I’d take the word ‘may’ with a grain of salt, too. There’s apparently no research backing it up; it’s just one guy’s speculation. Measured by that evidential standard, pretty much anything may be true.
Against that, I’d gladly offer my own speculation: It may not, since to my knowledge dextrose and maltose are not mutagenic. More likely, they just create a selective pressure that favors individuals that do better in that kind of environment. If genes for certain flavor compounds or other fermentation characteristics co-occur with the genes that help yeast do better in that kind of environment, then that would presumably have an impact on the yeast character you’d get from dry and non-dry versions of the same strain.
-but- even assuming there is a difference, “different” does not necessarily imply “inferior”.
-and- if that’s the case, then you’re putting a similar kind of pressure on your yeast when you propagate it in any medium whatsoever.
-and- given the number of times I’ve read about people failing to be able to tell the difference between US-05 and 1056 in blind taste tests, I’m inclined to guess that none of this speculation survives a reality check, anyway.[/quote]
if yeast do not mutate you could reuse it over and over and over again and never have to worry about a thing…
First, I wasn’t saying mutation doesn’t happen. I was questioning the article’s suggestion that the growth medium dry yeast are fed on accelerates mutation.
Second, I get the impression that a lot of sources say “mutation” when they just mean “evolution”. Wyeast is pretty obviously doing this on their page http://www.wyeastlab.com/com-yeast-harvest.cfm
on the subject.
I don’t think the idea of mutations having much impact on the character of a population over the time spans being suggested is really plausible. If you re-pitch your yeast 5 times, and each cell divides an average of 10 times per generation (I believe the real figure’s closer to 5, but 10 makes the math easier), then at the end of that process a mutation that occurred right out of the gate will have spread to about 0.0001% of the population. That’s assuming that the mutation doesn’t harm the cell’s health.
On the other hand, if you’re harvesting and re-pitching the most flocculant 50% of your population and throwing out the rest, then after 5 generations you’ll have produced a huge shift in the genetic profile of the yeast without a single mutation ever occurring - you’re just working with the natural variability that’s already there.
First, I wasn’t saying mutation doesn’t happen. I was questioning the article’s suggestion that the growth medium dry yeast are fed on accelerates mutation.
Second, I get the impression that a lot of sources say “mutation” when they just mean “evolution”. Wyeast is pretty obviously doing this on their page http://www.wyeastlab.com/com-yeast-harvest.cfm
on the subject.
I don’t think the idea of mutations having much impact on the character of a population over the time spans being suggested is really plausible. If you re-pitch your yeast 5 times, and each cell divides an average of 10 times per generation (I believe the real figure’s closer to 5, but 10 makes the math easier), then at the end of that process a mutation that occurred right out of the gate will have spread to about 0.0001% of the population. That’s assuming that the mutation doesn’t harm the cell’s
On the other hand, if you’re harvesting and re-pitching the most flocculant 50% of your population and throwing out the rest, then after 5 generations you’ll have produced a huge shift in the genetic profile of the yeast without a single mutation ever occurring - you’re just working with the natural variability that’s already there.[/quote]
There are a few things there but I am to lazy to get into it. Yeast can and will mutate that’s why no one reuses it constantly
I’m kind of inclined to speculate that krausening is both the way it’s carbonated and the way it’s fermented.
With how yeast normally tend to start with the simplest sugars and work their way up to the bigger molecules if you leave them to their own devices, krausening’s kind of an interesting situation because it lets the yeast go through that whole cycle once, and then gives them another shot of wort so that they go through it all over again but with all the sugars at a lower concentration. Makes me wonder if that has the side benefit of sort of keeping them “interested” longer so that they’ll do a better job of cleaning up some of the harsher fermentation by-products.
