100% Lactobacillus fermentations cannot achieve complete attenuation (test results included)

I thought Omega lacto contained two lactos? Brevis and plantarum.

I also thought delbrueckii wasn't supposed to produce any booze, yet it attenuated the most. Yeast infection!

 

Awesome info. Much appreciated. Can't wait to see more.

 

Since the Brett Trois flap, I have very little confidence in White Labs' ability to correctly identify the microbes they sell. It wouldn't surprise me if their Delbrueckii strain isn't Delbrueckii.

 

So , I would like to ask you a simple question : My lambic beer is still fermenting , I brewed it on may 1th and a week ago after a month of no airlock activity it started to have new krausen(1 inch) and airlock works again. I took 3 lts of this beer ,have pasteurized,bottled and sampled. There is almost no sourness-tartness in the flavor, it is barely noticeable. Does this second started fermentation what is going to sour this beer?


Edit : I fermented it with wild yeast captured from fruits

 

If lacto is pitched in ample quantity at the right temperature, sourness happens in less than a month. Pedio takes several months to produce sourness. If you have a smaller than optimal pitch of lacto, it could take a few months to sour.

What yeast/bacteria did you pitch?

 

Sorry it is not my intention to hijack the OP post.

It was fermented with captured yeast from fruits

 

In that case, you won't know what you pitched unless you use a microscope. Truly wild fermentations like yours can contain more than 20 different types of microbes. If you get a good result, the beer God smiled upon you.

 

So it turns out, this 100% lacto brevis beer brewed by @ryane that allegedly finished at 1.004 is currently classified as anomalous and highly suspicious!

http://ryanbrews.blogspot.com/2014/10/100-lacto-fermented-ale.html

 

And how can we forget the 100% lacto beer made by @OldSock that allegedly finished at 1.008.

http://www.themadfermentationist.com/2012/06/100-lactobacillus-berliner-weisse.html

Something is rotten in Denmark!

 

@ryane update your blog dude!

 

I've heard from multiple PhD's that they've found yeast in vials of WLP677 over the last year or so...

 

I've had a beer attenuate down to 1.012 using only wlp677 within 3 days once in the fairly recent past, but I didn't look at it under a microscope to determine whether or not some yeast was in the mix.

 

FWIW: White Labs advertises wlp677 as having 75-82% apparent attenuation range (funny when I looked it up about a month ago, I thought the site said 65-72% at that time). I believe I read somewhere that the wlp677 strain is capable of producing an enzyme which allows it to ferment maltose, maltotriose, and raffinose, ensuring a dry finished beer without the aid of Saccharomyces. I think what was more in question about wlp677 wasn't its ability to attenuate wort, but its ability to produce ethanol as the pyruvate it forms gets converted to lactic acid. I can't find the references for this subject at this time though, sorry!

 

He pitched 200ml of lacto into 2L. If WLP 677 attenuates 75-82%, then they clearly didn't ship him the lacto strain they claim to have the magical ability to ferment wort like an ale yeast. He verified there was no sacc in the 677 he received.

Perhaps they used to add some sacc to their "magic lacto" and now they don't or perhaps there are random quality control issues. Either way, White Labs has some 'splaining to do...again.

 

I think the first 36 gravity points from the 51 attenuated in my lambic beer were fermented by sacc. thus the samples I took haven´t got much sourness, now there must be other microbes working on the last 15 points(I really have no idea wich are they). Do you think these last points will be enough to produce a noticeable sourness?

 

I know I know, Ive let it slide quite a bit.......Now there's so many things Ive done in the past year I dunno even where to start

 

Seriously man, you were one of three homebrew bloggers that I regularly followed.

 

No clue as to whether it would allow for >70% aa or not without yeast, but here is some more info on the enzyme expression within the subspecies of delbrueckii that I remember reading about...

"Significant to the four L. delbrueckii subspecies are the number and types of substrates it can metabolize. As noted, such properties are restricted to enzyme expression within its genome.

L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and subsp. indicus can metabolize lactose, glucose, fructose, and mannose.

In addition to these, L. delbrueckii subsp. lactis catabolizes galactose, sucrose, maltose, trehalose and other modified carbohydrates.(4)"

4) [Kitazawa, H., Yasuyuki, I., Uemura, J., Kawai, Y., Saito, T., Kaneko, T., Noda, K., and Itoh, T. “Augmentation of macrophage functions by an extracellular phophopolysaccharide from Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus”. Food Microbiology. 2000. Volume 17. p.109-118. ]

 

Ahh ha! So both White Labs lacto strains had yeast in the vial. Now all I need to ponder is whether or not the yeast is put there intentionally or accidentally. Either way, White Labs has some 'splainin' to do...again. The choice between admitting a deceptive business practice or a production negligence seems like a no win situation. It could be better to remain silent.

 

Not saying anyone is wrong about yeast inclusion in the lacto packs, but in my beer I DID NOT use White labs, I used the Wyeast PC 5223 Lacto Brevis

 

The interesting anomaly with your beer is the very low FG of 1.004. No doubt there was something more than brevis in your batch. Perhaps the pitch contained some saison sacc or brett. Perhaps the batch was contaminated with yeast during the brewing process.


I've used Wyeast Brevis a few times and didn't experience high attenuation in the starter or the batch with one week of fermentation for each at 80F. The batches were finished with sacc and made good sour beers. I have never tried to completely ferment a beer with any type of lacto.