Bioengineered Yeast

Discussion in 'Beer Talk' started by pweis909, Sep 13, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    I'm shocked, SHCOKED, I tell you, to realize that Citra® is not a naturally occurring plant!
     
    Rug, Ranbot, afrokaze and 4 others like this.
  2. hoptualBrew

    hoptualBrew Initiate (0) May 29, 2011 Florida

  3. billandsuz

    billandsuz Pooh-Bah (2,097) Sep 1, 2004 New York
    Pooh-Bah

    Brewers yeast are really delicate flowers that we as brewers go through great lengths to satisfy. Brewers yeast are the result of years and years of selective breeding and a spectacular attention to circumstances. We did not get these specialty yeast strains by accident. It took a hell of a lot of coddling.

    GMO, in itself, is not really something we need to be overly worried about. Living in a college town that has a world renowned Ag school I can tell you with certainty that the PhD folks who work on this stuff are mostly smart hippies and have no desire to ruin the planet. Could not be farther from that in fact. I mean you don't dedicate a lifetime of study discovering the mechanism to increase vitamin C in a tomato because you are immoral or see it as a fast buck.

    But
    Once Giant Corporate America gets hold of an important innovation, yeah, they take the reward and the rest of us deal with the risk. That is the downside of GMO. GMO is a political risk IMO.

    I will add that there is a unique western habit of hating on increased crop yield, disease resistance and all the other things GMO crops bring to the world.
    Cheers
     
    rightcoast7, LGHT, Zorro and 4 others like this.
  4. sweetleaf71

    sweetleaf71 Initiate (0) Jul 1, 2019 New Jersey

    Well if it’s only the yeast that’s being bioengineered then I don’t see it being a crazy issue. This is a craft that people care a lot about and no craft brewer would openly use terribly altered ingredients if it wasn’t safe for you and able to create an entirely new product.
     
  5. pweis909

    pweis909 Grand Pooh-Bah (3,250) Aug 13, 2005 Wisconsin
    Pooh-Bah

    @billandsuz’s comments reflects my thoughts pretty accurately. Maybe not surprising since I got my degree from the Ag school he references. The political risk applies to any technology in a system that values corporate profit over social responsibility.

    In this particular case, the proposed modification appears to involve a gene that is common if not ubiquitous across the planet. THis gmo carries low risk of environmental or health problems. The biggest risk is at a brewhouse that doesn’t want to make sour beer, and that risk is the same as other contaminants, well, lower I should think, since the purpose seems to be to insert a gene into an organism that is more easily controlled in a brew house than bacteria.
     
    beermeplz, billandsuz and PapaGoose03 like this.
  6. JackHorzempa

    JackHorzempa Grand Pooh-Bah (3,375) Dec 15, 2005 Pennsylvania
    Society Pooh-Bah

    Why would sanitation to mitigate cross contamination of a yeast be different from sanitation to mitigate contamination of bacteria?

    Cheers!
     
  7. pweis909

    pweis909 Grand Pooh-Bah (3,250) Aug 13, 2005 Wisconsin
    Pooh-Bah

    Well, perhapsit doesn’t. I think I am guilty of conflating fermentation control with sanitation control in that particular thought. We tend to control brewhouse contaminants with the same means, so I’ll back down from that assertion a little. However, if forced to defend it, perhaps smaller body sizes enabling them to find micro-refugia in cracks and crevices that yeast don’t access?
     
    billandsuz likes this.
  8. unlikelyspiderperson

    unlikelyspiderperson Grand Pooh-Bah (3,966) Mar 12, 2013 California
    Pooh-Bah Trader

    Problem is that GMO technology promises those things but so far pretty much just delivers herbicide resistance. And now an apple that won't brown after being cut up and packaged. I'd love to see some of the potential benefits from GMO actualized but for now all we are getting is unknown risks and increased toxin presence in the food chain and on our farm land. Oh and increased cost to farmers and higher agritech profits
     
  9. billandsuz

    billandsuz Pooh-Bah (2,097) Sep 1, 2004 New York
    Pooh-Bah

    Good points all.

    I'll counter that increased toxin presence is not accurate, except that agriculture has been pesticide and herbicide reliant for decades and GMO crops have not necessarily increased the use of these chemicals but rather have allowed for very targeted use of selected chemicals. In other words the chemicals can be applied at precisely the amount required. With the very important caveat that the required amount is not something you or I get a vote. Agri Business gets that vote. But do you have data that suggests more toxins are being served as a result of GMO?

    The risks are not quite unknown, if not entirely settled. The accepted risk is debatable. Again, Monsanto is very happy to tell their story... My endocrinologist has a distinctly different understanding. Long term exposure is really a cause for concern.

    And whats so bad about snow white apple slices?
    I live in the county adjacent to Cortland, NY and the Cortland apple is well known for it's ability to resist browning after being cut open. Something to do with the cell structure. Pomologists are studying this unique ability. Try it out. They are great!

    OK, enough heavy politics.


    Give me a beer yeast that can do everything I want it to do. Under all circumstances. This is what brewers have been looking for. GMO is not the enemy IMO.
    Cheers.
     
  10. JackHorzempa

    JackHorzempa Grand Pooh-Bah (3,375) Dec 15, 2005 Pennsylvania
    Society Pooh-Bah

    I posted on this topic in a past BA homebrewing forum thread:

    “Lactobacillus delbrueckii are Gram-positive, facultatively anaerobic, non-motile and non-spore-forming, rod-shaped (cell size range = 0.5-0.8 x 2.0-9.0 mm) members of the industrially important lactic acid bacteria.”

