What Is Your Definition Of Lager?

[blackbock]

No? Does to me. An extra chromosome means alot I would have thought.

Even the name says it is a different species

S. carlsbergensis and S. cerevisiae.

cheers

Darren

It does mean a lot, but it doesn't mean separate species necessarily.
Example: Downs Syndrome. Extra chromosome. Separate species? No. Mutation? Probably.

I'm not disputing that lager yeasts behave quite differently to other ones, just that they may not be quite as different as the old Carlebergensis/Cerevisiae nomenclature might indicate. This is why the Carlsbergensis name is rarely used any more.

 

[Darren]

It does mean a lot, but it doesn't mean separate species necessarily.
Example: Downs Syndrome. Extra chromosome. Separate species? No. Mutation? Probably.

I'm not disputing that lager yeasts behave quite differently to other ones, just that they may not be quite as different as the old Carlebergensis/Cerevisiae nomenclature might indicate. This is why the Carlsbergensis name is rarely used any more.

Downs syndrome people cannot reproduce (one of the requirements of a species). Also, in the case of Downs, it is not a mutation but simply a chromosome going where it should not have during the early stages of embryogenesis.

Would be interesting to look at some phylogenetic trees of S. carlsb and S. cervic if anyone has them? (I suspect that they will represented as two completely different clades)

New species or a highly evolved variant either way it is what makes a lager a lager.

cheers

Darren

 

[recharge]

Downs syndrome people cannot reproduce (one of the requirements of a species)

Says who? People with down syndrome have reproduced not always with great success
but one should be mindful of such a blanket statement.

As for the on topic discussion i would agree with a lager being from the yeast bottom fermenting bla bla bla
I store all my beer cold doesnt make it all lagers.


Rich

 

[Darren]

Says who? People with down syndrome have reproduced not always with great success
but one should be mindful of such a blanket statement.

Rich

Yes, you are right. There are many different forms of "Downs" syndrome. Those with less severe forms of "Downs" can reproduce. But, if it were not for the good of our society, their off-spring wouldn't survive.

cheers

Darren

 

[Trough Lolly]

...Question: What have I got? :huh:

Answer: Beer fermented by two different strains of yeast.

<<snip>>
Im gonna vote for: "A lager beer just has to be clear".

Hi Zwickel...Based on your argument's logic, a lager beer is a beer that is stored. I don't think clarity has anything to with identifying the type of beer you have - I've made cloudy lagers and ales and wonderfully bright and clear lagers and ales...Granted, there are many who characterise certain wheat beers as cloudy but I don't see clarity of the beer as a sole differentiator between lagers and non-lager beer.

<<snip>>
By German / Bavarian tradition a Lager is bottom fermented.
<<snip>>
Alex

G'day Alex - welcome to the forum! Your response to NRB's question seemed to elicit an answer that is the commonly accepted maxim and one that I agree with. Lager beer (regardless of where the word "Lager" comes from or the context in which it's used) is typically characterised as beer fermented from bottom fermenting yeast strains, including S.Uvarum. Ale beer is typically characterised as beer fermented from top fermenting yeast strains, including S.Cerevisiae.

I'd like a dollar for every yeast article written that mentions "Lager is german for "to store""! Saccharomyces is greek in origin and according to Wiki means "sugar mold" and Cerevisiae is latin for "of beer". Neither of those references tend to specifically mention ale...

In my bier keller, I lager both ales and lagers!

Cheers,
TL

 

[Wortgames]

I think we're kind of losing sight of the original question here.

Whether Carlsbergensis et al are recent mutations or separate strains altogether is largely irrelevant if you ask me - the truth is that nobody was innoculating their beers with pure strains 400 years ago when the Germans started stuffing beer in caves, so whether an 'ale' strain actually mutated for the cooler temperatures, or the top-fermenting strains were just inhibited by the low temperatures allowing the existing slower, bottom-fermenting strains to shine, is neither here nor there.

The question is whether 'lagers' and 'ales' are defined by storage, or by yeast, or by some other factor?

Firstly, I think trying to 'define' beers is always problematic, because as soon as you state a rule you'll find examples which defy it. However, for the sake of the exercise, I would say the single most important factor is what the brewer says it is, followed by what type of yeast was used, and least of all what storage was involved.

