Brewing Hoppy Beer without the Hops - Genetically Engineered Yeast

[isomerization]

Long story short, scientists have engineered a yeast strain (starting with WLP001) that expresses monoterpenes (eg hop oils, linalool and geraniol).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03293-x

This strain “out produced” the same style of beer even when dry hopping was incorporated with the parent strain (see fig 5D), by several points (I think it’s a 9 point scale).

Pretty cool! I would absolutely buy this and probably still dry hop lol!

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Heh - it had to happen, some seriously sophisticated stuff they're doing there. Interesting to see Heineken California (aka Lagunitas) getting involved if only on the sensory side. I'm sure the hop growers are getting nervous!

But.....Frankenstein.

NB
(one-time Frankenstein)

 

[isomerization]

I know people get bent out of shape about “GMOs”, but these strains were at least created without selective markers, so you shouldn’t have to worry about contaminating natural brewers yeasts (as if such a thing existed).

The supplementary data is pretty robust. Apparently the happiest strain (JBEI-16652) lost 10-12% attenuation versus parent WLP001 (1.014 v 1.009 FG). This could be a plus for NE IPAs though

 

[mj1angier]

Coming soon to a tap near you: Soylent green beer!!

 

[Eltes]

I would absolutely love to try that yeast!
Side note: as a researcher it's pretty awesome to be reading beer recipes in a fairly high impact journal

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I know people get bent out of shape about “GMOs”, but these strains were at least created without selective markers, so you shouldn’t have to worry about contaminating natural brewers yeasts (as if such a thing existed).

Doesn't work like that though. Potentially this makes the same mistakes that Monsanto made - they're asking consumers to accept something they don't want (transgenics) to get a benefit that accrues to the producer not the consumer. The cost of hops is a significant one for brewers, but it's <5% of the cost of a pint on the bar (in general). So there's not much in it for the consumer - and some consumers aren't just a bit bent out of shape over transgenics, they genuinely believe it is the end of the world.

By concentrating on Roundup Ready, Monsanto killed things for a lot of the "good Frankensteins", like one project I was involved with that was moving a resistance gene into a staple crop, to replace the use of a highly poisonous pesticide. There are people out there who, when given a choice between highly poisonous chemical, transgenics, and lots of (poor) people dying, would opt for the people dying every time.

With that kind of background (admittedly, this was in Europe, I know other continents are more relaxed), I can't see consumers being able to accept transgenics just to get a few pennies off a me-too "Cascadey" beer.

 

[isomerization]

Doesn't work like that though. Potentially this makes the same mistakes that Monsanto made - they're asking consumers to accept something they don't want (transgenics) to get a benefit that accrues to the producer not the consumer. The cost of hops is a significant one for brewers, but it's <5% of the cost of a pint on the bar (in general). So there's not much in it for the consumer - and some consumers aren't just a bit bent out of shape over transgenics, they genuinely believe it is the end of the world.

By concentrating on Roundup Ready, Monsanto killed things for a lot of the "good Frankensteins", like one project I was involved with that was moving a resistance gene into a staple crop, to replace the use of a highly poisonous pesticide. There are people out there who, when given a choice between highly poisonous chemical, transgenics, and lots of (poor) people dying, would opt for the people dying every time.

With that kind of background (admittedly, this was in Europe, I know other continents are more relaxed), I can't see consumers being able to accept transgenics just to get a few pennies off a me-too "Cascadey" beer.

I’m not going to get into a discussion of the merits/detractions of Monsanto.

Are you sure about the cost ratio of hops to product cost? Obviously this strain wouldn’t be used in a mild. Huge hoppy beers would seemingly pay more for hops versus grains. Maybe that’s not the major cost for a brewery though?

A major point of emphasis from this paper is the procedural proof of concept. Different strains and metabolic genes can be tested, producing a variety of end outcomes.

Given the emphasis a small set of the population places on organic/non-GMO, why isn’t there a bigger market share for that type of beer? I suspect most craft buyers don’t care tbh.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I’m not going to get into a discussion of the merits/detractions of Monsanto.

Yeah, bit of a pet thing for me I'm afraid - but my critique is from the point of view who was working in the same field, going to the same conferences as them etc - some very smart scientists doing amazing work, who were let down by misguided strategic direction and utterly inept PR. I'm sure they still think "Oh, Europe just didn't get it" when the reality was they lost Europe through their own incompetence. So I just get wary when there's a danger of people making similar mistakes.

Are you sure about the cost ratio of hops to product cost? Obviously this strain wouldn’t be used in a mild. Huge hoppy beers would seemingly pay more for hops versus grains. Maybe that’s not the major cost for a brewery though?

Take an example of 10g of hops per litre - that's a decently hoppy beer without going crazy, it's just under 7oz hops per 5 gallons. For comparison SNPA is roughly 1oz bittering plus 4oz Cascade. At £17.60/kg (rough spot price of 2017 Cascade at the moment) that works out at exactly 10p per imperial pint. The most expensive hops this year are probably Amarillo and Galaxy at ~£30/kg if you can get them, which works out at 17p per imperial pint.

The brewery will probably sell that pint for £1.10 to a pub, which in turn will sell it for maybe £3.60 in cask or £4.30 in keg. So even with 10g/l of the most expensive hops, sold at the lower cask price, you're looking at 4.7% of the price on the bar. Yes, some people can be hopping at double that, but those kinds of beers are always in keg and can easily go for £6-7/pint - there was a famous recent example of Cloudwater NW DIPA selling for £13.40/pint in London, which is a 25g/l beer.

But that 17p per pint might represent a third of the brewer's material costs, so not having to buy hops makes a much bigger difference to the brewer than it does to the pub consumer. Hence my comment.

A major point of emphasis from this paper is the procedural proof of concept. Different strains and metabolic genes can be tested, producing a variety of end outcomes.

Of course, technically it's great stuff - but those metabolic genes can get tricky....

Given the emphasis a small set of the population places on organic/non-GMO, why isn’t there a bigger market share for that type of beer? I suspect most craft buyers don’t care tbh.

Organic fans and anti-transgenics are very different markets. Organic represents 1.5% of the total UK food market, I suspect the proportion of the beer market is not wildly different, maybe a bit more. And I suspect that a) the hardcore organic fans probably think alcohol is a poison on a par with organophosphates b) there's a gender bias, categories like wine and chocolate seem to have more organic choices.

But in Europe a majority are anti-transgenics. And for instance, most packets of yeast you buy for brewing make a point of saying that they're not transgenic.