WLP644 / WHC Funky Pineapple yeast

[Antzrhere]

Just share my experience, wonder if anyone else has noticed the same. Apologies it's a bit of a read....

I have been using WHC Funky Pineapple yeast, which is WHC's variant of WLP644 Saccharomyces "bruxellensis" Trois yeast. Although not officially confirmed, they fit as WHC describes it as a sacc yeast previously misidentified as brett, high (85%) attenuation, pineapple and funk aromas that increase with temperature. Slow prolonged fermentation that keeps creaping etc.

Anyway....

I've been using this with great results for my DIPAs. I grow up yeast on a lab stir plate in a low gravity wort (1.025-1.03) supplemented with yeast nutrient for 48hours in a temp controlled incubator, pitch 80% and seal and refrigerate the remainder to grow up again. I've done this previously with WLP4000 for 8+ generations with no change in performance, yeast growth etc. and keeps the yeast stress free in big beers.

My last 2 DIPAs with WHC Funky pineapple yeast followed the normal trois fermentation pattern. Vigorous fermentation peaking 24hr in that rapidly tales off by 48-72hours and then it creeps along for the next 20 days. In the final week its moving at a point per day, but does so very steadily without let up over the entire final week. I graph my fermentation using a BrewPi and accurately plot fermentation activity through the rise and fall of the delta between incubator and internal beer temps. Both followed exact same profile, reaching terminal gravity by day 20. 7.2% ABV All is fine.

I decided to make an 'weak' (1.077OG) imperial stout using this yeast. Similar OG, same temperature, approximated to be same pitching rate based on yeast mass. The activity started even more rapidly than normal but, instead of rapidly tailing off between 24 and 72hours, it declined more gradually and was still going reasonably strong (like a normal sacc yeast) at day 4. On day day 8 and day 10 I took a reading and to my surprise found it had completely finished. Subsequent readings over the weeks showed no change. Finished at 1.019 and a respectable 7.6%. 74% attenuated but this beer had a lot of flaked & roasted grain. On the same grain bill US-05 manages just a few points more so inline with expectations. Why did this yeast finish in half the time with a stout when it had behaved exactly the same on 2 previous IPAs that were more fermentable and similar (but slightly lower) OGs? Why did it ferment stronger for longer?

Now fast foward to last week when I started another DIPA (1.077OG) using 4th generation of this yeast. Back to normal fermentation profile. 24hr peak and between 48-72 hours it tails off and will inevitably creep along until day 20.

The only thing I can think is this yeast is stunted slightly by increasing amounts of hops (6.6g/L 80C whirlpool vs 1g/L 60min bittering only in RIS). At first I thought I had selected for a more rapid yeast, but my 4th beer with this yeast suggests not as its following the exact same fermentation pattern as gen 1 and 2. All beers are supplemented with yeast nutrient and zinc so I would be surprised if a RIS offered better growth media than an all pale ale malt bill. It is true that even in normal sacc, increasing hop compounds do decrease yeast biomass production at the higher end, but this isn't usually noticeable to the normal brewer even in your typical heavily hopped beer as it's so slight. Is Saccharomyces "bruxellensis" Trois particularly susceptible to hop compounds that are inhibiting it's growth perhaps?

Anyone had similar experiences?

P.S Brux trois works fantastically in an imperial stout - the tartness balances the sweetness without having to resort to big bittering IBUs to keep it balanced!

 

[RPh_Guy]

I don't think slow attenuation is normal.

Are you dry hopping it? When?

What yeast nutrient are you using?

 

[Antzrhere]

From what I have read slow final attenuation is normal for this strain. This behaviour was also confirmed by a WHC rep who I emailed. It is not a typical sacc cerevisiae strain (even under a microscope is noticeably smaller, similar to Brett) and shares some brewing characteristics similar to Brett, hence the original misclassification, although it is clearly cerevisiae or related and not Brett . It also has been confirmed to have an STA1 gene so may be a diasticus variant, however, whether or not this gene is expressed under normal brewing is unclear. Diasticus var. yeasts do take additional time to reach final attenuation due to slower breakdown of more complex sugars. They do 90% of their work in normal time but then take the same time again slowly breaking down more complex sugars over the remaining weeks. Hence the headache it gives breweries when it contaminates their batches (exploding cans weeks later).