I don't think, for example, that you could design a machine in which you could put a sample of beer and get a firm verdict of whether it is a lager or an ale, in defiance of the brewer's claims - except perhaps by identifying the yeast strain. Given that the brewer would NORMALLY use a lager yeast for lagers and an ale yeast for ales, the yeast strain used would be a fairly accurate indicator of what the brewer was aiming for.

There are always exceptions though. Some brewers might use lager strains at ale temperatures (eg, Anchor Steam Beer) or ale strains which are selected to give minimal yeast character and produce a pseudo-lager at higher temps and therefore faster than genuine lager strains (which I suspect a lot of Aussie 'draught' producers are doing).

I think the brewer has to be given the final say as to whether their beer is intended to be appreciated as an ale or a lager, but if they decline to specify (as in Aussie 'draught') then we should probably identify the yeast strain and use that as a definition.

 

[DJR]

As far as i know, the big Aussie draught beer producers are still using lager yeasts - they just use pressure in the fermenter to control ester formation at the elevated temps they use to speed up the process.

Anyway, the classification doesn't matter to me, what matters i reckon is that a lager uses a bottom fermenting yeast. Whether it's cold conditioned, has a diacetyl rest, etc. doesn't really matter i reckon, just the fact that it uses a bottom fermenting yeast. Of course there's some exceptions, such as Kolsch/Alt yeast which gives a lager-like profile at lower fermentation temps and sulfur production, and then yeasts like WLP800 Urquell which produces a huge ale-like krausen.

 

[Thommo]

Just to clear up my own muddled thoughts...

I don't know much about Lagers as I don't have temp control, and so usually only brew 2 or 3 lagers in June - July. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that a lager yeast ferments an extra sugar (or something along those lines) and that the ale yeast leaves alone??? Does this ring any bells for someone who may be able to shed some light on this for me? Or did I just dream it up. Maybe I am just getting confused with the extra chromosome thing.

Cheers,
Thommo.

For what it's worth, I think the yeast is most important in determining whether or not a lager is a lager. How many times do new brewers come on the forums and we all tell them that Coopers Lager isn't a Lager because it has an ale yeast under the lid?

Then again, is a Steam beer a lager because it uses a Lager yeast at higher than traditional temps? At the beer festival last year at the Australian one of the brewers (can't remember which one) told me they use San Fran for their Lager. Maybe the brewer calling it a Lager simply makes it a Lager. But then we'd have to see VB as being a Bitter. So then what does that Make VB original Ale? I'm now royally confused.

EDIT: "Punch-u-ation!!!"?>

 

[DJR]

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that a lager yeast ferments an extra sugar (or something along those lines) and that the ale yeast leaves alone???

Yah, raffinose. It's galactose, fructose and glucose trisaccharide which ale yeast can't touch. I think there's something about the outside of a lager yeast being smooth which makes it drop to the bottom whereas ale yeast have a rought surface which makes them float to the top on the CO2 bubbles.

There seems to be some distinction between S. carlsbergensis, now known as S. pastorianus, and S. uvarum, but i'm no microbiologist.

 

[Stuster]

So what about Belgian yeasts that have attenuation rates in the 80-90% range. Do these ferment different sugars to those that lagers can? Should they be a class apart as well?

 

[DJR]

No, i think that the Belgians just get closer to Wine yeasts really that can ferment all the sugar they can, whereas most ale yeasts give up once they reach a certain attenuation rate. Something to do with the metabolic pathways involved being blocked by certain components in the wort. They still won't ferment raffinose.

 

[alexbrand]

G'day Alex - welcome to the forum!

Thanks a lot!

Your response to NRB's question seemed to elicit an answer that is the commonly accepted maxim and one that I agree with. Lager beer [...] is typically characterised as beer fermented from bottom fermenting yeast [...].

Right, but that bottom fermented beer was stored a long time before serving. This is what has given the name to it. The fact, that a lager is bottom fermented, does not make a lager out of a beer.

In my bier keller, I lager both ales and lagers!

This is great! But only the bottom fermented beers will be a lager one day...


