Exogenic Enzymes in Brewing

Seems to me this a way "corporate beer" possibly can cut costs. Taste is what sells the beer so how the final product comes out will say if a change in brewing is close. I would also bet that the cost of the enzymes will at first be prohibitive for smaller Brewers.

On a home brew level I am happy with what I make, no need for a quicker or cheaper alternative at this time.

 

Maybe those enzymes that facilitate mashing have a place in industrial brewing where shaving pennies off every dollar of production adds up to millions of dollars. In the homebrew-house, I'm not sure there are chemical additives that are justified strictly from a cost-savings. At best, your saving pennies.

But I could see some products benefiting homebrewers, especially those that solve or prevent certain specific issues. Products like Clarityferm may help those with gluten intolerances. One person I have met told me her husband always use it because it helps her with gluten issues.I would use it if I knew I was sharing my beer with persons who benefited from its use.

The Maturex enzyme that prevents diacetyl formation sounds pretty useful, too. Although I have been able to solve my occasional diacetyl issues with extended maturation and pitches of fresh yeast, that can be a pain. If they market to homebrewers, I'll suggest re-branding. Maturex sounds like something I'd be embarrassed to ask for at a pharmacy.

 

I was a fur trapper 2 months out of the year and all the time salesmen/magazine adds would come up with new gadgets or compounds garenteed to increase your catch, reduce costs, last longer you get the idea. These adds/studies were similar as far as intent goes,as this lastest study/idea.

There will always be someone coming up with new ideas that are allegedly better. But often corner cutting results in a product that is less than what you had.

I wonder how the Belgians and Germans managed all those centuries without these new brewing AIDS???

 

A big part of the appeal of homebrewing for me is that it harkens back to days of yore (when words like harken and yore were commonplace)*. Still, I don’t brew with wooden vats and hot stones and am willing to entertain technologies in the brew house if they are affordable, solve real problems, and don’t cause worse ones.

*having never tasted a beer brewed before, say, the renaissance, I’ve taken a leap of faith that the ancients could produce palatable beer and not a bunch of smokey sour swill that relies on yarrow to distract me from the baby diaper, dog vomit, and toe jam aromatics.

 

A fair point, but, seeing the Kings were drinkin da beer I bet anything going to them did not taste repulsive, and for the peasants, they got the dregs un less one of the locals made small batches and had some talent.

No Brewer wants to hear "off with his head".

We have similar situations today with super high end brews and what some may call swill.

I'll stick with my methods, maybe start disinfecting some rocks,

 

This is nothing new, us professionals have access to a plethora of "chemicals" to produce "better" beer faster.

However they really only pertain to brewers who are not making all malt beers, adding adjuncts devoid the mash of essential things, so theses additives try to balance. Generally speaking.

 

You mean like SS kettles, March Pumps, and refrigeration?

While I agree, on one level, that modern chemistry can take some of charm (craftsmanship? magic?) out of the process, I've been known to cheat, on occasion, to achieve a desired result. Despite its natural origin, I suppose it could be argued that gelatin is such an abomination. I also regularly use a dough conditioner when I make bread, where the difference can be like night and day.

 

The drive for more of the aids is shelf stability. In the modern day, beer is shipped and stored world wide and you want (need) that beer to taste as brewery fresh as possible. Beer that is brewed and served fresh at the brewery is handled much differently than a beer that has to transverse the globe, sit at room temp and try and be fresh for 9 months. The enemies of beer are oxygen, light and temp. The better you are at those the better the beer and the longer it will be fresh. Many of the new aids are for stopping/slowing down oxidation radicals. Of course the mashing aids as well for high adjunct beers.

 

I've been using some Convertase lately and have been really stoked on the results. Really clean healthy fermentations, especially with lagers. First two lagers have had zero fermentation off flavors. Not 100% sure it's just the Convertase as my pitch rates and temps are pretty dialed but I'm not complaining.

 

Sure, I'll offer an opinion. Thanks for asking.

I am fortunate enough to live in a college town, one that is full of plant science PhD's. https://cals.cornell.edu/
Seriously, I honestly see a plant scientist at this moment. They do drink beer. A lot it seems.

So naturally by extension I am informed enough to have an opinion.

Nothing comes without a cost. There is no cheating and there is no magic bullet. As previously noted, if you are trying to achieve a small fraction of efficiency and can deal with the offset then sure, why not? But if you are focused on making great beer you can achieve all of these advantages with what we have been given. Diacetyl is not my problem and any good lager brewer does not need to "fix" their technique etc... That is really the joy of brewing after all. We are glorified janitors and if we are diligent we get great product. Just because.

My negative opinion aside, this is the sort of research that elevates the craft.
This sort of study makes it possible for us to really understand what is going on. Brewing is science and art. We really do need to keep pushing the science. It's still magic after all.

My two cents anyway.
Cheers.

 

Even though I haven't tasted your beers before and after starting to use the enzyme, I'm putting my money on the latter.