I can also confirm in my hand it also continues to ferment even at fridge temperatures over weeks and months. It is quite unique.

Anyway...back to your question, I ferment and when terminal gravity is reached (confirmed over 2-3 days) I soft cold crash to 10C, dump some yeast then I dry hop at 15C. No high krausen dry hopping for me, I've never thought it was any better. Given this yeasts slow nature it might be detrimental to dry hop for so long at sustained high temps as well.

I've brewed over a hundred beers and all my yeasts behave predictably, even stronger beers finishing completely by day 10. The slow attenuation isn't my concern, this is completely expected. Its the shorter fermentation that isn't normal with this yeast...

 

[Antzrhere]

As far as yeast nutrient, zinc is supplemented to 0.5ppm along with a regular dosing of FAN (approx. 0.05g/L) and other trace nutrients in the mix. The question isn't why this yeast is slow (that's expected), but why in a RIS it behaved differently

 

[RPh_Guy]

When are you adding the nutrients?

 

[Antzrhere]

Nutrients are added during 80C whirlpool. Zinc added near end as it tends to get bound up by trub so added as late on as possible. This is done to all my beers. With the exception of zinc, wort contains sufficient nutrients regardless , this is just a Safety net.

Without sounding rude or confrontational, this post isn't about a problem per se, everything is fine. No need to fix. Its simply to find out if this unique yeast has behaved similar in other people's hands with this set of beer genres. Have your l ever used this yeast can I ask?

 

[RPh_Guy]

I was trying to get more details about what might have been different between your batches in offer to help figure out why it's sluggish in some batches but not others. If you don't want help, that's fine too.

I've used WLP644 several times (and it's one of my favorites) but usually I mix it with other cultures. For me it has not exhibited continued fermentation during storage by itself. This is the first I've heard anything about it behind sluggish, at least since late 2017 with the Left Hand lawsuit and shift in quality control practices. Maybe the WHC culture is different, or maybe there are issues with your propagation.

 

[Antzrhere]

Hi.

I wasn't being rude or intending to sound ignorant, so apologies if I came across that way. I appreciate any input.

Fermentation isn't sluggish, it is very rapid for approx. 24-48hours but slows down quicker than other strains normally do. All my yeast starters show signs that they are all healthy, becoming noticeably exothermic within an hour and hitting the peak of activity within 12-24 hours of pitching. Yeast propagation is the same throughout - 1.025 or 1.03 wort made with 90% extra light malt extract and the remaining 10% dextrose. Yeast starters are made from yeast that has been stored under the same medium for no more than 6 weeks at 2-4C. Starters have mixed yeast nutrient added and are propagated at 21C (internal temp) for 40hours at 220rpm. I can't count viable cells at the moment but calculators estimate 600-700 billion cells. Biomass typically increases around 6-7 times so this is inline with predictions. Estimated pitching is 10-12million cells per ml in a wort of 1.065-1.077, pitched at 21C. Oxygenation is atmospheric through a oxygenation stone and pump, but this did not stop fermentation of a RIS in a week with the same yeast (or any other beer) so unlikely to be an issue. From generation 1 (vial manufactured within 2 weeks of pitching) through to harvested generation 4 they are identical in performance (with the exception of the RIS of course)

The quality control practices you speak of is about contamination of a non-diasticus strain with a foreign STA1 positive strain, but I wasn't speaking of contamination per se, simply referencing the fact that STA1 positive yeasts can continue to work for longer periods than their counterparts. This is due, in part to the fact that the breakdown of more complex sugars proceeds much slower than sugar metabolism, isn't favoured when glucose and maltose are present in abundance and is thus a major bottleneck to complete attenuation. The diasticus yeast contamination you reference was claimed to be introduced at pitching (although who can prove they're without fault), so it shows how these yeast variants can continue to push the SG down over an extended period of time.

To be clear even the "slow" beers are 3 day stable by day 20 (so were talking about 17-18 day to completion) so not crazy periods of time for a 7-8% beer, the oddity is how it was relatively much quicker on a RIS on a 3rd gen yeast pitch. On my IPAs (with approx. 15% flaked grains) I get 85% attenuation on these slower beers. No complaints about the beer it produces, probably my favourite strain ATM.