Okay, this is the one hand. On the other hand, beer has more to do with what you believe and not with what you know for sure. As we all know, beer has a long tradition. In each region traditions, recipes preferences may vary. My origin e.g. is the lower Lower Rhine Area (West Germany). By tradition, we should produce Altbier only... But today they brew everything you can imagine. :-(

Brewing time (september 29th - april 23rd): The colder period in Germany. Top fermenting rather impossible. In 1553 a duke's edict prohibited brewing during the rest of the year. This is the reason why the beer drunken in summer had to be out of the "Lager"...

I hope this didn't confuse you all more than you've been before my last post... :beerbang:


Prost!

Alex

EDIT: Do you think, in the 16th century they knew about microbiology or yeast strains? They had open fermentation and brewers living close to a baker had a better beer than brewers living somewhere else.

 

[Trough Lolly]

Hi Alex,
I note your points, but I can't help but feel confused with two somewhat contradictory points. I don't want to turn my back on history, especially Germany's (or whatever it was called in the 1500's!) beer traditions and history...but I still maintain that today we typically assume that a bottom fermented beer will be using a strain of yeast that's associated with Lagers. And the same applies for ales with top fermented yeast. Whether brewers of yesteryear even knew of a single celled organism called yeast that was actually responsible for helping brewers out who were located nearby to the bakery is an interesting but debatable point. I know of similar stories associated with brewing in Belgium and their magical mash stirrers that each village carefully protected - possibly not knowing of the relationship with airborne yeast etc etc...but I digress.

The fact, that a lager is bottom fermented, does not make a lager out of a beer.

.......m'kay, so what does?

But only the bottom fermented beers will be a lager one day...
<<snip>>

:blink:
Sorry mate but now I'm confused!
To me that contradicts the earlier statement - which I didn't agree with anyway! Whether former brewers knew what yeast strain they used, or even whether they knew that yeast existed is IMHO irrelevant. What we do know is that yeast exists and it has different strains that provide different characteristics at different temperatures on different worts.
So, with all due deference to the past, I say we should simply agree that how a beer is made, stored, strained through underpants, lovingly cared for during winter by goats and sheep in a small hut in the middle of a bavarian grassy field (with Julie Andrews singing nearby) is not important. The common denominator is that we didn't make the beer - the yeast did. And to identify broad categories of beer based on yeast is a pretty good starting point.

Pity we aren't sitting around a roaring fire in the village hall with mugs of foaming beer to discuss this further!!

Cheers,
TL

 

[BoilerBoy]

The common denominator is that we didn't make the beer - the yeast did. And to identify broad categories of beer based on yeast is a pretty good starting point.

Pity we aren't sitting around a roaring fire in the village hall with mugs of foaming beer to discuss this further!!

Cheers,
TL

I agree with TL the yeast choice decides the style of beer,

When setting out to make a style of beer the defining category is usually the yeast used,

Despite the behaviour of top fermented and bottom fermenting yeasts there is also the defining flavour factor which distinguishes both lager and ale.

No matter how long you lager an ale for its still an ale, the method of lagering was something associated with making the best bottom fermenting beer because relating to its earlier history it was found to work the best.
Lagering an ale definitely helps in clearing the beer but it doesn't miraculously change it into the flavour associated by lager yeast.
Just as a bottom fermented beer not lagered will still have that defining character made by that yeast, its really maybe only the quality of the end product that the cold storage imparts.

Lagering and bottom fermented beer have just seemed to grow up together and their close association has developed to the point where their names are interchangeable, but when stated at least to the educated drinker we know what it means.

Cheers
BB

 

[Wortgames]

I agree with TL the yeast choice decides the style of beer

You don't think a brewer has the right to override this?

If I ran a microbrewery, and made a new brew which was an authentic English bitter in every respect, except that I chose to use a lager yeast - and if I decided to market this beer as 'Wortgames Peculiar Pommy Ale, brewed clean for summer drinking' - then I should be 'wrong' and prevented from calling it that?

What if I add both ale AND lager yeast?

IMO a brewer is (and should be) entitled to use whatever ingredients he wants, to make whatever style of beer he wants, and to call the result whatever he wants. In most cases it isn't an issue of course, as the brewer would generally agree with the yeast classification - but I could see potential situations where a creative brewer might buck the trend and deliberately use a 'wrong' yeast for some reason, and I don't like the idea that certain things should be defined for him externally by hard and fast rules.

Brewer first, then yeast strain. I reckon.

 

[BoilerBoy]

G'day wortgames,

I dont think that any creative process is restricted by calling a brew - lager, ale, hybrid whatever.

Its a bit like the pirates code in Pirates of the carribean "There only guidelines"

Its a point of reference that helps establish why your beer is considered traditional or alternative.

In order to be different you have to know what its different from, even in your "Wortgames peculiar Pommy ale" you have used the word peculiar to define its difference because it wouldn't be traditional.

When a brewer tells you what yeast they have used, it leads the taste buds in a certain direction because of those defining characteristics which have been recognized and classified with over time.

Call it what you like, but if you make a "Humpty Dumpty pale ale" with a lager yeast its going to taste like a lager because the yeast isn't going to change or discriminate no matter you call it.


And if you get round to making this peculiar pommy ale can I try some

Cheers
BB

 

[alexbrand]

[...] ...but I still maintain that today we typically assume that a bottom fermented beer will be using a strain of yeast that's associated with Lagers.

Right, nothing to add. But this is not the traditional Lager.

And to identify broad categories of beer based on yeast is a pretty good starting point.

I agree, too. But if you want to produce a traditional Lager, you need to use bottom fermenting yeast and storing it for a while in an icy cave (cellar, fridge or whatever).

Pity we aren't sitting around a roaring fire in the village hall with mugs of foaming beer to discuss this further!!

I agree again!

No matter how long you lager an ale for its still an ale, [...]

Exactly.

Lagering and bottom fermented beer have just seemed to grow up together and their close association has developed to the point where their names are interchangeable, but when stated at least to the educated drinker we know what it means.

Right, they grew up together by tradition resp. the mentioned edict. And this is what IMHO defines a Lager.

An other fact: today in Germany we hardly use the term "Lager" for a beer anymore. Just for imported beers where the brewery calles their beer a Lager. Our beers today carry names like "Alt", "Weizen", "Hefe", "Hefeweizen", "Weisse", "Weibier" "Pils", "Schwarzbier", "Helles". Just to give a hand full of expressions, there a many more. For certain.

Now I'll stop confusing you... :chug:

Alex

 

[matti]

Great debate guys.
I am convince now that there really are no true definition as ways of brewing has changed and is still changing.

Todays definitions is basically based on yeast type. Bottom or top fermenting yeast.

Then we can go on debating on the true meanings of lager beer which is
.......!?

In the original ways the lagering was to allow the the yeast to eat up the sulphur so you had a palatable beer and finding it was clearing as well. The producers said, way to go! They called the beer lagerbier. right.
Then the english use came generalized and now any beer brewed with a lager yeast is a lager, weather it has been stored or not and whatever fermentation temperature may have been.

The key here is we can generalize the lager branding to yeast type but we shouldn't call nd Australian or American or New Zealand beers Lagerbiers. Because they are not.

I guess you know what I mean.

I never dreamed of to start such a debate of what true lager or anything else have brought up in this thread.
It just shows there are a passionate brewing mob out there that all want to have a say
Soory for the spelling as wrigh a hudnred mile an hout to get the cooking in as well
cheers

 

[blackbock]

It seems that nearly everyone agrees that the minimum requirement for a 'lager' in the modern sense is:

1) Bottom fermenting yeast and
2) Cool primary fermentation temperature.

Yes?

 

[Brewtus]

I think you are all wrong.

The term lager was coined by the English in the fifties and sixties when they started to travel and started to refer to those 'continental lagers', as the Germans described them as lagered beers i.e stored beer, made at the end of the harvest and stored in the cellar all winter until it was summer, hot and a good time for cold beer from the darkest, coldest part of the cellar. The yeast must have come about because it is all that worked at that temp. Brits used to have ale and when hops were bought to England to flavour and preserve beer, than they had ale (unhopped) and beer (hopped) before to long, all ale and beer had some amount of hops but they still made beer with 'ale' yeast that they now refer to as bitter.

My point is that the English coined the phrase to mean cheap foreign muck that louts or people on holidays drink. The classic examples are Hieniken, Becks, Carlsburg and Stella Artious etc.

The fact they use 'lager' yeast or are stored is not the real point. Lager is not English bitter, Irish stout or anything that tastes fine served at 12 degC. Lager tastes horrible at 12degC therefore if it is undrinkable warm, it's probably lager.