Be interesting to do a side-by-side experiment: Take off only like a 10% gyle. After the initial fermentation’s over, split the beer so you can krausen half of it and use some other method to carb the other.[/quote]
That might be interesting experiment for someone else, but I’ve already been carbonating my beers for many years by other methods, and there’s no question in my mind that krausening is the way to go. There’s no reason to ever go back, now that I’ve seen how much of an improvement it’s made to my beers. I just wish I’d started doing it years ago. I guess you could say that for me, there’s no need to do a side-by-side comparison because the character of my old beers (pre-krausening) is still very fresh in my mind. It’s almost like I’d never even really brewed beer before carbonating by this method. There’s that much of a difference, really.
It’s also likely to be because there were no appropriate dry strains for the beers. I really don’t think it tells us much.[/quote]
Yes, that’s true, too. It’s only really been in the last 7 years or so, as far as I can recall, that the variety of dry yeast styles available on the market has really expanded like it has. Apparently, it’s taking a while for the idea to take off that you can brew a whole lot more beer styles with dry yeast than you could in years past. I haven’t been slow to check it out, though. I’ve always thought that liquid yeast is overpriced, although there are some that I will continue to use religiously, like White Labs’ German Ale/Kolsch strain. That one is just awesome for pale ales.
I tried that. In an experiment, I did krausening along with priming with various sugars and force carbing. 2 months later, in a blind tasting, no one could tell the difference and no one expressed a preference for one over another.[/quote]
Yes, but could you tell a difference when the beer was first ready to drink? I’m a big believer in drinking beer when it’s fresh, and that’s where I think the krausening method of carbonation really shines. There’s just something about it that I can’t quite put a finger on, but that’s probably because I haven’t been doing it for all that long. All I know is that my krausened beers taste way better to me than beers I made in the past and carbonated with other methods. Then again, I also started doing 2 other things at the same time that I made the switch to krausening: I started doing yeast starters religiously with all my beers, and I started brewing with much higher quality stainless steel equipment that I recently bought. Those other factors may, of course, be playing a big part, too. But I’ve had good beers in the past that were good in every way other than carbonation and mouthfeel. My gut instincts tell me that the krausening is making a big difference, but I’m not going back to old methods of brewing, so I guess I’ll never know for sure.
I’m kind of inclined to speculate that krausening is both the way it’s carbonated and the way it’s fermented.
With how yeast normally tend to start with the simplest sugars and work their way up to the bigger molecules if you leave them to their own devices, krausening’s kind of an interesting situation because it lets the yeast go through that whole cycle once, and then gives them another shot of wort so that they go through it all over again but with all the sugars at a lower concentration. Makes me wonder if that has the side benefit of sort of keeping them “interested” longer so that they’ll do a better job of cleaning up some of the harsher fermentation by-products.
Be interesting to do a side-by-side experiment: Take off only like a 10% gyle. After the initial fermentation’s over, split the beer so you can krausen half of it and use some other method to carb the other.[/quote]
That might be interesting experiment for someone else, but I’ve already been carbonating my beers for many years by other methods, and there’s no question in my mind that krausening is the way to go. There’s no reason to ever go back, now that I’ve seen how much of an improvement it’s made to my beers. I just wish I’d started doing it years ago. I guess you could say that for me, there’s no need to do a side-by-side comparison because the character of my old beers (pre-krausening) is still very fresh in my mind. It’s almost like I’d never even really brewed beer before carbonating by this method. There’s that much of a difference, really.[/quote]
If there was that much difference everyone would be doing it. Pros ametures etc…
First, I wasn’t saying mutation doesn’t happen. I was questioning the article’s suggestion that the growth medium dry yeast are fed on accelerates mutation.
Second, I get the impression that a lot of sources say “mutation” when they just mean “evolution”. Wyeast is pretty obviously doing this on their page http://www.wyeastlab.com/com-yeast-harvest.cfm
on the subject.
I don’t think the idea of mutations having much impact on the character of a population over the time spans being suggested is really plausible. If you re-pitch your yeast 5 times, and each cell divides an average of 10 times per generation (I believe the real figure’s closer to 5, but 10 makes the math easier), then at the end of that process a mutation that occurred right out of the gate will have spread to about 0.0001% of the population. That’s assuming that the mutation doesn’t harm the cell’s health.