The continued fermentation in cold storage is evident that the yeast starter continues to carbonate even increasing between 4 and 8 weeks ( I have a habit of drinking discarded yeast supernatant for quality control! )

You could be right, it may be just WHC's variant, or it may be an effect of different wort compositions, including hopping rates, that's why I was curious as to how other people got on with this yeast making different styles of beers to see if there was any correlation.

However, as a single yeast, not a blend I have read several comments (including one from a pro brewer who uses this exclusively for their house DIPA) that is a PITA due to the extra tank time, so I assumed my results were in line with theirs. Even the yeast manufacturer (WHC labs) told me to expect longer turn around times. Not crazy, like real Brett, but certainly noticeable. I've considered blending with an American ale yeast to increase turn around time but as a homebrewer an additional 10 days isn't really a problem.

So for you blending keeps fermentation within normal timeframe? What sort of beers are we talking about and what timeframe? Bear in mind I ferment at 21C (70F) fixed internal, which during the peak of fermentation can mean the ambient is adjusted to as low as 15C (59F). This could make all the difference in timeframes when comparing people's temps, especially as a lot of people ferment with this particular yeast in the high 70s (with internal temps likely to be in the low 80s) - that's bound to shave a few days off at least (I'm trying to restrain the funk slightly)

 

[Antzrhere]

It is possible that different conditions (such as blended strains, decreased pH and increased oxygen exposure in sours) along with vastly varying temps make all the difference to how this yeast behaves, just curious who experiences what with different beer styles. It's probably a yeast that has found itself in complete polar opposites of beer styles, so it wouldn't be a surprise if it behaved differently from brewer to brewer depending on how they used it.

 

[Antzrhere]

According to WHC, Funky Pineapple yeast is STA1 positive, promoter region negative. I'm not a yeastie guy (I'm a biochemist, but yeast was just a tool), so maybe someone else can chime in if there is any leaky expression of STA1 under some circumstances or not.

 

[RPh_Guy]

Couple things:

1. Dextrose in starters isn't recommended.
2. Consider adding zinc directly to the fermenter to avoid it binding with trub.

So for you blending keeps fermentation within normal timeframe? What sort of beers are we talking about and what timeframe?

My usage of WLP644 is so far from "normal" that I didn't even want to bring it up because I know it doesn't apply to your situation. I mix it with Brett and LAB, and use glucoamylase. These beers are fermented at 68-69°F (20°C) ambient and allowed to free rise, generally to around 74-75°F (24°C), which results in loads of delicious tropical pineapple and mango.

It sounds to me like the WHC culture is a bit different than what White Labs is currently producing, because slow attenuation isn't normal for WLP644, at least to my knowledge.

 

[Antzrhere]

Hi.

Thanks for the advice.

I may consider adding zinc to the fermenter on my next beer, my only concern is sanitation as I use a liquid solution for easier measuring given the tiny amounts. At the moment I dose to 0.5ppm following anecdotal evidence from Pro Brewer comments I'll end up with around 0.3ppm in FV. Without being able to measure it, I'm dosing blind. But I may well do what you said on next beer. It's never been an issue with other strains but maybe this strain is particularly sensitive to zinc? Thanks

As far as adding a small amount of dextrose (glucose) to a starter this was recommended by a guy who works with yeast (I only supplement 10%). I know people say don't overdo glucose in propagation as they're scared they will induce maltose repression, but at these levels this simply isn't the case. Barley Wort can be around 10-12% glucose as it is and Maltose and maltotriose still dominate glucose 3:1 even when wort is supplemented with a large part of dextrose/glucose. I can see the issue people have when they grow in glucose exclusively with no nutrients and then chuck it in a beer and expect it to ferment in a timely manner. In other yeasts I've propagated over 8 generation I've never seen a drop in attenuation or fermentation profile/time from generation to generation (typically 80-87% in high gravity worts and 7 days to completion). This has never altered, even with this strain over 3 generations. Typically maltose downregulation would display as initial sluggish fermentation when pitched in a high maltose wort, however the opposite is true, the initial fermentation up to 48 hours is quite furious, so much so that my incubator struggles to keep the temps low. The rate of attenuation in these first 2 days far exceeds what the glucose concentration can account for, so the yeast is happily munching maltose.

