So I was sworn to secrecy, but it looks like the cat is out of the bag. A local place made a beer with this. Same flavor as chewing on grains. Not what most people are looking for in a lager.
that makes no sense. 940 is super clean, and while they say to avoid rice, wheat and oats the natural pairing with 940 is corn, which wasnt mentioned. even a 100% barley shouldnt come out any different than a normal 940 lager in terms of malt flavor. those cats did something wrong, obviously.
Can you share that line of reasoning with us?
Bonus challenge: do so without mentioning "IPL" or "Cold IPA"
Bonus challenge 2: don't let this deteriorate into a thread about IPL, Cold IPA, or the (absence of) difference between the two.
craft beer, IPA, hazy/juicy etc etc are orders of magnitude smaller than global lager production. asia, africa, N/S americas, europe, Aus all see lager as the top selling style. many times the entire top 10 is all lagers, of varying macro-brew quality/lite/lo carb versions.
figure out how to get the thiol production going in lager yeast, and you've got the potential to amplify the existing macro production model lager with hop flavor- and the production process matches what the macros already do with dry, crisp lagers with little to no dry hop steps. you literally DO NOT want to do big dry hops when you're thiol driving, which is the "essence" of most craft brewing today.
so you tweak this yeast, show the macros they can now do "tropical" lagers without spending $$$ on fancy hops, just keep using the basic hops for mash hopping (saaz, cascade, tett, etc) and overnight produce new version of their beer that meet the hoppy/"craft" style for their customers.
patent the yeast. license. and make a ton of money a little at a time.
because volume. VOLUME.