Lager Yeast in IPAs

Which would be fine, but the one brewer in particular that I talked about this with, had never heard the term IPL. There seems, to me, to be a group of people and even professionals that think it is a completely unique style. Again, its a big shrug for me, outside of trying to figure out the next "it" IPA style, thats not really anything new, ha.

And I just looked, there is both IPL and Cold IPA styles in untappd, we really don't need both as a "style." I'm sure some would want both for here as well. But, like you, WTF do I know ha.

Edit, @MrOH made a good point about the distinction. From what I have come across, I don't think that is what I'm really seeing, more of just breweries using Cold IPA as a stand in for a hoppy lager of some kind...which probably says more about the laziness of the brewers in my area (which I don't have a lot of faith in some of them ha).

 

Using simple logic, if an IPA is a hoppy “India pale” style beer using ale yeast, then an IPL is a hoppy “India pale” style beer using lager yeast. I’ve seen both designations. I don’t like the name “cold IPA” because that indicates it’s stored/consumed cold—kind of like Coors Light marketed itself as “the coldest beer” or whatever. It’s as cold as each customer’s refrigerator, and no colder. I could accept “cold-brewed IPA” but again, if it’s not an ale then the “A” in “IPA” has no place. IPL seems clear enough, but that’s from a person who gives a shit about beer and not your average consumer who is probably already overwhelmed with abbreviations.

 

A BIG Caveat first: in today's beer scene each craft brewery will make differing decisions both in brewing and marketing their various products.

The first Cold IPA is attributed to the beer(s) brewed at Wayfinder and using their 'definition' there are a number of attributes to brewing a Cold IPA:

• Some adjunct (i.e., corn and/or rice) is part of the grain bill to 'dry out' the beer
• A lager yeast is used to ferment the beer but they purposefully ferment warm (e.g., 60ish degrees F) in order to reduce sulfur production which can result from a lager beer fermentation

Also, some breweries will use non-lager yeast strains but instead neutral ale yeast strains fermented cooler (e.g., lower 60's F) to reduce ester production (e.g., a more lager-like flavor profile).

There are likely exceptions (re-read caveat above) but an IPL should be fermented cool (e.g., 50 - 55 degrees F) with lager yeast. For example a Kolsch yeast strain.

Could you taste the difference between an IPL and a Cold IPA? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Cheers!

 

I screwed up above. The reference to Kolsch yeast is associated with Cold IPA.

Cheers!

 

Good point, I wasn’t thinking of Weizen, I used to really like that style, but not so much anymore so it’s off of my radar.
Did you ever have that Weizen IPA that Brooklyn made with a German brewery? I liked that beer, but haven’t seen it in probably 15 years.

 

I’d bet that you could tell the difference if you had a beer made with a very fruity ale yeast versus a really clean fermenting lager yeast.

 

Lager yeast is distributed throughout the fermentation. The krausen on a fermenting lager is smaller.

The yeast genome project showed that some of what were thought to be lager yeasts were genetically ale yeast, and vica versa.

 

Sorry for the late reply. I've heard so many stories about brewers being far more fluid with these things (yeast selection, fermentation temperature, cold storage) that they don't even stand out. @unlikelyspiderperson - The best I can do with your question is Wayfinder - the "Cold IPA" originators. They've always used "lager yeast" for all of their IPAs except their "hazy" IPA and they never marketed them as anything unusual until the addition of adjuncts led to the Cold IPA label. Maybe their story is more complicated than that in reality though.

People often state ale=ale yeast, lager=lager yeast. Neat and clean. It's hard to argue with that logic until you recognize that there's an issue of terminology that comes first. The beer world isn't really broken up into two distinct categories, and neither are yeasts. The example I've used in the past is spaghetti sauce. Tomato sauce can be marketed as spaghetti sauce, but the use of "spaghetti sauce" on penne pasta doesn't turn the meal into spaghetti. Yeah, it's definitely not a perfect analogy, but if you stop using the name "ale yeast" to describe Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the false logic no longer holds the same weight. Does it make sense to start calling cows "Beef Wellington” because you can make Beef Wellington with cow meat?

