LTHForum.com

From Laboratory Equipment News:

_________________
Cathy2

"You'll be remembered long after you're dead if you make good gravy, mashed potatoes and biscuits." -- Nathalie Dupree
Facebook, Twitter, Greater Midwest Foodways, Road Food 2012: Podcast

That comparison is really annoying.
However, the rest of the article is very interesting . The original article, is more detailed and definitely more clear and convincing about what is thought to have happened.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1105430108

Thank you for posting.

_________________
pictorial reviews | event recaps | twitter

My biggest beef with the article that I read was that it could result in more efficient yeast strains and better beer. To assume that efficiency yields a better product is baloney, particularly when discussing beer.

This is a fascinating article summarizing the important recent work that solved a longstanding puzzle in microbial evolution—how did lager yeast arise? For about 30 years it has been known that the genome of the yeast used for lager's cold fermentation is a hybrid of standard warm-fermenting ale yeast and another yeast. The previously unknown partner—christened Saccharomyces eubayanus—has now been found, in Patagonia of all places.

The article in Laboratory Equipment News was actually written by Terry Devitt, a longtime science writer now affiliated with University of Wisconsin-Madison, where one of the lead authors is now employed. Although UW-M is mentioned as a source at the end of the article it's a shame Laboratory Equipment News didn't see fit to identify the author or provide a link to the original.


Here's a link to the original article in case anyone is interested in looking at it.


Are you opposed to lager yeast, then, which is far more efficient than ale yeast at fermenting in colder temperatures? I tend to prefer ales but also admire lagers and the little guys who do the work of fermenting it. The more brewing yeasts we have, the better.

Some might be interested to know of the immediate plans the discoverers of S eubayanus have for the new yeast. They are collaborating with an Argentine brewery to make (commercial?) beer using the prototype strain. Although indigenous peoples have been making fermented beverages using the beech galls where the yeast is found, nobody has any idea what barley malt fermented with S eubayanus would taste like. Next they will hybridize S eubayanus with standard ale yeast to recreate the proto-lager yeast as it may have existed in the 16th century before the genomic rearrangements occurred to give us today's more efficient lager yeast. I find these undertakings—at the unlikely intersection of genetics, history and brewing—tremendously interesting.

Edited to add a stable link to the PNAS article reporting the original research.

I agree with tremendously interesting, but why unlikely? Brewing=microbiology. In understanding microbiology, genetics and molecular biology are crucial.

_________________
pictorial reviews | event recaps | twitter

I think it is worth pointing out that "efficiency" in this context doesn't mean "make great beer using cheaper ingredients" or something like that. The homebrewers and biologists on this forum should probably take it from here. But my understanding is that the yeast's efficiency is a measure of how much of the malt sugar is converted to ethanol and carbon dioxide.

Thats the point the article makes, the changes that occurred after the fusion allowed for more efficient nutrient transport and use pathways.That doesnt mean better, but also doesnt mean worse, beer. Also the discussion section of the article mentions improving yeast for brewing, not specifically speeding up the process.

_________________
pictorial reviews | event recaps | twitter