Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Ancient Yeast Used To Brew Modern Beer 106

Posted by timothy
from the turned-out-to-be-useful dept.
Kozar_The_Malignant writes "Yeast trapped inside a 45 million year old weevil, trapped inside amber has been extracted, activated, and used to brew beer. According to the report, the beer has 'a weird spiciness at the finish.' The brewer, Raul Cano, a scientist at the California Polytechnic State University, attributes this to the yeast's unusual metabolism. 'The ancient yeast is restricted to a narrow band of carbohydrates, unlike more modern yeasts, which can consume just about any kind of sugar,' said Cano. Cano brews barrels of Pale Ale and German Wheat Beer under the Fossil Fuels Brewing Co. label."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ancient Yeast Used To Brew Modern Beer

Comments Filter:
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @02:14PM (#25139717)

    I'm proud that slashdotters have avoided the obvious Bea Arthur joke.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by megamerican (1073936)

      I'm proud that slashdotters have avoided the obvious Bea Arthur joke.

      It is election season, yet no McCain jokes thus far. He even got his start in politics with his wive's beer money.

      • I guess that's fair, though it also seems fair to say that McCain's "start in politics" was earlier--with his first job in the senate in '77.

  • by davidwr (791652) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @02:21PM (#25139837) Homepage Journal

    Even more interesting is we now have successfully ressurrected a life form that was presumably dormant for 45 million years.

    If we can do this with other multimillion-year-old spores, seeds, and other "deep freeze"-states of living creatures, we might be able to bring back some of Jurassic Park without resorting to cloning.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pearson (953531)
      Considering how disruptive it can be to introduce species from other geographic regions, I can't imagine that bringing back specimens from millenia ago is going to be very prudent.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Considering how disruptive it can be to introduce species from other geographic regions, I can't imagine that bringing back specimens from millenia ago is going to be very prudent.

        Interesting...that's exactly what Dr. Ian Malcolm keeps saying!

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by penginkun (585807)

        I can't imagine that bringing back specimens from millenia ago is going to be very prudent.

        Well, at least not at this juncture.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Considering how disruptive it can be to introduce species from other geographic regions, I can't imagine that bringing back specimens from millenia ago is going to be very prudent.

        I'm not too worried.

        The rest of the biosphere has had megayears of the Red Queen's Race to get better at offense and defense - especially with chemical warfare and intelligence. A resurrected fossil - even with resurrections of its ecological support network to help out - is still likely to be at a severe disadvantage. The probl

        • As a brewer... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by omfgnosis (963606)

          Unwanted yeasts and bacteria can get easily out of hand. And being that this particular yeast strain might thrive in environments different from those of modern yeasts, it could very well grow more populous in the intervening period between brews. And if it's that disruptive to brewing, who's to say how it would impact the rest of life around it. Now apply that to 'other multimillion-year-old spores, seeds, and other "deep freeze"-states of living creatures'.

          Evolution doesn't reward "better" anything except

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The rest of the biosphere has had megayears of the Red Queen's Race to get better at offense and defense - especially with chemical warfare and intelligence.

          Evolutionary progress isn't exactly linear. Maintaining a defense against a no-longer-existent threat is not really advantageous. Megayears of evolution might have eliminated current species' defenses against this yeast while developing defenses against things which are still present. That's what evolution is! It's about adapting to the environment,

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ByteSlicer (735276)
        Nah, what could possibly go wrong? I for one, want my pet raptor...
      • by RichiH (749257)
        Assuming you mean millennia.. That would be approximately 45,000 of them.
    • wishful thinking? (Score:5, Informative)

      by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @02:38PM (#25140161) Homepage Journal

      If we can do this with other multimillion-year-old spores, seeds, and other "deep freeze"-states of living creatures, we might be able to bring back some of Jurassic Park without resorting to cloning.

      I suspect we'd be limited primarily to species that have a spore state. Bringing back old yeast is nowhere near as difficult as bringing back old vertebrates - yeast form spores to be able to sit out starvation indefinitely - I don't know many vertebrates that can do the same.

      Without a spore stage, the degradation of DNA and cellular machinery could be severe, and even bringing back a vertebrate encased in amber could be excruciatingly difficult (if possible at all).

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You know what else has a spore state! Shrooms man!
        Shrooms must have been huge 45 million years ago! ..and I bet there was mycelial networks the size of Russia.

        • You know what else has a spore state! Shrooms man!
          Shrooms must have been huge 45 million years ago! ..and I bet there was mycelial networks the size of Russia.

