WL 644 isn't Brett??!!

Very interesting.

 

Saw that. Interesting. Looking forward to where this leads. Now, the bigger question is...

When they find out it's actually Sacc C, do all the brewers (commercial and home) lose their medals/awards for "Brett" beers where this is the sole "Brett" strain???

***More breaking news, this just in, Trinity brewing gives back all of its medals won for Brett beers, as it turns out, they contain no Brett. All judges in said competitions are under review. We will keep you posted as this story unfolds.***

*** this is in no way a true story, and I have no information on which strains of Brett or non-Brett Trinity brewing may or may not use, just wanted to poke fun***

 

Look at this response.
http://www.whitelabs.com/blog/wlp644-background

 

Brett-gate?

 

My only comment is that the beers I've bottled with 644 haven't aged the way I've come to expect when bottling with other brett strains.

 

If you like the beers, don't sweat it. Respect that science is a gradual, self-correcting process. If your favorite yeast ends up being best classified as something other than you thought, so what?

 

There are a few real issue with this that I can see-

1. If it's not Brett., it probably isn't a great sole strain to use where Pedio. and other lactic acid bacteria are used. Diacetyl and EPS reduction are somewhat dependent on the activity of Brett., as is "super-attenuation" (The reduction of the SG down to 1.004 or below).

2. Bottle conditioning with this yeast may not yield the same character that one might want or expect.

I think that 2 is really a non-issue, as it's not going to result in a "bad" beer, per say. But a roped out, buttery, and under-attenuated beer? Yeah, that's an issue.

EDIT: I will say though, I love what it does in a "clean" hoppy beer, and will continue to use it regardless.

 

Two good posts from @pweis909 and @cleaver.

We will have await the results of the genetic testing to find out for sure,

I would suggest that it really doesn’t matter too much, depending on how you use this strain. If you are solely using this strain in the primary then how it is classified should not be a big deal. If you are using this strain in combination with other microorganisms (i.e., expecting WLP644 to be Brett) then this could potentially be an issue.

Cheers!

 

I'm no biologist but I do know I have had allergic reactions to some strains of brett. After brewing with brett brux trois I have had one of these reactions and fully expect to see the genetic testing come back reinforcing what we already know.

 

Interesting, but based on my experience I'd still think it's Brett. My friend has a starter going from a vial I got aa while back and it smells super funky and has a nice pellicle after sitting for a few weeks.

 

I would disagree. I think it does matter a significant amount on a commercial scale. Breweries using this strain for beers they market as containing Brettanomyces will have to re-formulate their product if they want produce and cater to the wild beer market.

 

I have had experience with aging 100% Brett Trois beers for 4-6 months and have experience with them turning fairly funky. I would be surprised if it is a Sachh strain that can, on it's own, attenuate so well and produce such funky character with age.

 

My comment was concerning homebrewing.

Cheers!

 

I feel it does, and if it doesn't indeed have the brett pedigree, it's some wild sacch that has mutated!

Has an earthy funk to it, super powdery dry finish, tons of fruit with it.. I can't recall a normal sacch strain that does this, so I have to believe it has some brett, or it's a blend.

 

I haven't let my BBT primaries live long enough to see what happens. I did add it to the bottle on a 3724 primary Saison, and it foams like crazy when you pop it. Haven't had any of my other Brett bottled Saisons do that. BBT is indeed a super attenuator.

 

I thing the blogger has a nice summary of:

"Ultimately, I think it matters - but only a little. Beer drinkers and brewers are getting ever more used to dealing with odd organisms in their beer, and it looks like WLP644 is simply a little less odd than others previously thought. People entering beers brewed with this yeast may need to stop entering it as a brett-beer, but otherwise little changes on that end. In contrast, there are some commercial aspects to this of more import. Because this yeast is now known to be a Saccharomyces, breweries and yeast providers will likely have to change their labeling, or risk running afoul of labeling laws. The fact this yeast is Saccharomyces may also lead to breweries previously unwilling to bring Brett into their breweries to begin working with this yeast."

Yup, matters more to commercial brewers.

Cheers!

 

Any updates on this from White Labs?