On the other hand, if you’re harvesting and re-pitching the most flocculant 50% of your population and throwing out the rest, then after 5 generations you’ll have produced a huge shift in the genetic profile of the yeast without a single mutation ever occurring - you’re just working with the natural variability that’s already there.[/quote]
The original Bass Pale Ale ( before it was hijacked by Interbrew and turned into the sad example of mediocrity that it is now) was made with the exact same yeast that was reused for over 200 years!How’s that for healthy yeast?
I tried that. In an experiment, I did krausening along with priming with various sugars and force carbing. 2 months later, in a blind tasting, no one could tell the difference and no one expressed a preference for one over another.[/quote]
Yes, but could you tell a difference when the beer was first ready to drink? I’m a big believer in drinking beer when it’s fresh, and that’s where I think the krausening method of carbonation really shines. There’s just something about it that I can’t quite put a finger on, but that’s probably because I haven’t been doing it for all that long. All I know is that my krausened beers taste way better to me than beers I made in the past and carbonated with other methods. Then again, I also started doing 2 other things at the same time that I made the switch to krausening: I started doing yeast starters religiously with all my beers, and I started brewing with much higher quality stainless steel equipment that I recently bought. Those other factors may, of course, be playing a big part, too. But I’ve had good beers in the past that were good in every way other than carbonation and mouthfeel. My gut instincts tell me that the krausening is making a big difference, but I’m not going back to old methods of brewing, so I guess I’ll never know for sure.[/quote]
Just started making yeast starters that will have a huge impact 10 fold over krausenjng that is not doing anythin
First, I wasn’t saying mutation doesn’t happen. I was questioning the article’s suggestion that the growth medium dry yeast are fed on accelerates mutation.
Second, I get the impression that a lot of sources say “mutation” when they just mean “evolution”. Wyeast is pretty obviously doing this on their page http://www.wyeastlab.com/com-yeast-harvest.cfm
on the subject.
I don’t think the idea of mutations having much impact on the character of a population over the time spans being suggested is really plausible. If you re-pitch your yeast 5 times, and each cell divides an average of 10 times per generation (I believe the real figure’s closer to 5, but 10 makes the math easier), then at the end of that process a mutation that occurred right out of the gate will have spread to about 0.0001% of the population. That’s assuming that the mutation doesn’t harm the cell’s health.
On the other hand, if you’re harvesting and re-pitching the most flocculant 50% of your population and throwing out the rest, then after 5 generations you’ll have produced a huge shift in the genetic profile of the yeast without a single mutation ever occurring - you’re just working with the natural variability that’s already there.[/quote]
The original Bass Pale Ale ( before it was hijacked by Interbrew and turned into the sad example of mediocrity that it is now) was made with the exact same yeast that was reused for over 200 years!How’s that for healthy yeast?[/quote]
That’s not how it works
No, I didn’t test the beers younger. I wanted to give all the various methods time for the CO2 to go into solution. But I just can’t see how it would make much difference. You’re totally entitled to your opinion, but I stand by my findings.
BTW, I think the name for what you’re doing is “priming with gyle”. Krausening means adding actively fermenting wort. Maybe I misunderstood your technique, though.
Not just using the same yeast over and over again for 200 years[/quote]
The hell it doesn’t. When you buy a vial of liquid yeast, where do you think it originated? It came from a brewery that’s been using that strain for a very long time. It that weren’t true, where would those breweries get their yeast- other breweries? I don’t think so. Look at Weihenstephan. They’ve been brewing for a thousand years! What do think they do- run to their local homebrew shop when it’s time to pitch yeast into their wort? I’m not suggesting that some measures don’t have to be taken to clean the yeast between uses and discard mutated cells. I’m well aware that that’s the case. But it absolutely is the same yeast that these breweries use continuously for many years on end. We might have a hard time believing that in America, but that’s only because our microbrew industry is in it’s infancy compared to those in European countries. I don’t recall for sure where I read that original fact that you’re commenting on, but it’s in one of the original classic beer style series books from Brewers Publications. I think it was probably in the Pale Ale book, but I can’t find it now that I’m looking for it. I’m not making it up, though, believe me.
To be fair, pure culture techniques weren’t invented until the late 19th century. I’m guessing that up until that point, the yeast character of a brewery’s beer would vary all over the place.
There are breweries in England that have been reusing the same strain for hundreds of years generation after generation. Top cropped right from the previous batch.
BUT, that yeast has also been mutating for hundreds of years. I’m sure what it is now, is not what it was 100 years ago. Not all mutations are bad, and some have been lucky.
No, I didn’t test the beers younger. I wanted to give all the various methods time for the CO2 to go into solution. But I just can’t see how it would make much difference. You’re totally entitled to your opinion, but I stand by my findings.
BTW, I think the name for what you’re doing is “priming with gyle”. Krausening means adding actively fermenting wort. Maybe I misunderstood your technique, though.[/quote]
The technique I’m referring to is referred to as krausening by Charlie Papazian in one of his first books. I’m aware of the other definition that you’re referring to. I’ve never heard any other term used for priming a beer at bottling time with it’s own unfermented wort. That’s not to say that there isn’t some other term, naturally. And as far as far as your findings are concerned, they’re as valid for you as mine are for me. The art of beer appreciation is, of course, mostly empirical in nature.
Not just using the same yeast over and over again for 200 years[/quote]
The hell it doesn’t. When you buy a vial of liquid yeast, where do you think it originated? It came from a brewery that’s been using that strain for a very long time. It that weren’t true, where would those breweries get their yeast- other breweries? I don’t think so. Look at Weihenstephan. They’ve been brewing for a thousand years! What do think they do- run to their local homebrew shop when it’s time to pitch yeast into their wort? I’m not suggesting that some measures don’t have to be taken to clean the yeast between uses and discard mutated cells. I’m well aware that that’s the case. But it absolutely is the same yeast that these breweries use continuously for many years on end. We might have a hard time believing that in America, but that’s only because our microbrew industry is in it’s infancy compared to those in European countries. I don’t recall for sure where I read that original fact that you’re commenting on, but it’s in one of the original classic beer style series books from Brewers Publications. I think it was probably in the Pale Ale book, but I can’t find it now that I’m looking for it. I’m not making it up, though, believe me.[/quote]
Jesus…forget it.
I believe what Grainbelt means is that they haven’t been using the same batch of yeast for hundreds of years. They grow new batches of yeast from the same strain.
I also believe this is what you, deliusism1, meant in the first place… that they are using the same strain of yeast, but not actually the same batch of yeast for fermentation after fermentation for hundreds of years. Just think about those poor yeasts… being worked to death like that. There must be some labor law against that kind of yeast treatment
[quote=“dobe12”]I believe what Grainbelt means is that they haven’t been using the same batch of yeast for hundreds of years. They grow new batches of yeast from the same strain.
I also believe this is what you, deliusism1, meant in the first place… that they are using the same strain of yeast, but not actually the same batch of yeast for fermentation after fermentation for hundreds of years. Just think about those poor yeasts… being worked to death like that. There must be some labor law against that kind of yeast treatment [/quote]
Yes, that’s pretty much what I meant. They have to wash the yeast, discard mutated cells, and occasionally pitch a whole cake and grow a new one from the same strain, but it always come from their own house strain. And where do they get that strain? From yeast put aside from previous batches of exactly the same stuff, that’s where. So it’s not really so easy to conclude, as our wiseass friend above apparently has, that the yeast breweries reuse over many years is not the same yeast. There’s a considerable gray area there. Jeez. Take the example of Flag Porter. The yeast that’s used to make that beer was found in a bottle of beer salvaged from a lost sunken ship that was well over a century old! If a tiny little bit of yeast from a single bottle of beer can stay alive for that long and be repopulated enough to be used on an industrial scale, imagine how potent the stuff is that centuries-old breweries have in their cellars! My point is basically that no one can really draw a line between “old” and “new” yeast cells, because it’s not that simple, not even close.
The art of beer appreciation is, of course, mostly empirical in nature.