    So in units of microns, Lactobacillus delbrueckii has a cell size = 500 – 800 x 2000 – 9000 microns.

    “Pediococcus damnosus Cell: Spherical cells (0.3-0.6 mm in diameter) that form short chains or tetrads. Non-motile, do not form spores or capsules.”

    So in units of microns: Pediococcus damnosus has a cell size of 300 – 600 microns.

    Brewers yeast is typically 5-10 microns.

    The above two bacteria are significantly larger than brewers yeast. It would seem to me that any sanitation of brewing equipment (e.g., a plastic primary bucket/carboy) that kills yeast (e.g., previous batch of brewers yeast and/or wild yeast) would also kill bacteria (like the bacteria mentioned above).

    http://genome.jgi.doe.gov/lacde/lacde.home.html

    http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/industry/enology/winemicro/winebacteria/pediococcus_damnosus.html

    Cheers!
     
  11. hopfenunmaltz

    hopfenunmaltz Pooh-Bah (2,635) Jun 8, 2005 Michigan
    Pooh-Bah

    Lactobacillus is much smaller than Brewers yeast, and can be hard to sanitize. It can get into books and crannies in the brewery. A small defect in a gasket can harbor bacteria, for example. Many brewers have separate sour facilities to keep the sour bacteria away from the clean beer. Kettle souring keeps the bacteria confined to the kettle, where it is killed by the heat of the boil.

    Check your math @JackHorzempa .
    https://kottke.org/18/04/a-comparison-of-the-sizes-of-various-microorganisms-cells-and-viruses
     
    #31 hopfenunmaltz, Sep 16, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2019
  12. pweis909

    pweis909 Grand Pooh-Bah (3,250) Aug 13, 2005 Wisconsin
    Pooh-Bah

    I get that those issues leave a bad taste in your mouth but I feel that those are indictments of big agri business and not the tech itself. Bring it back to beer - do the same problems really apply?
     
  13. pweis909

    pweis909 Grand Pooh-Bah (3,250) Aug 13, 2005 Wisconsin
    Pooh-Bah

    I fall upon my sword.
     
  14. rgordon

    rgordon Pooh-Bah (2,701) Apr 26, 2012 North Carolina
    Pooh-Bah

    I've kind of always realized that everything we do and produce is naturally occurring, and that science wins some and loses some. And it's all science really. Mystery and adventure and art have a sway with me as well. I do like the mix.
     
  15. hopfenunmaltz

    hopfenunmaltz Pooh-Bah (2,635) Jun 8, 2005 Michigan
    Pooh-Bah

    Jack, you have some statements that don't pass the sniff test. The links didn't open for me.

    Bacteria are in the 1 to 2 micron range. The numbers you have, say 300 microns for pedio translates to 0.3 mm, which is visible. A thick human hair is about .180 mm, or 180 microns, we can see that diameter.

    https://www.uoguelph.ca/foodscience/book/export/html/1884
     
    beermeplz likes this.
  16. JackHorzempa

    JackHorzempa Grand Pooh-Bah (3,375) Dec 15, 2005 Pennsylvania
    Society Pooh-Bah

    Jeff, I did not ‘create’ the information I listed in quotes. I got them from the two linked sources that now no longer seem to be active.

    “Below is something I obtained from a web search today:

    Search Results

    Featured snippet from the web

    Image result for size of lactobacillus

    microbewiki.kenyon.edu

    Lactobacillus are generally nonmotile and can survive in both aerobic and anaerobic environments. L. delbrueckii, the type species of the genus, is 0.5 to 0.8 micrometre (μm; 1 μm = 10−6 metre) across by 2 to 9 μm long and occurs singly or in small chains.”

    So, Lactobacillus is a ‘rod’ with the longest dimension being 9 μm in length.

    The conversion of μm to microns is 1:1. So the length of the Lactobacillus will be 9 microns which is comparable in size to Brewers yeast (Brewers yeast is typically 5-10 microns).

    Cheers!
     
  17. Ranbot

    Ranbot Pooh-Bah (2,463) Nov 27, 2006 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    GMO produced insulin was a big win that no one is complaining about now; people inject it straight into their bodies even. I also think it's closer example to the GMO-yeasts discussed in the OP than GMO-crop issues.
     
    LGHT and JackHorzempa like this.
  18. hopfenunmaltz

    hopfenunmaltz Pooh-Bah (2,635) Jun 8, 2005 Michigan
    Pooh-Bah

    That's more of the size. The rods can hide in places the yeast can't. Micheal Tonsemere has some rundowns of what Brewers do in as cleaning regimes in "American Wild Ale".

    @OldSock may comment if he is still around.
     
  19. pweis909

    pweis909 Grand Pooh-Bah (3,250) Aug 13, 2005 Wisconsin
    Pooh-Bah

    @JackHorzempa and @hopfenunmaltz

    Here is a photo of interest. (assumes you can access , you may need to scroll down; images of Saccharomyces and Lactobacillus plantarum, coexisting). It suggests to me both that Jack is right, about the length, but also one could imagine the skinny rod slipping deeper into some scratches where yeast doesn't slip into. In any event, it's barely relevant to this thread. We've latched on to a fairly minor point.
     
    JackHorzempa likes this.
  20. hopfenunmaltz

    hopfenunmaltz Pooh-Bah (2,635) Jun 8, 2005 Michigan
    Pooh-Bah

    One of the selling points for using the yeast.

    Since lacto strains reproduce anerobically, in low pH, just missing a few can spoil the beer.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.