Yeast was known as godisgoode (this is speculative) and one of the great moments in biochemistry history was the isolation of a single yeast strain, which led to the industrialization of beer production as well as many other cool things (some yeasts are great models for genetics).
"In 1883 the Dane Emil Hansen published the findings of his research at the Carlsberg brewery in Copenhagen and described the isolation of a favourable pure yeast culture that he labelled "Unterhefe Nr. I" (bottom-fermenting yeast no. 1),[10] a culture that he identified as identical to the sample originally donated to Carlsberg in 1845 by the Spaten Brewery of Munich.[11] This yeast soon went into industrial production in Copenhagen in 1884 as Carlsberg yeast no. 1.[12]"
The study of biochemical fermentation is known as "zymurgy" or "zymology" and the enzyme (it's zymes all the way down) that carries this out is zymase (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zymase)
Modern beer, even the industrial lager you despise is much better that what 99% of people drank in the past. There is almost no bad beer, the standards for water quality and hygiene are high, the process and technology is well understood and we can replicate the same beer batch after batch, year after year.
I have had no trouble finding wonderful beers produced by industry. I think filtering, pasteurization, and the use of grains like rice, are the main sources of the lack of flavor.
That said, anecdotally, I did see a drop in quality of Pilsner Urquell when they moved from their traditional brewery (which had quite the ecosystem in the ceiling) to the newer one. Lots of folks like to say that the crazy stuff going on over the vats affects the flavor.
I’m not sure about the loss of flavor, but we have definitely seen waves of homogenization with macro beer producers. From what I’ve seen, this led to an explosion in regional and local microbreweries. There are lots of eclectic options out there nowadays.
Yes, it's very interesting that a concept that is now so widely used in general statistics was first used in a brewery. It helps that Guinness is still the best globally available macro beer (imo).
One of those quirky little intersections between mathematics and practical business outcomes.
* his independent research into Kveik (yeast) and Scandinavian farmhouse brewing detailed on his blog and several books over the last 5 year has been among the most meaningful contribution to beer culture (outside of academic/scientific) work in decades. His blog: https://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/
I appear to have a yeast intolerance that stops me drinking some (but not all) beers. I can drink Guinness though! I didn't realise it used a distinct strain of brewers yeast. If only breweries listed the yeast they used in the ingredients, I could narrow down which one(s) are problematic...
Pretty much every beer uses a distinct "strain" of yeast so that information is unlikely to be useful and it's probably full of noise[0]. As per this paper one thing makes Guinness interesting is that it's strain is fairly divergent.
[0] There are strain banks like white labs that perform lots of analysis on the various beer strains.
> Pretty much every beer uses a distinct "strain" of yeast
I am a professional brewer and this is hilariously incorrect.
_Some_ beers have their own strain of yeast, but banking a yeast strain at a yeast lab is prohibitively expensive for most breweries.
The vast majority of breweries will have maybe 2 strains in house, an ale and a lager yeast. Sometimes they'll throw in a strain for NEIPA / Hazy beers as well. These strains are not specific to that brewery however, just a strain they like and will reuse for several pitches until starting fresh with a new batch from the lab.
To put it in White Labs terms, WLP001 aka Chico yeast is used in the overwhelming majority of IPAs. As referenced elsewhere in this thread almost all stouts are brewed with Guinness yeast aka WLP004. For the Hazy, WLP008 or WLP066. For the lager, WLP830 or WLP840 typically.
This is not to say that plenty of breweries don't have and maintain a proprietary yeast, especially at the macro level, but to say "pretty much every beer" has it's own yeast is incredibly off the mark.
About 15 years ago, I developed an unfortunate reaction to drinking beer: heartburn that made me wish I was dead. Kinda ruined Mexican and BBQ dinners, both of which are not just tasty, but cultural events here in Texas. The condition got progressively worse, but I still stepped up for the abuse from time to time,until I tried a thick, chewy porter or stout that did NOT trigger the dreaded heartburn. I still have the heartburn (I manage it with an unusual mineral supplement), but can almost always enjoy a good, dark, porter or stout (the darker, the better), which has improved life quite a bit!
