... a groundbreaking medium for growing and detecting diastaticus

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.
If agar contains enough sugar I guess it would? but if yeast won't grow on plain agar, it shouldn't be able to utilise dextrine? I know maltodextrin is considered 99.8% unfermentable, dextrine completely. That is the idea anyway. Reality it'd need to be tested with known strains for comparison before drawing a meaningful conclusion.
 
Sorry, my brain must not have been fully turned on. I read dextrine and somehow thought "maltose". :oops:
The problem with a 100% dextrine culture medium is that growth would be really, really slow. It would take so long to get the result back that a lot of damage will have been done by the time you finally have proof that you have a diastaticus contamination. That is why PCR is the prefferred method as it is quite fast and delivers unmistakable results. If only it weren't so expensive...
 
The key take away from the article is sanitation. If you use multiple strains you need to keep your equipment very clean. Diastaticus can come from wild sources but most cases of diastaticus are self inflicted.

If you reuse your yeast for multiple pitches that also increases your chances. I have one confirmed case of diasticus(PCR), looking back at notes I had noted slight levels of funks but it was not until the fifth pitch did it build to a level to dominate the ferment.

I saved the contaminated yeast cake in the fridge and one thing I noticed was the gravity of the beer in the save yeast jar actually increased over time. The enzymes must of been able to continue converting starches but the yeast was sleeping already. The beer in the keg from that batch did not change, so getting the beer off of the yeast was part of it.

I think there is also a way to test with just starch, diastaticus can convert it but normal yeast cant. Slow but cheap for a homebrewer.

Never really figured out how I got the contamination so I am still cautious of strains that have the STA1 gene, active or not.
 
From my perspective there have been a lot of lawsuits in the US regarding supposed diastaticus 'contamination'. Brewers are saying their pitches were compromised and the supplier is liable for the losses. Whitelabs are saying hey look, a lot of strains now have been found to contain the STA1 gene and could/should be considered diastaticus. Real world usage has always contained an awful lot of variables and often falls under there is no problem until there is a problem. Here in the UK we love cask conditioned beer. It is a wonderful/terrible thing where we ferment beer until 'almost' dry, then crash and/or fine the beer until an acceptable yeast count is reached before racking to cask where secondary fermentation continues to naturally carbonate the cask. The cask is usually rushed to the cellar, where it is allowed to continue fermentation through a very high tech pressure relief valve known as a spile. So many variables! Throw ambient temperature, cellarmanship and so on into the mix. You've breweries with a house yeast which has been used successfully for decades which was previously not known to be diastaticus now worrying although no problem has been encountered because the secondary fermentation is so slow with such a low yeast count at such low temperatures with rapid cellaring over the typical time frame for consumption. See how that works out when they start putting a year shelf life on a short run of 'craft' cans or do a split cask and keg batch and have a warm warehouse in the summer however!

For me, I know where the house yeast has come from, I know where it has been and I know how it performs. I have a pretty big hunch that it is diastaticus and always has been. Reading that article, I'm like ... oh snap I can autoclave some media and plate that out like ... now? Why does it matter if there isn't a problem? Because brewers are control freaks. We also bottle and can, though rarely put more than 6 months shelf life on them.

Hunch? Recipes should finish at 1.006-1.008, dutifully into casks they go at 8-10. Regularly beer sampled on the bar, especially in summer is as low as 1.003? Regularly surprised by IPA's mashed at 67C that go from 1.052 to 1.004, what is this? 91-92% attenuation?
 
Back
Top