Help be interpret this

I really only pay attention to the science when known ester and higher alcohol producers like Belgian yeast is concerned. There I see results when I play with the levers.

I think Belgian yeasts play by different rules, not just than other ales or lagers, but sometimes different than other Belgians

If it were up to me to classify yeast, it wiuld be Ale, Lager, Hybrid, Belgian, and Wild

You have

And if it were up to me, those  classifications would ignore genotype.  And top/bottom behavior and much else related to phenotype.  Just, what does the beer it makes taste like?  Clean, fruity, funky…?  That’s how I’d classify  beer itself.  What it’s like, not how it’s made.  And if you can manipulate the same yeast to get different characters in the beer, hmm, things get even simpler.  Unless you’re all OCD about taxonomy.

Really interesting to read this with regards to Lars Garshol’s post on using Kveik. Probably need to read through both to really get it, but he recommended underpitching to suppress esters in kveik.

http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/393.html

Don’t really mean to raise a zombie thread,  but I remembered this and came back to read it through in context of my experiments and research in pressurized fermentation.    Pressure early on is held to suppress yeast growth, which Dr. Cone suggests should increase esters, while reduction of ester production is a primary goal of pressure fermentation.  Dr. Cone, nonetheless, says that pressure early on does suppress ester formation.  There seems to be some tension here.  Further, research seems to indicate that it is pressure later in fermentation that somehow suppresses ester formation. Perhaps this is connected with increased yeast growth if pressure is not applied early, I don’t know.  Then what is the mechanism  of ester formation after the log phase that pressure is suppressing? I still don’t know what any of this means,  but find it interesting and thought the evidence from pressure fermentation should be thrown on the pile.