My reply to _you_ was in rather reconciliatory tones, and I sure don't like the tone the discussion is turning too. So, to make the long story short:
"Brewer's yeast, baker's yeast, wine yeast, and the yeast growing on that apple core you threw onto your compost pile last week are all called Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but they may be as genetically distant from each other as you and your dog".
Note the "as genetically distant"...
"And brewing, baking, and wine-fermenting strains are notoriously ill-behaved, genetically speaking, with all sorts of gross chromosomal rearrangements and aneuploidy going on, on top of high polymorphism rates. ... Their classification as "cerevisiae" is based on functional criteria--mainly which sugars they can ferment--rather than sexual".
This is clearly an argument for them to be considered another species. (And please don't pick on my usage of the word "laboratory" - artifical selection is artificial selection and you can't demand to be cited verbatim throughout discussion.
As DK said, other way round. There was a thing in your early days (as I recall...) to bring them all back into the cerevisiae fold, lately it has become chic to split 'em.
Certainly, but the addition of sugar doesn't affect the basic question here: is the yeast making it to 26%?
You oughta see the balls on them super-grunters... Rocky Mountain abalones, those babies are.
I don't remember when a separate taxonomy for lager yeasts came up, or even what the accepted name is now (S. carsbergensis, IIRC, was out of favor, and S. uvarum was preferred).
Of course, the last time I was paying attention to these things a few years ago, some of the traditional characteristics were being thrown out the window, such as lager yeasts defined in part by bottom-fermenting behavior and ale yeasts by top-fermenting behavior. IIRC, the distinction was being made on S. uvarum being able to digest one particular sugar that S. cerevisiae could not.
Understand what, your Majesty? That you made an incorrect assumption and it threw your intellectual world for such a loop that you want US to make it correct for you? Can't, sorry: you were incorrect. No great shame, I'm wrong sometimes too, and admit it. But what you asked was: "Can someone explain to me how such a beer is made?" after which you said you recalled (from a class
20 years ago) that "bakers yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) are not viable at more than around 16-18% ethanol."
As has already been said, this is not the only yeast used in brewing (by some peoples' definition). Beers certainly have been fermented at concentrations higher than 16-18% ethanol without distillation or fortification. Here's one thing that might convince you. Dogfish Head has brewed a beer of 24% ABV. As I said, I saw the lab analysis sheet. It would be illegal and a violation of Dogfish Head's licensing to either distill OR fortify that beer in any way. The majority owners of Dogfish Head have their entire livelihood tied up in it. Why would they risk financial ruin on something that could easily be proven to be illegal?
You really DO know USENET. Another classic prod: "Dude, you are just getting too excited about this. I am calm and cool. You are an idiot." Nice.
Thanks for playing my straight man.
These I'll have to work on. It's a holiday week next week, give me 10 days or so, but I will get back with as much as I can get. Again: some of this will be proprietary. I would expect that there WERE "special" strains of yeasts used, but...if you think that's a deal-breaker, let me know now before I bother to get anything else.
The 24% WWS fermented at about 70 F for well over six weeks, during which sugar was added by the sack. I would assume that the 26%er will use a similar regimen.
Yes, there was a submersible pump in the fermenter that kept the beer and the yeast in constant slow motion. The beer was just too viscous and the yeast too close to stunned to do it without the pump.
But, I must repeat: if I get all this information (and I will), why would you believe me? All you have to do is say you simply refuse to believe that yeast could ferment beer of that strength, and...hmm, actually, at that point, you just look completely unreasonable. Okay, no problem.
By all means. You, in turn, are expected to continue to treat everyone else here as if they know nothing and should bow down to your great shiny arse every morning. I'm sure we'll get the prayer schedule set up immediately.
I wasn't really picking. It's just that at one point you called it bakers yeast, then three or four posts later you were making it out to be the only "right" yeast for brewing. Seemed more than "completely irrelevant."
I think everyone agrees on this. In fact, most of us agreed on it before you finally got it. I've pretty much stayed out of the whole "species" argument. See...I know very little about that, so I don't make bombastic statements about how it must be so or not so. Good advice.
Dude, it isn't a matter of me being happy. It's a matter of you being arrogant. You owe Binkley an apology, which you and I both know he'll never get. You boldly and happily displayed your ignorance and then pushed it to the limit, only to finally collapse in the face of recapitulated facts. You have chosen to treat those facts as if they were not what really convinced you. Glad you're LOLing, you must have plenty of jolly days.
I'll just bet. You know, "if you enjoy pick on completely irrelevant things like this, there will be always something for you to reply."
Good. Take your ball and go home.
Hey, you're setting conditions all over, why not me? Besides, I didn't set conditions; I posed a question, then thought better of it. I'll deliver the info. You do whatever you want. You will anyway.
IIRC, Samichlaus is the next strongest beer(14%) I've had next to the WWS,
23% version. I've got 2001 & 2002 samples of Sam cellaring as we speak because it doesn't have a perceivable alcohol taste to it at all for me so I could probably enjoy the increase in complexity that time will produce.. I don't think I'd want to do the same with the WWS....
Best regards, Bill
PS: I just saw some new Russian beers advo'ed on the Liquid Solutions website...one of which is a Baltic Porter type. Damn, that's one style that blows me away with the malt. :^)
But but but ... S. carlsbergensis can be warm fermented, and if such a thing is done, it will behave rather more like S. cerevisia. That's why there's the ranting about differentiating by sugar consumption instead; S. carlsbergensis likes a disaccharide (or two?) that S. cerevisia doesn't. Or something like that.
You are such a dumbass. Beer isn't distilled, whiskey is. American beer is at least as good as Canadian beer, why not come on down and we'll straighten you out. You'll be singing God Bless American Beer as you march home with a maple tree shoved up your arse. Get it: "American beer" is not just Bud/Miller/Coors/Pabst, and that's what we're talking about here. I hear the exchange rate has improved; maybe you afford to buy a clue.
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.