One Cell to Rule Them All: A Simple Approach to Yeast

How often have we heard the saying, "brewers make wort - yeast make beer"?  Obviously it's essential.  But does that mean it needs to be complicated?

Like much else that we've tackled here, I tend to think that the answer is "no."  Yeast are vital to the brewing process, but a great many brewers have worked very hard to make a mystery of yeast.  While I grant that there is much to know and learn about yeast (and I have a well-read copy of the White & Zainasheff book on the shelf behind my head), your yeast handling and use goals can be pretty simple and modest: take this single-celled organism, put it into your wort, and let it make your beer.  You don't need to have the chemical equation for fermentation tattooed to your thigh, or hold a degree in biochemistry, you just need to know how to use yeast in your process.

This week's post is about how I use it, and hopefully you'll find there's a few steps you can cut out and still produce high-quality beer.  We'll cover four elements of yeast use: strain, volume, temperature, and packaging.  

Simply put, though?  I don't think too much about yeast.  I have a process that works.  Sometimes I try something new or fun or different, but I'm more of a hot-side tinkerer (which sounds like a genre of German adult films).  Since I have a lot of respect for what yeast have to do, and since I believe in process as a key to performance, I like to use them pretty much the same way every time so that I can be sure that what is perhaps the most "invisible" (and important) part of the process isn't messing with my results.  And as always, I'll add the caveat that I'm not a biologist: if I'm dead wrong on this, please feel free to explain why in the comments!

Strangers on a Strain

Most brewers I know tend to favor one of two brewing yeast producers - Wyeast and White Labs - and each regularly offers about 50 strains of (generally comparable) brewing yeasts.  I confess that I'm a stranger to most of them, and I'm OK with that.

Trying to learn the strengths, weaknesses, and features of each would be a practical impossibility.  You could try brewing with each yourself, across multiple batches and multiple recipes, taking extensive and detailed notes on each, and utilizing controlled and blinded tasting to verify your findings - but even if you can control for the inherent variability, who the hell has time for that?  You could also try reading reviews of each strain and selecting based on what you read, but there are at least two issues with that strategy: a) your system and fermentation process might yield very different results than those of the reviewers, and b) how can you know that the perceptions of the reviewers are accurate and/or consistent with your definitions and understandings of what are often subjective evaluations (what does "moderate bitterness" even mean, anyway?).  

Here's what I recommend instead: identify a solidly-performing "go to" strain for each of three "beer families," and spend your time learning all of the intricacies of them.  What are these "beer families?"  First, I would suggest having a yeast for your "general" ales - a yeast that produces some moderate and mild esterification, ferments well at slightly warmer temperatures, and "floccs out" (drops out of suspension) promptly.  Second, find a lager yeast that works well for you - clean, complete, and reliable cold-weather fermentation.  Last, find yourself a great Belgian yeast - these strains can produce a wide variety of esters, phenols, and alcohols, and you should test-drive a few and see which combination of flavors you like.

If anyone's curious, I like Wyeast 1007 (German Ale Yeast) for most of my ales - it's a quick ferment, it tolerates warm and cold well so I can use it on my altbiers, and it produces a very pleasant berry ester that seems to pair well with noble and Nugget alike.  I like 2206 (Bavarian Lager) for my lagers thanks to a VERY robust fermentation at even mid-40s Fahrenheit and toleration of the substantial alcohol levels you get in big lagers (think Eisbock at 14%).  And since I'm not a huge Belgian beer fan, I like the 3522 (Belgian Ardennes) for some nice spice and a beautiful pear-orange ester that seems to work with any Belgian recipe I've thrown it at.

How did I settle on those?  And why?  Well, it came from a lot of trial and error.  It also came about because, for a while, I bought into the idea that you needed to tailor your yeast to your recipe - which isn't necessarily bad advice, but it means that I could never really be sure of why a beer might have turned out as it did.  Fewer moving parts made sense, and so I spent some months brewing comparable beers with a few of the "typical" strains for those styles in recipes I had found to be reliable, and taking particular note of the fermentation characters of each.  Once I had one locked in (German Ale became a favorite early on), I'd use it for everything in that family - even a multinational one.  For example, I happily ferment away my Best Bitters with German Ale yeast (which must turn a lot of folks over in their graves in the UK).  That same winter I test-drove the major lager yeasts, and did the same thing.  Ditto the Belgians.  And that was that.  But it took a WHILE.

