HOME  >  Newsletter

ASBC NEWSLETTER

Grasshoppers, rabbits, Louis Pasteur, yeast, and humans—what in the world do they have in common with the ASBC? At the end of my last Newsletter column, I promised (only partially tongue in cheek) to present arguments showing how, as brewers, we have much in common with yeast. As I previously indicated, it has become apparent over the past several decades that lager yeasts are, in fact, a species hybrid of two Saccharomyces genomes. Presumably, sometime in the early 1800s, a fortuitous and happy union occurred in a dark, cold, central European cellar or cave between two species of related yeast. As the song goes (“it takes two baby, it takes two….”), it is likely that one genome set provided the optimum genetic makeup to use wort sugars as a source of energy and carbon skeletons to keep the species going, while the second brought along the ability to do this best at cold temperatures. Eventually this new life form caught the attention of brewers, and once a brewing scientist by the name of Emil Christian Hansen had a go at it, our industry took a giant step forward vis à vis improved process control.

So, what is the case for similarities between brewers and yeast? Well, let’s start at the cellular level. A quote that long ago captured my attention was this: “ If a cross-section of a yeast cell and human cell are placed side-by-side, even a Nobel prize winning scientist has difficulty in telling which is which.” While I am not proposing that brewers are just a multicellular form of yeast, it is pretty humbling to realize how much we have in common at this very basic level! Where the similarities get more interesting, however, is how we live as two eukaryotes journeying through our respective ecosystems. I have come to appreciate the amazing ability of lager yeast to adapt and evolve in response to its environment, be it a change in wort gravity, wort carbohydrate profile, fermenter geometry, yeast-handling practices—you name it. With a life span of hours, not decades, yeast cells eventually change genetically such that the new strain is better able to flourish in the changed environment than the original parent was. So what has this got to do with us? Well, just as I am certain that a lager yeast strain of the 1800s or 1900s would perform miserably in today’s brewing environment, so too am I convinced that a brewing professional whose skills and knowledge were limited in understanding to the paradigms of, say, the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s would likewise perform poorly in the breweries of today.

When I look at my personal journey in brewing, it started with a Ph.D program in Dr. Mike Ingledew’s laboratory at the University of Saskatchewan, studying high-gravity brewing. Through this research, I learned that the paradigm of brewers yeast having poorer ethanol tolerance than yeasts in our sister industries (e.g., sake, distilling, and wine) was in fact not true. I’m sure my friends from western Canada can appreciate the amazement I felt when I saw that an end-fermented high-gravity sample I had placed in the lab freezer in Saskatoon in December 1979 was not frozen upon my return from a Christmas visit to Toronto one week later!

At this point, I recall feeling confident and “loaded for bear”—ready to make my mark in the industry. However, just as the first “cocky” lager yeasts have vanished from the brewing scene (and if brought back from the cellars of the 1800s would likely perform poorly today!), I have come to appreciate that, but for the skills I have learned through active participation in the ASBC, I too would have had experiences similar to that of the prototype lager yeast, namely not being able to “compete” in today’s professional environment. While I realize this is a pretty strong statement, the human and technical skills gained via involvement in the ASBC have clearly played an enormous role in my professional development, directly strengthening my level of confidence as a contributor to teams focused on effecting improved process control in malting, brewing, and packaging processes.

I recognize these are rather “flowery” words and statements—and that you, the more technically minded readers of the Newsletter, are likely asking “Where’s the beef?” Specific examples are best illustrated by situations in which test methods new to a particular brewer, or in some cases the industry itself, had to be developed as a key component of the efforts to regain process control, including: a) methods to assess deoxynivalenol in barley, malt, wort, and beer to ensure that control systems were in place for regulatory/gushing concerns; b) a method for trichloroanisole and geosmin to determine the root cause(s) for mustiness occurring only in cans, not bottles; c) a method for 4-vinyl guaiacol and 4-vinyl phenol in wort and beer to identify the root cause(s) and critical control points for brewhouse-driven phenolic off-flavors unexpectedly found during brewery qualification trials; d) a method for dimethyl sulfide (DMS) in wort, beer, and the constantly changing water-ethanol matrix impacting its solubility during fermentation, after a significant upward shift in consumer complaints was linked to DMS—a compound not then included in the scope of that particular brewery’s quality system. I know similar situations have been experienced by every reader of the Newsletter!