          What are you trying to say? Were you shrooming when you were writing that?

      • Re:wishful thinking? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jd (1658) <imipak @ y a h o o .com> on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @03:19PM (#25140815) Homepage Journal

        At present, the record for retrieving completely intact yDNA is 3,000 years, and the record for completely intace mitochondrial DNA (from inside the hair of a Mammoth) is 10,000 years, although older fragments have been recovered. Jurassic Park is therefore unlikely, but Neolithic Park would appear well within reach. (That might raise some interesting ethical questions. How human does one have to be to be considered as qualifying for human rights?)

        The only way to not have to clone an extinct creature would be if you could recover an intact, viable stem cell. In principle, this is no different from recovering any other single-celled organism, and we've recovered those just fine. Most animals - humans included - have many sources of stem cells, the skin included, which could be exploited to make something that acted like an embryonic stem cell. It's not easy - as I understand the subject, it's never been accomplished, merely proven theoretically possible. Gotta start somewhere, though.

        The idea that a few skin cells might be trapped in amber is an interesting one. A strand of hair (for obtaining the DNA and using regular cloning) also seems a possibility, assuming there was much in the way of hair at the different times amber has been formed. (Baltic amber is considered the most interesting, but there are many others. Recently did some research on amber, owing to a Bronze Age find in England of an amber necklace and pendant in a region that couldn't possibly have been rich enough on its own merits to have bought such stuff.)

        Personally, though, Jurassic Park ideas seem like a fun-for-a-moment sort of thing, soon to be forgotten. A one trick show where the trick looked better in the movies. I'd be much more interested in chemists and biologists figuring out what differences there must have been in the DNA of the trees that produced Baltic Amber and modern pines. You don't need to recreate the ancient trees, you only need to create a tree that produces sap with the same chemistry. Then put the sap under pressure, and produce (nearly) instant ancient amber. Ideally, you'd destroy the market for the really ancient stuff, so biologists and microbiologists can more easily obtain the stuff to look for interesting bugs, leaves and beer yeasts.

        • The only way to not have to clone an extinct creature would be if you could recover an intact, viable stem cell. In principle, this is no different from recovering any other single-celled organism, and we've recovered those just fine. Most animals - humans included - have many sources of stem cells, the skin included, which could be exploited to make something that acted like an embryonic stem cell.

          Creating tissue/bone/organ: Adult stem cell.

          Creating whole organism: Embryonic stem cell.

          These are not interchangeable. Embryonic stem cells have to develop into a completed organism embryo to provide useful adult stem cells; and adult stem cells... I don't know if regressing certain marrow stem cells to a totipotent stem cell is feasible, but I'd believe it. As-is, it's definitely not going to just grow a new organism.

          • Re:wishful thinking? (Score:4, Informative)

            by jd (1658) <imipak @ y a h o o .com> on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @05:32PM (#25143293) Homepage Journal

            There is recent research which shows that you can de-specialize an adult stem cell and cause it to act as if it were an embryonic stem cell, but as things stand this is only theoretical, as far as I know. Nobody has perfected the conversion, certainly. If they had, genetic research could bypass the puritain nonsense entirely. I don't know what the current state-of-play is, in that, whether they've actually got an adult stem cell to produce something it couldn't normally produce, for example. I also see it as having limited interest until we know better more about what stem cells can be used for, medically. However, in the case of an extinct species, adult stem cells might be the best chance of revival, IF (and only if) conversion to embyonic stem cell state moves past the pure theory into the realm of the practical.

            Standard nucleic DNA cloning has a very high failure rate and a very high juvenile death rate. I'm guessing that this is either nucleic DNA damage and/or a mismatch of some kind with the rest of the cell, including the mtDNA. The failure rate for species revival is likely to be considerably higher. Whatever is causing the failures is likely to be many times worse when you're dumping nucleic DNA into a far distant million-times-removed relative rather than something virtually identical from a genetic standpoint.

            Ergo, if you want to revive an extinct species, your best bet depends utterly on research producing a reliable mechanism for generalizing adult stem cells, then obtaining such cells for an extinct organism. Dolly the sheep suffered from very rapid decay and wastage, using conventional cloning techniques. Embedding mammoth DNA into an elephant cell is a near-certain failure. But if appropriate stimulation forced a mammoth adult stem cell to become a mammoth embryonic stem cell, your odds of success should be much higher.