If I had it to do over again, I'd have split-batched it (say, didn't BYO just have some hack write about that?) and saved myself some time - I recommend you go that route, since it also keeps a lot of other variables constant!

I get that I'm surrendering a little control here.  I may well be missing out on some great yeast-grist combinations.  But I'll trade that for the level of control and reliability I get out of using yeasts I know intimately.  I do still go "rogue" at times and trot out a new yeast into the old carboy, but I can at least do so knowing that if it goes badly I can re-brew with my standby yeasts, and that makes the experimentation more fun and less stressful.

Wait - that's a Starter?

"How much yeast do I need for my lager starter?"

"Use the pitch rate calculator at and then double it.  I just made a 6L starter for my 5G dopplebock."

"OK - thanks!"

NOOOOOOOO!!!!  I saw this exchange (paraphrased here - I don't recall it verbatim, but the numbers are right, I swear!!!) on a Facebook discussion not too long ago, and it shocked me.  Good Lord, six liters???  That's a LOT of yeast!  This was one of those dogma days of summer for me, too - when I mentioned that 6L seemed like an awful lot of starter yeast for five gallons, and that I used half of a 2L starter for every beer I make (even 10%+ lagers and hybrids), I was told that clearly I didn't know much about brewing.  Maybe not, guy, but I sure as hell know that I'm not drinking fusel-y, hyper-estery, under-attenuated and buttery sh!t.  

In my experience, brewers are pitching way more yeast than they need to.  Now, some of this may be process - see the next section on Temperature - but for years the only reason I've made a starter at all is to stretch my yeast to two batches from a single pack (liquid yeast is kinda expensive, you know?).  So, I grow up a 2L starter, then split it between two beers that are using the same yeast (and since I tend to brew most beers in the same "family" with the same yeast, there's a lot of opportunity to do so!).  

If you're making a 6L starter for a 5G batch because you think that a Dopplebock just can't be made "cleanly" without it, then I want you to know that that's not necessarily the case.  My 1L starters get rolling quickly, ferment fully and cleanly even at very high alcohol levels, and have plenty of life left at bottle conditioning. 

You might think about starting to walk back your starter sizes, and if you (and those you trust to evaluate your beer - hopefully blind judges in competitions!) aren't noticing a higher rate of undesirable fermentation characters, maybe keep going!  Yeast are pretty robust, and wort wants to be beer.  You want to pitch a reasonable amount - but lots of y'all are pitching one whole beer into another (slightly larger) beer!

Is It Cold In Here or Is It Just Me?

That's a bit of a shameless plug: that heading is the same name as my German Altbier.  For reasons I can't explain, it made me laugh.  But anyway...

Another raging debate I see among brewers revolves around yeast and temperature.  You're welcome to take any tack you like on this, but let me tell you what I do, because a lot of brewing dogma says it shouldn't work that well (though it certainly seems to).

Temp at pitching: Whatever it is after passing through my plate chiller using un-chilled water.  So....groundwater temperature?  A little warmer?  I pitch immediately, oxygenate through a stone for 30-45 seconds, and then stick it in the chest freezer.  I haven't had issue with any consistent off-flavors that could be tied to early-fermentation overheating, and my biologist friends tell me that in the lag phase and shortly thereafter the yeast aren't producing anything I don't want.  So why chill to "just below primary fermentation temperature" as so many advise?  I pitch, then chill.  Seems fine.

Temp for primary: 50F for lagers, 60F for hybrids, 64F for ales.  Your numbers may vary based on yeast strain, but I like to go relatively cold.  If I'm going to have a fault, "too clean" is one I can easily live with.  "Too buttery and plasticky" isn't.  I leave it here for 3-4 days, then start raising the temperature.  If it's a "big" beer (8% ABV or higher) I'll walk it up by 2F/day, but otherwise I'll just spin that little analog temp controller dial all the way up and let 'er rip.  This will have the added benefit of encouraging a complete fermentation and the cleanup of a lot of undesirable compounds and precursors.

Temp in secondary: Who the hell knows?  I don't do it, and don't know of any good reason to.

Temperature definitely matters in fermentation, and I recognize that my relative "underpitching" might be something I get away with because I coddle my yeast a little bit and keep things nice and cool for them, but this process is mine simply because it was easy and always seemed to work, all the way through to...  

Package Time

Again, possibly another good German adult film title.  I know some will think me insane, but I honestly don't mind bottling.  For those who would rather eat the Southbound end out of a Northbound cow than bottle, though, may I propose a small compromise?  Keg most of it, but bottle-condition anything you think you might need in bottles.  For myself, I take a gallon and set aside eight 12oz. bottles (for competition evaluation) and two bombers (for beer club evaluation) out of each batch, no matter how I package the rest.  

So when I do, do I need a fresh pitch of yeast?

Answer: No.  Or, at least, not yet.

When bottle conditioning, we're right to be concerned about our yeast.  They're tired, in an alcohol-toxic environment, and have already done the important fermentation job we've asked of them - now we want to wake them up and make them carbonate the beer, too?  What d**ks we are...

But I've never yet had a group of yeast give up on me.  For every beer, I calculate the priming sugar needed, add it as a simple syrup solution (1 cup of water into x ounces of dextrose, boiled for two minutes), and bottle/cap to completion.  I do this for Kolsch.  I do this for IPA. I do this for 11% ABV Wee Heavy and 8.2% Dopplebock.  Hell, I did it with a two-month old, freeze-concentrated by 40%, 14% ABV Eisbock.  And that thing was good to go (at least on carbonation) two weeks later.

If you're having trouble, check the temperature of wherever you're storing your conditioning bottles.  To ensure mine stay nice and warm I just park them right over a heat vent in the brewery, but you might just pick a relatively warm room (laundry rooms with running dryers are great).  Kept at a few degrees above room temperature (say, at least 68F) I would be willing to bet that you'll have conditioned and carbonated beer in about a week, maybe two if it's a particularly old lager that you're carbonating.

And in exchange, you get a bit of oxygen cleanup, some additional flavor stability, and a dusting of something that will make your non-bottle-conditioned-beer savvy friends have the most exciting gastrointestinal night of their lives when they unknowingly dump the yeast bed into their beer.  You're welcome.

Yeast Simplicity in Four Steps

Let me explain - no, there is no time - let me sum up:

1. Learn a few strains well rather than a dozen strains superficially.  You'll gain more control and confidence over their performance, which to me is a good trade-off.  Yes, I might be losing a potential subtle improvement based on yeast strain selection, but I'm also picking up a potential strain-specific fermentation that strips all the hop aroma out of my Imperial IPA.

2. Make appropriate but not over-the-top starters.  You're not sending your yeast to assault Omaha Beach on D-Day - they'll probably handle the beer just fine, even a high-gravity lager, and even from a single smack pack or vial.  Like I said, I make starters to stretch yeast and cut costs, not because I'm afraid of them being outnumbered.

3. Feel free to pitch warm, but when it comes time to ferment, stay cool, at least at first.  Then let the yeast out to play and let the temperature rise, since they'll also be cleaning up your beer!

4. Consider a small bottling session - and don't sweat your yeast.  Actually, that's wrong - DO sweat them, because warmer temperatures encourage appropriate bottle conditioning, but after they're conditioned go ahead and toss them in the fridge.  But don't sweat that they'll do the job - they're up for it, I promise.

And Barbara, my wife, asked me to pass along this PSA: "Be kind to your yeast."

The more you know...

Keep it simple.


Please help support BEER SIMPLE by visiting the Support page and saving the links there as your bookmarks, especially this Amazon link!  Every dollar you spend will help keep BS coming your way, and more often (which is at least as much a threat as a promise).



Dogmatic Brewing (or, What Rudyard Kipling Can Teach Us About Beer)

Dogma (n.): a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. 

That’s the Merriam-Webster definition of “dogma,” and I never realized how much we run into this as brewers – until I started offering brewing advice to brewers.  We're a pretty dogmatic bunch, it turns out.  Which sucks, because "Dogmatic Brewing" sounds like a pretty cool name for a brewery...

