironments where we are only getting snapshots of the macroenvironment. Just uneducated theories I guess.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Home Brew mobile app
 
Could explain the variability of bottles. We're bottling one microenvironment at a time. There could be more bacteria or autolysed yeast in one bottle vs. another. It could also explain why blended batches are more consistent. Only certain yeast and bacteria will remain active or reactivate to ferment the young beer I the bottle. Especially a more acidic younger beer. And you might get a more consistent mix of autolysed yeast, remaining sugar, and lactic acid and enteric bacteria during blending. Hence a more consistent flavor. More uneducated theories. Lol

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Home Brew mobile app
 
Maybe beer is like the weather in a city. We see the temperature of the city. But our backyard could differ considerably in temperature from the rest of the city. Add to that shade, sun, plants, trees. Your temperature could be +-10° from the rest of the city. But in beer its food availability, pH, temperature, alcohol, etc. in the microenvironments that certain colonies of bacteria or brett can thrive in despite the macroenvironment.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Home Brew mobile app
 
I believe enteric bacteria are killed at very low levels of alcohol. This is what makes beer a safer drink than unclean water. Enteric bacteria are no good in anything like large numbers.
 
I believe enteric bacteria are killed at very low levels of alcohol. This is what makes beer a safer drink than unclean water. Enteric bacteria are no good in anything like large numbers.

Alcohol, but pH too. Some breweries will "force" the pH to 4.5 to stop the growth of entric bacteria (especially for spontaneous ferments). Not sure if the alcohol or pH is what actually kills them though.

I think several of the comments above give too much credit to microenvironments. Certainly there is some subtle variation during fermentation. There are strains that thrive where oxygen is more readily available (say close to the surface or barrel walls). However, beer is a liquid, and thus you aren't going to have a big gradient for things like pH, especially early on while the yeast is churning things up, producing CO2 etc.
 
After reading OldSock's experiments with fast sours I've been voraciously researching (brettanomycesproject.com, sciencebrewer.com, mistakebrewing.com etc) and I hope I'm nearing a level of understanding that will help me brew a decent 'fast sour.' I'm trying to achieve both sourness, and some brettanomyces funk in a relatively short time.

There is a lot of information out there, and I've tried to consolidate what I've learnt into the following method. I invite all feedback as I try to refine my understanding.

I plan to use 30% rolled or flaked wheat (for starches), a ferulic acid rest (30 mins at 44C) and saccharification at 66C before mashout.

The majority of the wort will be boiled as usual and pitched with Wyeast 3068 @ 20C (a Pof+ yeast that can convert the ferulic acid to 4-vinylphenol & 4-vinylguaiacol).

The rest of the wort (about 20%) will be pasteurised, then soured with lactobacillus @ 44C for 2-3 days (or as required to achieved the desired pH) in an oxygen purged vessel.
I'll pasteurise the soured wort, before adding to the majority of the wort after primary fermentation has finished.

I'll then pitch brettanomyces @ ambient 20~22C (from a starter of Petrus Pale Ale and Lindemans Cuvee Rene Gueze) in a sealed fermenter to limit oxygen.

The brett will be pitched at ale pitching rates to encourage cell growth in the low sugar/high starch environment, and I hope that they'll have the right conditions to convert the 4-vinylphenol & 4-vinylguaiacol to the classic brett compounds of 4-ethylphenol (bandaids, stables) & 4-ethylguaiacol (smoky, spicy) in a relatively short period of time (2 months maximum).

Thoughts/feedback?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top