Out of interest, adding glucoamylase to a beer actually increases the available glucose in the wort from around 10% up to 24% by converting maltose (among other things) to dextrose/glucose. I know this is not in the starter stage, but certainly you would more than likely see glucose-induced suppression of maltose uptake if this were an issue at these levels with this particular strain, so this tells me that glucose concentration probably isn't an issue with this strain at least.

I suspect that in your atypical use, glycoamylase may speed up this yeasts job considerably (*IF* this yeast has the ability to break down larger, typically unfermentable, sugar chains slowly). Even if it isn't diasticus active, breaking down maltotriose with an enzyme will certainly give a helping hand to make the yeasts job quicker removing any potential bottleneck.

I know your usage isn't anyway comparable and not intended to be as such, but it has made me wonder if adding glucoamylase to my next batch may improve turnaround, even if it's in the mash only. Might be worth a go as long as I can control the attenuation, so thanks for the idea.

I think on my next batch I'll try to purchase some WLP644. I've never used WHC before, although I have no complaints about the final beer, but as you said, it could be a slightly different strain depending on how they've handled it at the very least I suppose. No supplier is going to say publically their yeast is the same as someone else anyway, so it's up to us to see how it behaves. If most people don't see this extended fermentation profile it may well be this brand of yeast. Will give it a try, thanks.

 

[couchsending]

Sorry if you mentioned this already (posts are long, didn’t read them all). What gravity does Trois get to relatively quickly like say at day 8? How many points further on day 20?

It is possible that it might have some odd hop intolerance?

Were there a lot more “unfermemtables” in the Stout? A lot more crystal malt by chance? Maybe it doesn’t have the ability to break those down. We know it’s STA1 gene isn’t as “active” as others??

Personally I'd love To know if you get the same slow drop in final attenuation if you blended it with another yeast. Imperial offers it blended with VT Ale yeast and it’s sold as Imperial Dry Hop. I’d be willing to bet you would get almost the same flavor profile with a much faster and more reliable fermentation. However you might not be able to go quite as many generations.

 

[Antzrhere]

Hi.

On my last lPA atleast I don't have a day 8 reading as I learned to leave it alone a bit longer before bothering to take readings, but on day 12 it was 1.018. It then proceeded to drop exactly a point per day for the next 8 days finishing at 1.010 on day 20 where it stopped. It started at 1.065 (1.068 prior to diluting with yeast starter), finishing at 7.2%

Conversely the stout (containing more unfermentables) finished by day 10. This started at 1.077 and finished at 1.019. So my theory is hops may be interfering slightly, but I can't really know this for sure unless I repeat a second RIS with the same yeast again to confirm whether it was real or just a one off unexplained fluke ( I will be doing this in a month so will report back)

My IPAs are made of Golden Promise and do contain a large portion of flaked grain which contribute to unfermentables (no crystal) but this is still less than my stouts.

I think I will blend with WLP4000 (Vermont) possibly growing separate cultures independently and blending at pitching. I used to do this with WLP4000 and WLP001 as Vermont didn't give me the attenuation I wanted and has been known to change profile over generations, so this kept it consistent and nicely attenuated. I prefer trois over Vermont, but I agree, both would probably be even better than one! (pineapple AND Mango with beautiful tartness and high attenuation!)

 

[VikeMan]

My IPAs are made of Golden Promise and do contain a large portion of flaked grain which contribute to unfermentables (no crystal) but this is still less than my stouts.

Why do you say that flaked grains are contributing to unfermentables (particularly)?

 

[Antzrhere]

From experience my IPAs with flaked oats do finish a tad higher than when I've done without. I don't think it's much (around 2-3points worth), but it's probably nothing to do with it being flaked per se, just the grain itself. An example comes to mind on Brulosophy - effect of flaked maize (flaked maize finished considerably higher than when sub'ed with base malt).

But as you alude to, it probably isn't the flaked/unmalted state that is unfermentable - Maize and rye do contain more unfermentables than Barley even though they contain the same or more extract potential (I think theres a great chart on Milk the Funk to show this) so it probably has more to do with grain choice, it just so happens these grains (some of which I'm using) are more commonly used unmalted.

I've never done a side by side exact beer split in batches and fermented at the same time to prove this to myself mind you