Since I started writing Beer Simple, I’ve offered in the Brewing posts a number of recommendations, suggestions, and commentaries on brewing.  Not that I expect that every one is a gem that needs to be adopted - far from it, in fact.  Brew your own way.  I heartily and happily acknowledge that I'm not a biologist, chemist, professional brewer, or metallurgist.  I like to think I'm just the friendly neighbor, chatting over the fence.  "Say, Bob, you ever think about putting that sprinkler on a timer?  Works well for me."  Like that.

But often, the response isn't just that someone isn't interested in the advice (which is perfectly fine, of course - your beer, your rules!).  It's that what I'm saying simply can't be right.  But why not?  Shouldn't the proof be in the Pilsner, so to speak?


I’m sure it’s not just me that runs into this stuff.  We all do, don’t we?  When talking methods, or ingredients, or tools and tips and tricks?  Every brewer has their process and their habits, and even though someone tells you that it isn’t strictly necessary to turn around three times and spit before adding your flameout hops, you just always have done it, so you don’t necessarily want to change.

I get that.  That’s fine.  We’re all a little idiosyncratic that way – otherwise, we’d have a more “normal” hobby.

But even though we all have our own process, I’m certainly not hostile to those who suggest that there’s a better way.  I might decline to adopt their idea, but I’m not going to aggressively deny its validity.  And yet that seems to happen frequently, when I share something from my brewing process.  Not just that they prefer not to change – but that I’m wrong for even suggesting it.  To take a recent example (my OneStep addiction), you’d think based on a lot of the comments made that I’m running a mineral-caked shitpile of a brewery that produces nothing but rancid and infected beers since – as we all know – it’s IMPOSSIBLE  for a product to clean and sanitize.  And yet there’s my equipment: no more calcified than anyone’s.  And there’s my beer: hundreds of batches without a single infection.  We "all know" it can't work.  But it does.  That's a contradiction we need to reconcile. 

That’s the issue, really: that “we all know it” mentality.  Remember in Men in Black when Tommy Lee Jones’ character talks like that?  He mentions lots of mistaken beliefs from our past that we all just "knew" to be accurate, and then asks, “I wonder what we’ll know tomorrow.”  I've always liked that.  It reminds us that we should be critical of our stereotypes – that persistence or pervasiveness of a belief shouldn’t be sufficient to justify that belief.  Empirical verification should be our goal.  That truth isn't arrived at by majority vote.

So why the resistance to new or heterodox or unusual ideas when there’s support for their validity?  Answer: we’re prone to dogmatism.  And we shouldn’t be.  It’s a very bad habit to get into, and it’s limiting us as a homebrewing community.  As Winston said, “To improve is to change – to perfect is to change often.”  I’m always happy to hear brewing advice.  If I think it’ll make my brewing day shorter, easier, or better, I’ll give it a try. 


And I’m not talking about adding things to the process.  That’s getting us into a whole level of cause-and-effect that I’m not set up to test for (but please go see the good work over at Brulosophy!).  No, I’m talking about taking away – getting the leanest, neatest, SIMPLEST, most-parsimonious brewing process I can.  If I tell you that adding hops in five additions is the only way to get great hop aroma, then I understand if you doubt me – after all, maybe it’s only one of those five that really creates that great hop aroma.  But if someone tells you that they only ever add hops in the whirlpool, and that their beers win GABF medals for hop-forward styles, then you might consider taking that under advisement. 

It’s like the old story about the Englishman who scattered acorns everywhere he went.  When asked why he did it, he informed his questioners that it was “to keep the lions away.”  “You fool,” they said, “there aren’t any lions in the whole of the British Isles.”  “GOOD GOD,” the man yelled, “it works even better than I thought!”  So I understand skepticism if, for example, I tell you that I add a quarter teaspoon of baking soda to dark beer mashes to improve the roundness of my malt flavors – maybe they’d be nice and round without it .

But if I tell you (as I did) that you can use OneStep alone to clean and sanitize without fear of infection, the only reasons to doubt me would be if: a) I’ve only brewed a few beers, some of which got infected, or b) I live in a bacteria- and wild-yeast-free house.  If neither of those things are true (they’re not), then aggressive denial of the factual basis of my claim seems to be unwarranted.  But that’s just what happened: in at least a dozen places, I was told that what I was suggesting simply couldn’t work.

