This thread might need to be moved out of the Lambic and Wild Brewing section. ;D
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.
White Labs and Chris White specifically have already replied to the "Trois Controversy" on their FB page.
Adam
White Labs and Chris White specifically have already replied to the "Trois Controversy"
if Trois is indeed sacch (looking pretty likely), and if the folks at WL has been testing the strain for some time, then shouldn't they have known for some time now that it isn't brett?
Does this mean I need to change the name of my "All Brett IPA" I dry hopped 2 days ago, too "It'll be Beer IPA"?
i remember quickly reading something to that effect but i couldn't find it again. something to the effect that WL folks said "yeah, we know, but whatever." thanks for reminding/confirming.Omega even hinted in their early FB posts that they had talked to folks like White Labs and got feedback that they knew that it wasn't Brett but it was selling so well that no one wanted to stop the party to say as such; they probably wanted to wait for a full WGS test result to fully put the issue to rest, too.
if the above story is true, Omega did try talking to White Labs and they essentially brushed the issues aside. saying that you're waiting for a comprehensive study could easily be an excuse to not do anything. it's not unreasonable to think that he interpreted WL response as blowing him off, so he carried on without them. who knows.Im a little disappointed to see the owner of Omega yeast being initially so open about this when there was still a lot of investigating to be done. I think the respectful thing to do here would have been to correct his own discrepancies in the descriptions of in his own products (which was a mistake of his own making) by correctly identifying what is in them based off the information he has obtained, and leave the sources of the material out of the conversation for the time being. Then working behind the scenes with White Labs (and East Coast Yeast), inform them of his findings and allow each company to address what may be an issue on their end. At that point, perhaps they could all release the information they have collectively gathered and agree upon, and we could have some kind of consensus.
I think it's important to note that WL is doing a massive yeast phylogeny with full genomes, which is likely to be a game-changer in many respects. I would not be surprised if the Brett/Sacch differentiation which is deemed to be so important is in fact a much more complex story. Why should White Labs rush out some prelim data on one yeast strain, when many, many yeasts will likely need to be reclassified? I think WL is being prudent, waiting for all the data to come in, and will then publish their full results when they are ready... The scientists at WL should have the right to publish the best science they can without being required to release bits and pieces of it as the data rolls in. In other words.... be patient my friends......
if the above story is true, Omega did try talking to White Labs and they essentially brushed the issues aside. saying that you're waiting for a comprehensive study could easily be an excuse to not do anything. it's not unreasonable to think that he interpreted WL response as blowing him off, so he carried on without them. who knows.
I think the biggest consequence is that if it's Sacch, WL is going to have to increase cell counts in their packaging for it.
...while the "B." trois is most genetically similar to Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it is much more different from S. cerevisiae than other species of the Saccharomyces genus are from each other - for example, there appears to be ~40X more difference between "B." trois & S. cerevisiae as there is between S. baryanus, S. uvarium and S. pastorianus. What this may mean - although a lot of additional testing would be required top confirm - is that "B." trois is a new species within the Saccharomyces genus.
a new analysis indicating that Trois is a sacch: http://suigenerisbrewing.blogspot.ca/2014/12/brett-trois-riddle-wrapped-in-mystery.html
most interesting take-away i got is that while it's a sacch, it may or may not be cerevisiae:
Has anyone here used WLP644 in a cider? I made a batch a few months ago and just kegged it. It's pretty tasty. I'm sure it would be better if I let it age longer but I'm liking it young.
Has anyone here used WLP644 in a cider? I made a batch a few months ago and just kegged it. It's pretty tasty. I'm sure it would be better if I let it age longer but I'm liking it young.
I did a cider with it last winter. When it was young, it was fruity/tropical. After 3 months or so, the best description I have is "goaty." I enjoy brett beers and I have recognized this flavor to some degree in some brett beers but this cider is so funky/goaty it's hard to even get it close to your face let alone take a sip. It's got more stanky sweaty funk than the first four Funkadelic albums combined. I am by no means new to brewing so I'm 99.99999% positive it was not infected with any other organisms (I've never had an infected batch unless I put the "infection" there purposely). If trois is a sacch strain, it might be better at being brett than brett is...
I actually have stopped using this strain entirely. In the many pale ales I've brewed with it they start great with lots of fruit flavors and body and then keep drying out for the next several weeks until the beers becomes mediocre.
Either way if it's not brett it is a sacch strain that does a great imitation!
i made a strong ale and i would like to add some brett wlp 644 in secondary.
previously i thought to add wlp 650 but my homebrew shop haven't got it...
my question is:
is wlp 644 a good strain to secondary fermentation in this type of beer or should i wait wlp 650?
From what I've gathered it is unimpressive at as a secondary yeast, most saying they didn't get any character from it. Which makes sense considering it's regular old sach.
From White Labs on WLP644: This Belgian strain, used traditionally for 100% Brettanomyces fermentations, produces a slightly tart beer with delicate characteristics of mango and pineapple.
This is a 100% Brettanomyces strain. It is unique from other strains of Brett in that it grows faster and ferments faster than most working similarly to Sacc strains but is definitely not Sacc.
Just drank the last bottle I had of a pale ale I brewed probably 4-5 months ago and it was still very good. Still very fruity and the hops had help up very well too. YMMV
If you look back a few pages you'll see that it was recently discovered that this strain is indeed sacc. White Labs hasn't changed their description but they most likely will.
My apologies and thank you for prompting me to read back through the thread. Apparently I've missed a bunch... I personally am excited this is a sacc strain easing my fears of cross-contamination with my other brewing equipment and bottles.
Enter your email address to join: