Using Kveik to make Quick "Lagers"

That's a good background article about that type of yeast. Another benefit not mentioned is that these strains ferment at warmer temps than lager yeast (even warmer than ale yeast) so that breweries don't need glycol equipment for the fermentation period, nor the large coolers needed for true lagering.

 

I have brewed a lot of lagers but I have yet to use kveik yeast to produce a pseudo-lager.

I recently listened to a podcast with Ashleigh Carter (head brewer at Bierstadt) where she discussed tasting a number of beers that were brewed using kveik yeast that were ‘advertised’ as being lagers but she stated they weren’t lagers. A similar sentiment is expressed in the linked article:

“These kveik strains will never deliver a flawless lager facsimile. “If people want to do a side-by-side with an eight-week-old lager, it’s never going to pass that test,” says Mello.”

The importance of producing lagers is a twofold thing: fermenting a beer that is very clean in nature followed by lagering. This overall process takes time.

For the interested student who would like to learn more:

https://www.morebeer.com/articles/Lager_Beer

https://www.morebeer.com/articles/Lagering_Science

Cheers!

P.S. I took note of the term “Nordic Lager” in the article. One more ‘shiny new thing’ for the tickers?

 

There are a few lager yeast strains that produce beers with lager qualities when fermented at room temperature (e.g., 68 degrees F). Two examples are Fermentis W-34/70 and Wyeast 2124.

Cheers!

 

It's like making a lager with any other farmhouse strain, it's not going to even be close. TRVE has one floating around, if you haven't tried one of these nordic lagers I can see if I can hunt that example down for you.

 

I hate when breweries advertise Kveik beers as lagers. They can taste remarkably clean, but that is one small part of what makes good lagers. I think a lot of the reason people say they’re acceptable substitutes is because most American breweries do a poor job with lager production. A lot of them ferment too warm, don’t condition long enough (or condition far too long when trying to say they do things properly without realizing that long conditioning is equally poor of a practice as short lagering), and don’t seem to have a basic understanding of the history of lager production. It’s really quite a bummer.

 

There is a local brewery near me, that I often praise on here for their really good lagers, Holler. Anything from having two different, basically year round Pils. One German, one Czech both are really good. A great Schwarzbier and lots of others.

They went through a period, maybe a couple years ago now (thinking right before the pandemic if memory is correct)? When they made a handful of kviek "lagers." One they called "Kviek Munich Dunkel." I would only ever get a small sample of those, then back to their real lagers ha. As mentioned above it was pretty easy to tell these weren't as clean when tried side by side, and I much preferred their real ones. They haven't made those since...

 

I'm generally not a fan of the terminology of "ale yeast" and "lager yeast"... and I think that brewers' fidelity to such things doesn't match with the way beer fans utilize categorization.... but calling these beers "Nordic lagers" is pretty much as stupid as craft beer gets (and that's a crowded competition). The thing that is absolutely amazing about this article, is how much this shortcut production philosophy mirrors "big beer" in the myth-making collective craft beer critique against it. This is where the "innovations" of craft brewing have the same goals as the "evil" innovations of "big beer." The quote in the article even states: "For people who are trying to make a mass-produced clean tasting beer, I think [kveik] nails it,” (emphasis mine). People not even recognizing this connection is a testament to how "far" craft beer has come. Remember when the BA had far more emphasis on "traditional" in their craft brewer definition?

 

Well, I'm not going to say that "If used by a "macro" brewer, it would be derided as an "ABOMINATION" and attacked as being done simply for economic reasons.

Similar to the geekery's changed opinion on brewing techniques like high gravity brewing, force carbonation, non-barley grain adjunct usage, adjuncts in sugar/syrup form, speeded-up lagering, hop pellets/extract, enzyme-usage, non-traditional flavoring ingredients, etc," Because I already did (granted, about a different yeast in that thread. Still applies and I'm sure it's a rant I've expressed numerous times. Yup, even I'm tiring of it...)

 

As a homebrewer I have brewed a few pseudo or Nordic lagers with Kviek. Omega has a yeast they call Lutra. It’s super clean. I have done a German, Vienna and a dark lager. They finished fermenting in two days. Let them condition a few days at ferment temp, cold condition for 1-2 wks. They came out great.

I have brewed lagers before but not a “lager” brewer. I don’t know exactly makes a lager from a brewing process, other than long cold storage. But when I have used kviek and fermented certain lager yeast at warmer temps they turn out great. I will say when using lager yeast even warm it does take more time to hit that sweet spot than when using ale yeast. I know others from my Homebrew club that have used kviek and they tasted good as well.

 

I really don’t care about the brewing process as long as the final product beer is good. I’m sure great brewers can pull this off fine.

 

Weedy, a few questions:

Do you have a duration for what constitutes too long? Is lagering > 5 weeks too long?

Is lagering duration a function of scale or lagering vessel type? For example is lagering completed more quickly in a horizontal tank vs. a vertical tank?

What exactly is the negative result(s) from lagering too long? Is this a situation of yeast autolysis? If so, would brewing on a smaller scale (e.g., a 5 gallon homebrew) mitigate the negatives here?

Cheers!

 

Yes, the lagering process (i.e., extended cold storage) is an aspect of making lagers.

But also the fermentation characteristics of a lager is different from an ale. The principle thing you want here is decreased esters for a lager fermentation as compared to an ale fermentation. Also, some lager yeasts will produce more sulfur compounds as compared to ale yeasts. While the sulfur compound H2S (Hydrogen Sulfide), which can smell like rotten eggs, is undesirable (and will be mitigated during lagering) other sulfur compounds such as SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide) may be desired by some lager brewers at low levels.

Cheers!

 

that stuff I am aware of but if a kviek yeast is used that’s clean and doesn’t produce esters whwould that differ from using a clean lager yeast?

I know the basic brewing principles of a lager but what I am saying is if I produce a clean crisp highly drinkable beer using kviek what would separate that from brewing the same beer with a traditional lager yeast.

 

I discussed the sulfur aspect above.

And according to Jeff Mello and Ashleigh Carter:

"These kveik strains will never deliver a flawless lager facsimile."

Cheers!

P.S. Do you have any stats on the amount of esters produced by kveik yeast?

 

Is making a mass produced beer quickly the problem or rather the business practices of the company doing it?

So the option would be to brew a double batch and split the fermenter with that omega strain and a traditional lager strain to see what the differences truly are. I have had clean fermented lagered ales before and can taste them a mile away. It's not just esters, but byproducts that add to mouthfeel as well.

 

That makes sense. In regards to by products. There could be other components that the yeast is providing that isn’t exactly noticeable other than the final product is better.

I haven’t brewed enough lagers using traditional yeast or with kviek to really tell the difference. Also, never had them side by side.

Sometimes do wonder how much is just biased. If you know a “lager” was fermented with kviek you may already have a biased. Plus, with so much tradition in lagers when people do things different they have a biased toward it.

 

well that’s just like their opinion man.

I don’t have any stats or really any data other than my anecdotal experience.

 

Jason, a good point in that there is lots going on during the fermentation process.

In my article I mentioned a few differences:

“There are some additional differences between Saccharomyces pastorianus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae beyond just the cold vs. warm aspect:

• Saccharomyces pastorianus yeast strains tend to produce less esters during fermentation, especially when fermented cool (e.g., 45 – 55 °F).
• Some Saccharomyces pastorianus yeast strains will produce sulfur compounds during primary fermentation; one example is Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) which has an aroma that is sometimes described as rotten eggs.
• Saccharomyces pastorianus yeast strains are generally highly attenuating with the ability to process complex sugars which Saccharomyces cerevisiae can’t; how this manifests itself is a function of the sugars within a given wort.”

If I put on my ‘thinking cap’ there are likely other things which could be added to the list above.

Cheers!

 

Yes, that is their opinion. And you have expressed your opinion/thoughts here as well.

If you ever get some data I would appreciate your thoughts.

In post #17 you made mention of "bias" and needless to say that can go both ways.

Cheers!