But it has.  Or I’m a pathological liar. 

I’m not, though.  I’m not advocating the spreading of acorns.  Addition by subtraction – finding out what practices may not be essential or unavoidable, through multiple assessments of repeated trials – is incredibly valuable, but we throw that away when we reject advice on principle rather than on merit.  Don’t be that guy.  Or rather, don’t be this guy…


You all remember my friend Mr. Beer, right?  Turns out he has at least one friend who’s something of a bigwig in the brewing industry.

I was already planning on writing about brewing dogma this week anyway, but then something so perfectly-timed happened that I couldn't believe it: I was accosted this week by someone who was straight up offended by my questioning of brewing dogma (FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW!  You’ll want to read this one, trust me).  I was perusing my mostly-beer-and-politics Facebook feed and doing the usual commenting, liking, and sharing that that entails. 

I ran across a comment that wondered why beer enthusiasts don’t seem to be all that enthused about lagers (at least according to the Ratebeer rankings).  One of the respondents thought that it might be because Ratebeer users prefer intense beers which, “by and large, lagers aren’t.”  As someone who brews a lot of lagers, that caught my eye.  Sure, there are lots of light-ish and boring-ish lagers, especially as a percentage of beers on offer in the marketplace, but I wasn’t convinced that it was lagers per se that lacked intensity, but rather the kinds of lagers that tended to be brewed.  So, in the spirit of social media, I made what I thought was a conversational observation.

I said I wasn’t sure about the idea that lagers are just inherently not-intense.  Maybe it’s just that there are fewer lager styles, and thus a smaller proportion that tend to be “intense” - but maybe the same proportion of lager styles fall into the "intense" category as Ale styles.  And after all, with the possible exception of some Belgian styles, it isn't the yeast family per se that makes a beer intense - it's ABV, IBUs, etc.  Sure, you get Imperial IPA and huge stouts in Ales, but we Lager folk have Baltic Porter and Eisbock, and some others that could be considered “intense,” and since they’re part of a smaller subset…

You’d have thought I questioned the notion that the Earth orbits the sun.  What followed was an impressive display of dogmatic reasoning.  No evidence, no empirical support – just the repeated assertion by this person that everyone knows that lagers aren’t intense, and a litany of ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and other logical fallacies.  First there was name dropping of this individual’s relationship to a Prestigious Brewing Institution.  Then it was reference to his/her frequent judging visits to a Prestigious Brewing Competition.  Then it was that I was clearly the only person who believed my claptrap.  But here’s the thing: at no time did this individual actually provide any support for his/her position.  And I wasn’t even saying that I was right – just that I wasn’t sure, and maybe there was something to investigate.  But that was enough to have my sanity, sincerity, intelligence, unrelated professional acumen, and beer knowledge not just questioned, but outright ridiculed.

This was someone who should know better.  As he/she repeatedly referenced, this was someone who contributes to a prestigious brewing institution, is a professional brewer, and judges at prestigious brewing competitions.  How dare I, someone of no beer standing, question something that “every brewing scientist and a majority of beer bloggers knows.”  On the strength of what evidence did “all beer scientists” know this?  None, none whatsoever.  In fact, this person refused to even engage on the limited evidence that I offered.

And let’s not forget: I wasn’t staking out a position here.  I was just suggesting that there might be something worth considering.  But for doing so, I was a target for ridicule, passive aggression, and belittlement. 

In other words: classic alehole behavior.


And so, I ask this – and not for my sake, but for others and your own, and I hope it doesn't sound too preachy:

Don’t be that person.  Don’t be dogmatic.  Look for evidence, and empirical support, and opportunities to learn and evolve. 

Don’t swallow every single suggestion or recommendation you hear (because God knows there's a lot of bad advice out there), but don’t be hostile to people and their ideas, either.  As the poem says, “if you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming you for it, then you can trust yourself when all others doubt you."  True - you can trust yourself.  You're a competent brewer.  However, Mr. Kipling warns us in the very next line: "BUT MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR THEIR DOUBTING, TOO.”

In other words, embrace the openness that brought you into craft beer and homebrewing in the first place.  Be willing to be wrong, and to be right if you think that others are wrong. 

Be kind.  Be considerate.  Be the kind of people other people think beer people are.

If we aren’t, then we’re driving new beer people away and undermining our own brewing success.  It’s just not worth it.

Keep it simple.


Please help support BEER SIMPLE by visiting the Support page and saving the links there as your bookmarks, especially this Amazon link!  Every dollar you spend will help keep BS coming your way, and more often (which is at least as much a threat as a promise).


APPENDIX A: Social Media Incident transcript; emphasis is mine.  Names/identifying items have been changed to protect the innocent, but otherwise this appears exactly as it played out in public.


Original Poster I asked (the hive mind) the other day: What's up with lagers? Why don't beer enthusiasts like them? Is it technical? Are ales simply more amenable to fiddling? Lager brewing not as flexible in terms of creativity as ale brewing?

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Original Poster nobody answered because nobody knows smile emoticon As Another Beer Guy says its a self selecting group active on a site because they are attracted to extreme intense beers. Which, by and large, lagers aren't. Last weekend I visited a place packed with the young, affluent, employed, college educated demographic, and they were pounding 24oz Bud Light cans which represented the best value for money at that time. The place had sold the draft lines to the highest bidder so the choice was bad. Both groups represent the beer industry. One of them is just getting on and enjoying their lives however, while the other is sitting at their computers worried they're missing out on collecting something. It was beanie babies before.

Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT - I'm not sure i grant the premise that ales are somehow inherently more intense/extreme than lagers. Yes, you have RIS and DIPA, but lagers have Baltic Porter and Eisbock. If you did a style-for-style comparison between ales and lagers, you might find a greater proportion of intense flavor profiles in lagers than ales, if only owing to the relatively smaller number of lagers...

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) I actually wrote "which, by and large, lagers aren't... Nobody reads anymore. I did just read what you wrote a few times, and here at the  Prestigous Brewing Institution  we won't be changing our curriculum to reflect your views.

Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT How did what I write suggest I didn't read? There are extreme/intense ales and lagers. They're defined by style/recipe. If there are 4/16 styles of lagers that are intense, and 8/60 styles of ales that are intense, then the "by and large" characterization isn't valid. I'm not saying those numbers are accurate - just that it's worth considering. It seems that you're basing the position on a prevailing view of lagers, not necessarily their defined characteristics.

Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Also, not for nothing, but who asked you to change the PRESTIGOUS BREWING INSTITUTION curriculum based on a FB comment? Is that something you'd ever even entertain?

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) I'll bear that advice in mind when judging the Prestigious Brewing Competition in May.

Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT is there a reason you're credentialing all over the place?

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) You took issue with a simple statement about a commonly known fact, and proposed an alternative view that defies conventional wisdom. Its not particularly relevant to the discussion. Your position that lagers are statistically more likely to be more flavorful than ales is one you alone hold I believe.

Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT I took issue with calling it a fact, yes. And I recognize that my response defies conventional wisdom (but so what?). And if part of the conversation is about the attractiveness of intense beers, then it's certainly relevant.  I'm an academic. We're encouraged to question assumptions rather than assume they're correct, consider context, and look for empirical verification of claims. As I thought about it, the claim that lagers "by and large" aren't intense seemed like an assumption, not a conclusion - as you say, it's "conventional wisdom," but in my business that's not really evidence of fact, it's evidence of potential bias.  And it wasn't my "position" - it was just something I thought merited a thought or basic investigation. Following up as you did, name-dropping PRESTIGOUS BREWING INSTITUTION and Prestigous Brewing Competition and implying I'm some kind of beer rube, was fairly high-handed, dismissive, and rude.

It doesn't matter what my credentials are - what was gained by taking that attitude? If I was just someone with a passing interest in beer, wouldn't it be better to politely correct me? Because if this was one of my earliest interactions with a beer professional, then I'd take a pretty dim view of them - which, by and large, and according to conventional wisdom, has them being a pretty friendly and easygoing group. Thanks for providing a counterpoint.

