hotwatermusic
Well-Known Member
Thanks so much. That was very edifying and interesting too.
Now the question is, if you were to brew a high fg porter and then bottle that using the same equipment would those bottles remain shelf stable at room temps for a prolonged time. Kudos on 1.001 though...
Now the question is, if you were to brew a high fg porter and then bottle that using the same equipment would those bottles remain shelf stable at room temps for a prolonged time. Kudos on 1.001 though...
Yes it's called 'oxyclean', 'brush', 'starsan'. Glass and SS are not getting infected and plastic will be fine with good sanitation.
I agree, 3711 is scrumtrilescent, but what's 566?My 3711/566 blend of earth destroying saison contaminants went into the keg at 1.001 FG from a 1.058 OG, cleared, and carbonated. Sampled it tonight... As always, absolutely scrumpulously wonderfully yummy. If that's what disaster and evil tastes like, bring on the Armageddon
Is diastaticus susceptible to the antibiotic properties of hops like lacto?I agree, 3711 is scrumtrilescent, but what's 566?
BTW, if Diastaticus is a wild strain commonly found in nature, why aren't whole cone hops a vector for infection via dry-hopping? I know this doesn't happen in practice, but why are hops not covered with wild yeasts like just about all other vegetation? Is it the kilning? Is the handling post-kilning so well isolated from the raw hop processing areas that reintroduction of spores is prevented? Seems like a hop farm would be permeated by whatever wild spores raw hops contain.
I agree, 3711 is scrumtrilescent, but what's 566?
Thanks!566 is another one of those masochistic earth ending bacteria's from Russia or North Korea that will contaminate every brew within 500 miles, It even has the warning on it
Blending it with 3711 makes for some awesome flavors. You can also culture Dupont dregs and grow them up to use alone or mixed with 3711. I've been washing and saving both blends for quite a while. I'm sure I've contaminated most of the west coast by now.
https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-bank/wlp566-belgian-saison-ii-yeast
In the immortal words of Delbert McClinton, You're the same kind of crazy as me!Thanks!
Edit: Reading that warning about Diastaticus made my nipples go pointy! I love monster yeasts!
Reading that warning about Diastaticus made my nipples go pointy! I love monster yeasts!
I'll look for the mushroom cloud to the west...I kegged half and bottled half, so I figure within a week, my garage and fridge should be destroyed by the pending explosions. I'm guessing by now its down to 0.915 or so
Keep drinking it!Still has not brought on the zombiepocalypse
WLP590 French Saison & WLP644
If my beer brought on the zombiepocalypse I would be soooooo happy[emoji48]Keep drinking it!
I'm not sure why this is so controversial. 3711 is diastaticus. Diastaticus contamination has caused recalls and a lawsuit. There seem to be reasonable grounds to treat diastaticus as a "wild" yeast like brettanomyces rather than a "clean" yeast.
My thoughts exactly. He's a good guy but bombastic is not an inaccurate descriptor!@TANSTAAFB Tasting diastaticus is a funny claim to make as there is no defining flavor of the identified strains. Saccharomyces as a genus is highly variable and diastaticus is a member of the Sacch. cerevisiae species and just variants of it.
If he can taste diastaticus then he needs to start charging breweries as a one-mouth quality analysis laboratory and we can throw away our molecular biology equipment!
@Northern Brewer I have 099 and 590 but not the other strains you mentioned. I can throw them into the mix when I get the next round of tests.
The president of the local brew Club (also a biologist) tasted a saison in which I had tossed dregs of some good funky beers from Jester King, and said he could taste the diastaticus. Is that even possible?!
@Azura I agree good cleaning practices will generally keep contaminations in the background. But that doesn't mean you don't have contaminants in your process, you are just doing well to keep their populations in the noise. Homebrewing is allowed to be more forgiving than commercial setups for reasons you can review in this thread.
It's not paranoia to discuss organisms that can cause undesired effects in fermentations, especially not when those effects can potentially hurt someone. Just because you have had only impeccable brews and your process is better than an auto-clave doesn't mean the information shared is not valuable to someone else.
No one has advised not to use brett, diastaticus, or lactic acid bacteria. I use them all along with a bunch of other yeast. Like any tool in the trade, it's important for people to know their functions and their flaws so they can be best utilized. It's science, not paranoia fella.
I know this doesn't happen in practice, but why are hops not covered with wild yeasts like just about all other vegetation? Is it the kilning? Is the handling post-kilning so well isolated from the raw hop processing areas that reintroduction of spores is prevented? Seems like a hop farm would be permeated by whatever wild spores raw hops contain.
Now i'm getting a case of the pointys. Did the 644 come through with any sour or was it just generally more funky? I like brett's but i'm just not patient enough. I've heard that 644 is kind of a fake and fast replacement.
644 is just a sacc yeast. No Brett in the mix.
@Azura, every development in sophistication the homebrew community achieves the better brewers we all become. Reducing this thread to being alarmist is essentially saying "I'm taking time out of my life to assert that your discussion is meaningless to me." That doesn't contribute a thing to the conversation and dismisses the participants' interest.
Enter your email address to join: