The origins of the Guinness stout yeast
nature.com
nature.com
"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.
The best beer I ever had was draught Pilsner Urquell, sat outside the brewery in Plzeň circa 2000.
Whatever they were doing inside... oh man, Perfection. I'll never forget.
One of those quirky little intersections between mathematics and practical business outcomes.
Guinness requires a different faucet to most draughts, with a restrictor plate that forms the creamy head. The plastic widget in cans of draught Guinness performs the same function as the restrictor plate.
The purpose of all of this is to replicate the head and mouthfeel of a 'real ale' that has been naturally carbonated and dispensed at atmospheric pressure with a handpump.
I assumed you meant the “half pour, sit, half pour, serve” but was wondering if there was perhaps another approach?
* 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.
Could you elaborate?
All draught Guinness (including Guinness Draught cans) is not carbonated with just CO2, but with nitrogen and CO2 in a 70-30% (thereabouts) mix.
Additionally, when pouring a typically carbonated beer incorrectly (or not pouring it into a glass), a larger amount of CO2 remains in solution, leading to gastro bloat that can feel more uncomfortable than one would expect. You can experience bad pours even at bars, depending on who's behind the tap.
Lagers will have higher carbonation levels than most stouts, so that could be a factor.
Beer? Not much and it's worse the more days in a row I drink it. So 3 beers over 3 days total is worse than 3 beers one evening and then nothing.
And the alcohol doesn't matter. Same issue with alcohol free versions of the same beer. Hefeweizen like Erdinger which has lots of yeast on the bottom of the bottle is worse.
It's like the yeasty parts of the beer just take over my gut and wreak havoc.
I got things under control by both not drinking beer and switching to hard stuff if I'm after the alcohol part or just completely different drinks if I'm after the taste part as well as finding a probiotic that works for me.
Nota bene: for me I also got headaches with it all. Like really bad migraines and even with certain foods. The probiotics made it all go away as long as I don't overpower them with beer or Pizza for that matter. Ordered in Pizza, if I eat too much guarantees headache a day to two later.
Beers are also sometimes fermented with organisms other than Saccharomyces. These organisms contribute a wide variety of flavors, generally funky or sour.
Many beers are unfiltered because the filtering process can remove other, desirable flavors (mostly hops). Filtering used to be very rare in American craft beer for this reason.
Hefe literraly means yeast in German.
So a Hefeweizen translated literally would be a "yeast wheat".
Very tasty beer though. And I have the same issue. Still my favorite beer: Erdinger Weizen. Preferably the dark one. But it has a ton of yeast on the bottom. And I get gastro issues very quickly when I start drinking them again. Non alcoholic versions don't help.
I've discovered that Schneider Weisse 0.5% and, to some degree, Rothaus Hefe Weizen 0.5% are less likely to provoke gastro issues while closely mirroring the taste of their alcoholic equivalents.
If you like lagers and don't drink alcohol, I've found those from Fee Damm (Estrella)[1] and Luckysaint[2] to not cause any issues either, particularly the 'Tostada Amber' from Free Damm and the larger from Luckysaint (Their Hazy IPA is great too!).
[1] https://www.damm.com/en/beers [2] https://luckysaint.co/
That was true of beer brewed hundreds of years ago so it would have some carbonation and its sourness would be tolerable but it is not true of any modern brewery. Unless they want exploding cans.
Even though hazies are best drank fresh they go through all the normal fermentation as any other ale. Otherwise they would be rough, estery, butter bombs from not giving the yeast time to clean themselves up. Many breweries just screw them up as it's one of the harder styles of beers to do properly.
If the hazy your drinking has yeast sediment in the bottom of the glass/can it was done wrong.
> Otherwise they would be rough, estery, butter bombs from not giving the yeast time to clean themselves up
Yeah, that sounds like a lot of trash hasizes people are cranking out these days! Except for "butter bombs", you have to work pretty hard to produce diacetyl. I've done some homebrew club experiments and you can do almost everything wrong and not get that textbook buttery flavor.
> If the hazy your drinking has yeast sediment in the bottom of the glass/can it was done wrong.
Yeah, I agree it's just not uncommon in my experience.
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