At any rate, in the 2008 BJCP guidelines there are 40 Ale styles, 19 Lager styles, and the rest are either hybrids or specialties that might use anything. Of the 19 lager categories, I'd say there are 4 that could be called "intense" (numbers to save space; 5C, 5D, 12C, 22A). That's ~21%. Of the 40 Ale styles, I have 11 (13D, 13E, 13F, 14C, 18C, 18D, 18E, 19A, 19B, 19C, 9E). That's ~28%. Obviously there's an element of subjectivity in this - it'd be better to have some objective standards, but this is just a rough-and-dirty look. So, more likely by style, but not overwhelmingly so. And of course there's nothing stopping you from making an extreme beer with a lager yeast that defies style descriptions, which a lot of them do these days.

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Publish a paper on your assertions. I'm sure there are any number of peer reviewed brewing publications falling over themselves to present your research. Or write a review Your opinion is equally as valid.

Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) I'm curious - do you always approach conversations this way? It seems very counterproductive. To my knowledge I've never insulted you, hit on your significant other, or stolen money from you.  At the risk of repeating myself, it's not a position or an assertion, it's an observation and a question. I've offered an observation and some basic data to support it. It's my understanding that that's what often happens in a public and social forum.  I don't see how elitism and sarcasm are relevant to the discussion.

 BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT I refer you to my previous comment

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT "I'm not sure i grant the premise that ales are somehow inherently more intense/extreme than lagers." Grant the premise that every brewing scientist and the majority of beer bloggers know to be the case?

 Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) EVERY brewing scientist "knows" it? I'd love the supporting reference. But in the meantime, please tell me why yeast strain alone equals more-intense beer across dozens of beer styles, fermentation profiles/practices, and recipe formulations.

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) Now you're getting the hang of it. A spirited intellectual debate with nuanced insults. American community college debates not quite at the Oxford level I take it.

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Now you're changing the subject

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Stick to the original statement you took issue with.

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Would it help it I put smiley faces on the end of all my posts smile emoticon

Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) How is that changing the subject? The original statement was: "...attracted to extreme intense beers. Which, by and large, lagers aren't." My response was that I wasn't sure that was correct, since there are numerous lagers that ARE intense, and that suggesting that they're less likely than ales to be so might be worth considering. I subsequently proposed that this was a statistical artifact that's a result of there being relatively fewer lagers than ales.  You're making the argument that lagers, on average, are not intense (presumably compared to ales). So what we're talking about is whether lager yeasts and their standard fermentation lead to less-intense beer. Why would that be the case, when what makes a beer "intense" is rarely the yeast alone? And if it's that lager styles are, on average, not intense, then I'd refer you to that quick breakdown/evaluation - not that it's the only one, or that it's definitive or unassailable, but that it at least suggests that the question is a valid one.  And I'm not a child - I don't need smiley faces. I'm just confused by the passive-aggression. It seems out of place in my experience with brewers and craft beer people, and doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. I'm not over here touting credentials or making appeals to authority - I'm just talking about beer and evaluations of it, and what might account for the ratings bias in favor of DIPAs and other intense beers.

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) by speculating about facts that all brewers know?

Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) How can you claim it's a fact? You haven't cited a single piece of evidence, and haven't responded to the only data on the page. Moreover, what's even the logical argument for it? As I said, I'm not staking out a position - but I'm also not impressed by a statement that "everyone" knows it, and that that's the same as evidence or theory.   If I take a 100 IBU beer with a potential ABV of 11% and ferment it with a lager yeast, is it intense? And if not, what magic does the ale yeast impart?

BEER INDUSTRY EXPERT What does that have to do with what I was talking about? You're getting desperate my friend. My original statement stands. When your college adds a brewing class I sincerely hope there's someone else there to teach it.

Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) Not at all desperate. Either ales are more intense because of the yeast, or they're more intense because of style parameters for beers that typically use ale yeasts. You've offered no support for either statement. And again, why the snarky comment? I haven't made a single claim to being any kind of beer expert. We actually do have a brewing course - it's taught by a chemistry professor. Not my field.


Random Beer Person (aka “Me”) Ok. Well, if you're unwilling to do anything more than be snide and dismissive, I guess I'm done. Really wish you'd have been willing to actually support your position - and that this isn't reflective of what you teach other brewers. If I'm questioned by my students I give them the theoretical explanation, empirical evidence, and supporting references. That way they see that I can defend my statements, and that I'm not peddling opinions dressed up as fact.  Good luck to you.