If you don’t mind sharing, what are the symptoms you experience when you have a yeast you can’t tolerate? I ask because I believe I might have a yeast intolerance of my own.
Relatively fast onset gastro symptoms. Used to be fine with any beer but at about 21 started noticing the problem with a lot of largers. Asahi, Tsing Tao, seemed less of a issue. Not formula diagnosed.
Many beers are filtered to remove the yeast since it's not really desirable once fermentation has completed. BUT - and a big "but" - there are styles like hefeweizen and other unfiltered beers that deliberately leave the yeast in for flavour.
Really interesting point about yeast being left in beers. I always assumed yeast was removed at one point in all beer due to its role in fermentation. The idea that styles like hefeweizen intentionally keep the yeast for added flavour surprised me. On a similar note, as someone who only drinks non-alcoholic beer, I've noticed that while most use yeast, some opt for 'simulated fermentation' without it. Yet, to my taste, there isn't much difference between the two. This makes me curious about what specific flavour characteristics yeast is supposed to add. What should one look out for?
Many (most?) craft brewers also skip this step. "Desirable" is in the eye of the beholder, and crucially, it saves effort/time/money to leave it in. You can even market it as "bottle conditioned," if you allow the final bit of fermentation to do the carbonation. (i.e. add a bit of sugar at the bottling step, rather than bottling carbonated beer.
Is it an intolerance to the fungus itself or to one of their metabolic products, like a particular complex sugar or fusel oil, that end up being metabolized by your own intestinal flora to your detriment?
Those hazy-style IPAs absolutely wreak havoc on my stomach. I think the unfiltered yeast that does it. I also do drink Guinness without issues. Mostly it's hoppy IPA type beers that dont agree with me. More filtered traditional beers are ok.
A lot of those go from tank to serving so fast now that they're still fermenting actively when served. They're also brimming with hop matter, organic alcohols, and odd yeast byproducts that get produced when certain yeasts eat a lot of certain hop compounds. Some people don't tolerate that mixture very well.
How did you find you have a yeast intolerance? Was there a test you took? I've had some GI issues that have also limited my consumption of beer despite having previously brewed beer along with many other things I can no longer eat.
If you took a test that determined it was a yeast issue disregard but I'm curious if you've tried things like hop water (carbonated water with hops from beer). If you've had any reactions to that when it's just hops and water.
Does bread give you issues? What about sourdough bread vs traditional bread yeast bread?
At least for me, all it took to discover an intolerance to certain yeasts was visiting a tasting room for yeasts (https://www.whitelabs.com/) and sniffing a beer containing the specific type of yeast (Note: all the beers I was tasting were variating just the brewing yeast).
The reaction caused a massive nasal congestion and a runny nose that essentially ended my ability to taste or enjoy further tastings for the day.
I've also seen this reaction occur across very similar beers: Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier non-organic is totally fine, but the organic one will cause the nasal reaction.
How much beer can you drink before you have issues?
I used to get really sick around 16-24oz in. Then, one day someone explained to me that corn syrup has a lot of the reagent still in it, and I noticed that when I didn't consume drinks with corn syrup, I could consume more beer.
I'm a homebrewer, and I quite enjoy using the Guinness yeast strain - Wyeast 1084 or White Labs WLP004. It gives a very distinctive fruity flavor that I can often taste in craft-brewed stouts and other ales. It also ferments SUPER fast, which can be very convenient at times.
I do love a good pint of Guinness. There's something very satisfying about how it looks; the more pronounced flavor than other globally available macro beers, and how it seems easier to have a few more than it would be with other beers.