            However, this isn't next week's technology we're talking about. The furthest I've heard of such work is, like I said, theoretical based on some observations. I don't expect to see sufficient progress to the point of actually seeing a clone produced by such a technique (ie: without a cellular host) for 30-50 years, based on my rule-of-thumb of 10 years per stage of development, adjusted for the current wave of conservatism, assuming such a clone is possible. If the method cannot be used in practice, I would not expect enough migration from theory to practice to take place to establish that beyond all doubt for 10-20 years. Allowing 10 years for another alternative path to be found, you'd then be looking at 50-80 years for cloning without the need of a host cell.

            So, provided adult stem cells can be reverted, I can expect to live long enough to see a thoroughbred cloned Mammoth or something of that order of complexity - and still be cognicent enough to appreciate it, and might live long enough to see advanced regenerative medicine. If adult stem cells prove completely unusable and no other cell can be readily reverted, I would need to be extremely lucky to see anything much in the way of major results and certainly won't live long enough to see any medical benefits. So, naturally, I'm rather more eager to see cell reversion efforts achieve good results. Adult stem cells, being some of the least specialized of all cells in the body, should be the easiest to revert. Neurons - the sort of cell formed by default if no other stimulus is present - would logically be the next easiest, as it's very easy to subtract nothing, once nothing has been added.

            (Those listing me as a foe on Slashdot would probably argue that, my case, nothing is exactly what my neurons consist of and that subtracting nothing would be amputating my brain. My teachers, back when I was at school, certainly would have argued that.)

            • You do realize that cloning is simply conversion of a given cell to a stem cell by injecting its DNA into an embryonic stem cell right? We hijack the machine and load our own code into it. If the DNA is 54 million years old and chunks of it have decayed, it's still not going to work if you try to execute it in place rather than injecting it into a new host cell.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by jd (1658)

                We transfer only the nucleic DNA. Thus, if there are important interactions between the nucleic DNA and the mitochondrial DNA, we cannot produce those using the injection technique. We require a fully-intact stem cell. Secondly, such a transfer is itself risky - the more operations you perform on something delicate like that, the greater the probability of damaging it. Thus, if you can leave it in-situ, you greatly increase your odds of success.

                With one major proviso.

                If you want the DNA to operate in-situ,

            • Re:wishful thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @08:12PM (#25145333) Journal

              So, provided adult stem cells can be reverted, I can expect to live long enough to see a thoroughbred cloned Mammoth or something of that order of complexity - and still be cognicent enough to appreciate it, and might live long enough to see advanced regenerative medicine. If adult stem cells prove completely unusable and no other cell can be readily reverted, I would need to be extremely lucky to see anything much in the way of major results and certainly won't live long enough to see any medical benefits.

              Point to be made here: Adult stem cells are being used for regenerative treatments because doing so with embryonic stem cells is known to be a colossal waste of time. It's one of those things where we know it's doable, but it's extremely hard and unreliable, and we insist on doing it for political reasons mixed with "because we can!"

              Here's a list of things I've seen done with Adult Stem Cells:

              • Repair scarred heart tissue after a heart attack, by injection of bone marrow stem cells into the heart (they can differentiate into muscle) and stopping the heart for a couple minutes to allow a graft. Also seen this done in other ways, with blood and skeletal muscle stem cells.
              • Repair of damaged spinal tissue by adult stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood at birth (cures paralysis)
              • Repair of a damaged cornea (even acid damaged) by pulling stem cells from another part of the eye and grafting them into the damaged cornea.
              • Temporary treatment of diabetes, something like 80% success in a study involving over 100 diabetics, where 'success' was defined pretty much as the patients being able to go a year without needing insulin to handle spikes in blood sugar. Some tests with mice have shown the ability to completely reverse diabetes with spleen stem cells.
              • Someone fully regenerated a heart after killing off all the muscle tissue, leaving just structural support tissue. Not sure the details on this one. I've seen a lot of muscle regeneration work done by "scaffolding" with a synthetic support tissue.
              • Osirus has a treatment for damaged joint cartilage.
              • Osiris also has a full, selected tooth regeneration technique working in lab, where they can generate a tooth bud and set it in a mouth and it will sprout into a tooth, take root, send out hormones to have blood vessels run to it, etc.

