Slashdot Mirror
New brewing Method Means Faster Beer, Less Waste
thatshortkid writes "A brewmaster in Germany has invented a cylinder that fuses yeast to the sides, allowing the yeast to do its fermentation job faster. A process that normally takes 10 days now takes a few hours. Also, yeast that normally has to be changed out after three brews can now last up to six months to a year."
They'll be a downside. It will all taste like shit (coors, heineken) or something.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
*hic*
Now if you can just add a clock and a timer this thing could brew my morning beer before I get up, just like my coffee maker. :-)
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Less Expensive Beer!!!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
If you believe in fairies, it'll equal lower beer prices.
If you live in the real world, it means higher profits and layoffs.
vk.
Faster doesn't always mean better.
What does it taste like?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Sometimes it's more profitable to decrease the price, so in the even more realer world, beer prices could very well go down along with higher profits and layoffs.
Makes me wonder if the idea doesn't scale well. That said, IAAB (I am a brewer; I worked in a brewpub and brew on premises for several years and home brew), and I wonder if it might not still be a boon (boont? mmm...amber...) to smaller breweries, brewpubs, and especially brew on premises. Most brewpubs go through much smaller amounts of any given beer than they brew, and this might be away to "brew on demand" or the like, and give a fresher product.
For brew on premises customers, instead of brew, wait two weeks, come back and bottle, it could be brew in the morning, bottle in the afternoon, and might appeal to more people that way. I recall a fair number of people who were put off by two week wait.
And all that said, it seems like there will still be call for the more traditional brewing process, as different beers, etc. use different fermenting processes (lager = cooler, bottom-fermenting yeast; barleywine = two fermentations, one with wine yeast; lambic = 'spontaneous' fermentation)
The higher profits will be a signal to others that there is money to be made. They will step in, and in order to make money they will use the more efficient methods, undercut the price and sell more, trying to make money like the original pioneer.
The pioneer will then lower their price (or raise their quality) or go out of business.
Since there are more players in the market than before, productive workers originally laid off will be hired by the competition or become the competition themselves.
The winners are consumers who enjoy better quality, lower prices, or most often both.
When another development in efficiency or quality changes the production cost point again, the new profit margins will again signal to ready entrepreneurs that there is money to be made. Consumers enjoy another round of lower prices and higher quality.
If the governments weren't printing money like it was going out of style, a steady deflation would be the rule (again) as this progression of improvements in quality and efficiency continues to occur in every field and industry.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
This sounds cool, but what about mead? I love the stuff but it can take months to find out if the batch is good.
Ahh well some things are worth the wait.
Heineken? Fuck that shit, Pabst Blue Ribbon!
Its Time for NanoBrews! (I'm heading to my lawyers this second to trademark it.. :) )
Personally i don't like beer, i prefer mead. Wonder if we can use this or something similar to make mead faster.
It does however open up faster production of things made ith GM yeast. Possbily if they can get Yeast to produce insulin use this technique to make insulin for diabetics cheaper.
So would this same process work for producing ethanol fuels more efficiently.
Plegarism from "Blue Velvet" will win you rewards!! I was particularly impressed you chose that line. I have used it on occasion myself.
Yeah, Bavaria is quite nice (like a German Pils) and Grolsch is pretty good, but Heineken is horrid. It's way too sweet and nowhere near hoppy enough for my taste.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
in Holland Heineken is considered piss, according to the people I know who drink beer (I don't drink any alcohol out of principle) it is only slightly better then budweiser (which is described as pee from someone who drank Heineken). Brands like Dommelsch, Grolsch and even Bavaria are preferred over Heineken here....
Until you talk to someone else, who claims that only Heineken is perfect and all the other brands suck. Mostly which beer is considered best is regional (Heineken/Amstel in the west, Grolsch in much of the east).
In reality, all Dutch pilsener is very very close in taste (with a few exceptions, basically the really cheap C brand supermarket stuff - but perhaps I'm influenced by marketing even there). I've done many blind tests, where people get beer (from bottles) in glasses without a brand name, and had to guess what they were drinking. Generally people score about as well as you would expect from a random pick.
I've had someone who grew up with Grolsch, and claimed that was far better than Heineken, even though he had been running a bar with Heineken on tap for years now, mistake one for the other. Many of these "beer experts" claim that the difference between those two is huge...
In my opinion most (all major brands) are pretty much OK, if not very special. If you want to drink interesting beer, the Belgian stuff is available everywhere. German beers are much more varied as well. And of course there's plenty of great stuff in the Netherlands as well - but generally not the pilseners, and anybody who claims pilsener brand X is "piss" compared to brand Y is a marketing/groupthink victim.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I was going to ask "so when does this wonder invention come to home brewing, 'cause I really want to get back into it and my time is a premium" but then I came across this quote from the article:
"Heiliger says that his device takes up about 30 square meters, whereas traditional systems can be up to 300 square meters in size."
Damn. I know a few home brewers out there who would like to be able to go "hm, I have a good idea for a beer", make it in a day, tweak it when it doesn't taste like they expected, and try again as opposed to waiting a couple months for the batch to ferment and such. Some day...*sigh*
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
so he'd want to get water with less in it to duplicate a Northern brew, or switch to a brew that works well with harder water like the other poster suggested, perhaps a pale ale.
So, the only additive that would help would be distiller water.
I just use the freeze-dried instant beer crystals.
Next you'll tell me Jesus turned water into wine with freeze-dried instant wine crystals.
a beowulf cluster of these.......
*thud*
I put it on your tab. Hope you don't mind.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.