I love Guinness (their nitro cans are surprisingly good for canned beer) but I really love the various Sam Smith stouts. It took me quite a while to realize I hate hops, and love roasted malt flavors, as well as "chocolatey" flavors.
I've come to hate hops over the last 20 years or so as overpoweringly flowery and/or bitter IPAs and pale ales have become more popular. I like just enough hops to balance the sweetness of the malt. For me hops are like salt in food- a little used carefully is great, but too much quickly becomes disgusting.
Why it's easier to have more: despite the darkness and thick head that make it look and feel so, well, stout, Guinness is actually fairly light in calories and alcohol content, at just 4.2%.
I studied microbiology at Trinity College in Dublin, and it always amused me that one of the most visible career paths to students in that program was to go work for Guinness.
Readit News
"In 1883 the Dane Emil Hansen published the findings of his research at the Carlsberg brewery in Copenhagen and described the isolation of a favourable pure yeast culture that he labelled "Unterhefe Nr. I" (bottom-fermenting yeast no. 1),[10] a culture that he identified as identical to the sample originally donated to Carlsberg in 1845 by the Spaten Brewery of Munich.[11] This yeast soon went into industrial production in Copenhagen in 1884 as Carlsberg yeast no. 1.[12]"
It looks like the work by Pasteur and Hansen was continued here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisenheim_Yeast_Breeding_Cent...
If there was ever a holy temple to the science of beer, it's https://www.carlsberggroup.com/who-we-are/carlsberg-research...
The study of biochemical fermentation is known as "zymurgy" or "zymology" and the enzyme (it's zymes all the way down) that carries this out is zymase (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zymase)
That said, anecdotally, I did see a drop in quality of Pilsner Urquell when they moved from their traditional brewery (which had quite the ecosystem in the ceiling) to the newer one. Lots of folks like to say that the crazy stuff going on over the vats affects the flavor.
One of those quirky little intersections between mathematics and practical business outcomes.
* his independent research into Kveik (yeast) and Scandinavian farmhouse brewing detailed on his blog and several books over the last 5 year has been among the most meaningful contribution to beer culture (outside of academic/scientific) work in decades. His blog: https://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/
[0] There are strain banks like white labs that perform lots of analysis on the various beer strains.
I am a professional brewer and this is hilariously incorrect.
_Some_ beers have their own strain of yeast, but banking a yeast strain at a yeast lab is prohibitively expensive for most breweries.
The vast majority of breweries will have maybe 2 strains in house, an ale and a lager yeast. Sometimes they'll throw in a strain for NEIPA / Hazy beers as well. These strains are not specific to that brewery however, just a strain they like and will reuse for several pitches until starting fresh with a new batch from the lab.
To put it in White Labs terms, WLP001 aka Chico yeast is used in the overwhelming majority of IPAs. As referenced elsewhere in this thread almost all stouts are brewed with Guinness yeast aka WLP004. For the Hazy, WLP008 or WLP066. For the lager, WLP830 or WLP840 typically.
This is not to say that plenty of breweries don't have and maintain a proprietary yeast, especially at the macro level, but to say "pretty much every beer" has it's own yeast is incredibly off the mark.
If you took a test that determined it was a yeast issue disregard but I'm curious if you've tried things like hop water (carbonated water with hops from beer). If you've had any reactions to that when it's just hops and water.
Does bread give you issues? What about sourdough bread vs traditional bread yeast bread?
The reaction caused a massive nasal congestion and a runny nose that essentially ended my ability to taste or enjoy further tastings for the day.
I've also seen this reaction occur across very similar beers: Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier non-organic is totally fine, but the organic one will cause the nasal reaction.
I used to get really sick around 16-24oz in. Then, one day someone explained to me that corn syrup has a lot of the reagent still in it, and I noticed that when I didn't consume drinks with corn syrup, I could consume more beer.
I'm still limited to about 36oz, though.
Escarpment Irish Ale
Omega Irish OYL-005