In every case, I have come to the realization that my experiences with the ASBC Technical Committee in the 1980s and 1990s have played a key role in my ability to be a more effective brewer and team player. To be completely honest, the Greg Casey of 1984 certainly did not understand at a “gut,” and in many cases, even at a basic level, the significance of “reproducibility,” “repeatability,” “t-test and F-distribution,” “limits of detection and determination,” “Youden Unit Block collaborative testing procedures,” “comparison of test methods,” “CADE,” “process capability,” “process surveys,” etc…, and how developing skills in statistical analyses and experimental design would make me a better brewing professional. However, through participation on ASBC subcommittees (first as an individual member, then chair, then ex offico, then Technical Committee Chair) as well as through courses offered by the ASBC, I came to appreciate the power of these skills and the benefit of always filtering any measurement through a “gauge vs. process” lens before acting on data. For these learnings, I would like to take this chance to acknowledge, and thank, the likes of Anthony Cutaia, James Munroe, and John Grigsby for their collective contributions in enabling our membership to develop these skills.

Continuing with the yeast analogy, I feel that, as brewers, we need to possess two “genomes” to be truly effective, namely a “gauge” genome (primarily nurtured and developed in my case through participation in the ASBC) and a “technical” genome (developed through a plethora of mechanisms, including on-the-job training and participation in a wide array of professional organizations such as the ASBC, MBAA, EBC, etc….). These two genomes, when meeting on the playing field of our malting, brewing, and packaging processes, synergistically enable teams to strive toward achieving world-class levels of process control for quality and productivity metrics, regardless of differences among brewers in product design, technology, brewing processes, or raw materials used. The speed and thoroughness with which these gains are realized are enabled by an aspect of the ASBC culture I consider key to its magic, namely the interactions with other people one experiences through active participation in the ASBC. As anyone who has ever served on the Board of Directors or in any role related to the Technical Committee knows, the global membership of the ASBC possesses a wide array of backgrounds, disciplines, and personalities. As we “get things done” in situations where participants in a particular task could come from several different countries and a dozen or so different employers, each of us is constantly provided with opportunities to enhance our planning, communication, and influence skills in the collaborative culture known as the people of the ASBC.

Like yeast, like humans, the ASBC itself is a living entity constantly adapting to change. Just as Louis Pasteur evolved from his research on vaccination and rabbits to having a go at fermentation science and yeast, each of us is also evolving to having a go at new challenges in brewing. I am reminded of the grasshopper–master relationship between teacher and student in the David Carradine movies from the 1970s. Analogous to this, the ASBC provides a wonderful opportunity for each of us to forever be a “grasshopper,” constantly benefiting from the contributions of past, present, and future mentors. I encourage any reader who is not yet a member of the ASBC to “try it; you’ll like it.” Volunteer to join a subcommittee or two of your choice and see where it can lead you over the years ahead!

In closing, I would like to comment on my most recent grasshopper opportunity enabled by involvement in the ASBC. Last month I had the honor and privilege to represent the ASBC at the 2005 BCOJ meeting in Tokyo. In addition to appreciating the outstanding hospitality extended to me by the BCOJ, the professional learnings and thought-provoking research reminded me once again how little I really knew as that young Ph.D. of the 1980s. I want to thank Akira Isoe, Seisuke Takoaka, Hiroto Kondo, Susumu Furukubo, Junji Watari, Yoshihiro Takata, Norihiko Kageyama, Motoo Ohkochi, Kazunori Shibata, as well as the entire BCOJ membership for taking this grasshopper under their wings. I look forward to hosting a “BCOJ Appreciation” event at the 2006 ASBC meeting in La Quinta to reciprocate the hospitality and camaraderie between the people of our two societies. While a theme of “this bug’s for you” has significance to only a few readers of this column, lets just say I anticipate exploring whether there is any connection between karaoke and becoming a better brewer!

Best wishes to all for a happy, healthy, and professionally challenging New Year.

Sincerely,

Greg Casey
President

In This Issue

© American Society of Brewing Chemists
Request Information | Contact Us | Copyright | Webmaster