When you look at the alternative labels - "top" and "bottom" fermented, brewers sometimes laugh at the idea that yeast is so orderly.

To expand on the topic of the word "beer" being specifically used for lager rather than ale, it's also worth pointing out how in the past in England, beer and ale were two different types of malt liquor. Beer was hopped and ale wasn't. That eventually changed, but it illustrates the evolution of definitions. Try telling someone on BA today that "beer and ale are two different types of malt liquor" and see what happens.

I've said this before, but one problem with the beer scene today trying to create these neat boxes of how everything fits together is that culture is sometimes ignored. Pre-craft beer era (respectfully stealing language from @jesskidden ), if an English brewer decided to switch their barley wine to bottom fermenting yeast, would they consider the resulting beer a lager or ale? Would they feel that the beer still belonged to their ale tradition regardless of yeast choice... or did it belong to a continental tradition? In today's era of brewing and marketing, would things be different? Would a brewer today try to claim that they invented a NEW style of beer - a "barley wine lager?" Would that be met with eye-rolls or a sales increase? Beer types are a product of their environment, not scientific classification.

 

I think what’s a little frustrating to me, as someone with basically a layperson’s knowledge of the brewing process, is that it seems like everything has been oversimplified to the point of being untrue, or at least unrepresentative of the current state of affairs. I posted here the BA “definitions” of ale and lager and I think most people who think they have a pretty basic knowledge about beer would agree with these. And I’m sure things have changed and evolved in the last few decades as more brewers have tried new things, including beer/wine hybrids etc. I guess I wish the way we talked about beer wasn’t still so black and white, because it gives the false impression that things really are that way. I’m OK with lots more gray areas but even on this site most beers are categorized as either ales or lagers with no real apparent middle ground. Maybe we should just dispense with these terms and call it all beer.

 

The ‘challenge’ of discussing things in generalities is that some person(s) will come up with an exception but…

Generally speaking, the difference in beers produced with lager yeast strains and ale yeast strains is in the level of esters developed during fermentation. Lager yeast strains typically have lower levels of esters (e.g., fruity flavors) and ale yeast strains will produce higher levels of esters in comparison.

Also, lager yeast strains will metabolize sugars (one example being melbiose) that ale yeast strains can’t. The net result could be a more highly attenuated beer depending upon the sugars within a given wort.

There are indeed differences in the characteristics/performance of lager yeast strains vs. ale yeast strains but when it comes to commerce the marketing & sales folks at the various breweries will make decisions as to how to brand their various products.

Cheers!

P.S. I will set my timer for the exceptions remarks.

 

Easier said than done. Not to mention that people today are even wondering if some beverages are beer or not. There's no end to the debate. Instead of waiting or pushing for that, try to embrace it for what it is. Personally, I don't want history to be erased or cultures to be homogenized. I'd rather exist in a place where perspective mattered and things weren't set in stone.

 

I agree, I wouldn’t want to try to whitewash all that history—I’d just like to see it made more clear to people just starting out on their exploration of beer that all these efforts to classify and categorize should be taken with a healthy grain of salt, or at least not taken too literally or rigidly, because there will always be exceptions. When people lay down “rules” and “guidelines,” especially from a position of authority, the implication is that everything fits nearly within those carefully laid-out parameters. Since that’s not really the case here, it would be helpful to be clear and set expectations low from the get-go.

 

There are some hybrid yeast strains out there, such as Fermentis 34/70.
They'll ferment warm or cold.
I've used it both ways with fantastic results.
Maybe they are referring to something similar?
Hey, if the beer tastes fantastic, who cares which yeast they use?
Unless you want to replicate their results in your own home brewery that is.
I believe Rogue's Pac Man yeast is a hybrid, but I'm not certain.

 

I again am reminded of the unworkable, Rube Goldberg-esque nature of the silly naming methods we have for beer styles, but also am reminded of how enjoyable so many people seem to find discussing these silly, unworkable methods. Carry on.