              There's a lot out there that basically involves pulling stem cells from your body in one place and injecting them somewhere else. Embryonic treatments of course involve a lot of chemical environment manipulation to make something that wants to become a whole person become a simple tissue; and the DNA is different, so you'd need immune system suppression drugs to prevent rejection (read: chemical-induced AIDS). I think I've heard of adult stem cells regenerating bits of skin with hair and muscle attached, for skin grafts, in a dish, i.e. a fully constructed tissue (like an arm or hand, but not quite there yet). A tooth is an example of this (complex organ) but it's not a great example.

              • by jd (1658)

                The idea of being able to convert adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells would be that you'd have all the benefits you've listed for adult stem cells (as that's what you start off with) but increased flexibility (as the embryonic form would be able to be used to generate tissue adult stem cells can't), and you'd not have the rejection issue as it's from the same person, so the DNA is all the same. This is why the conversion process is so important. Essentially adult stem cells are embryonic stem cells w

      • Also, despite an awesome name, I seriously doubt "Dino Beer" would taste very good...
        • Rejected marketing department ideas:

          "Drink Dino Beer: made from yeast from a dead weevil's anus - but with a unique spicy finish!"

          "Dino Beer: for when beer made from modern yeast, genetically-modified wheat, and bicylic polyphenols just isn't good enough!"

          "Dino Beer, because Coors, you're 45 million years too late!"

          and "Dino Beer has the electrolytes plants crave! Now at Costco!"

      • Without a spore stage, the degradation of DNA and cellular machinery could be severe, and even bringing back a vertebrate encased in amber could be excruciatingly difficult (if possible at all).

        But multicelled animals provide multiple copies of their DNA. Multiple samples can be sequenced and error-correction computations performed to arrive at an error-free transcription.

        Once you have that you can use the same techniques that are currently being developed for cloning a copy of a modern organism from a sam

        • But multicelled animals provide multiple copies of their DNA. Multiple samples can be sequenced and error-correction computations performed to arrive at an error-free transcription.

          Now I for one certainly wouldn't oppose doing a (insert extinct animal species here) genome project for as many extinct animals as possible. However, as someone with genomics experience, I can say it is a very long and involved process just to sequence a genome.

          And then on top of that, your proposal would then involve progressing on to building new chromosomes from the sequenced data - because just rebuilding broken chromosomes could introduce potentially crippling error rates.

          So unfortunately, I don'

      • yeast form spores to be able to sit out starvation indefinitely - I don't know many vertebrates that can do the same.

        Calista Flockhart seems to pull it off just fine.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Fluffeh (1273756)

        I suspect we'd be limited primarily to species that have a spore state.

        It's not so much that it has a spore state, as much as it comes with SecuROM DRM.

        Sorry, was that in poor taste? :P

    • by cmeans (81143)
      Along with a whole new set of diseases and virii that we have no immunity for. How nice.
      • by jbeaupre (752124)
        Sort of a tangent, but about 8% our genome is made up of viruses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus [wikipedia.org]. The ones produced by pregnancy must be over 200 million years old.
    • by eclectro (227083)

      might be able to bring back some of Jurassic Park without resorting to cloning.

      So they can drink your brain with a straw-like appendage??

    • by Gat0r30y (957941)

      we might be able to bring back some of Jurassic Park without resorting to cloning.

      I for one vote that before we bring anything else back, we must determine if it can be made into a delicious adult beverage. I say if I can't get totally hammered drunk on these creatures (or their waste as in this case), let them stay in the past.

    • by bcrowell (177657) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @05:17PM (#25143021) Homepage
      I have a friend who's a yeast biologist at a university. I thought this was totally cool (I'm a homebrewer), so I got all excited and emailed him about it. He'd seen the paper, and said he was skeptical about whether the thing they'd cultured was actually an ancient yeast. IIRC he said that there were two main modern lineages of yeast, and they split from a common ancestor a long time ago (more than 45 Mya). It's not clear that you can really tell whether a particular yeast is from 45 Mya or not. Just because they cultured it from a sample that was that old, that doesn't mean the yeast spores had really been dormant for all that time. It could be a modern yeast that happened to be living in the old sample. Yeast live all over the place. In Belgium, they traditionally brew certain types of beer just by leaving the stuff in an open vat next to a window, and whatever gets in, that's what ferments it. In the past, a lot of it was probably yeast living on the skins of fruit in nearby orchards. These days it may be living in the walls and equipment of the brewery. Given that the stuff is all over the place, it's not obvious how you'd know whether or not a particular sample was contaminated with modern yeast.
    • No way is a little thing like life more interesting that beer.

  • Finally! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

      Something that applies to "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."!! :)

  • The cages (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kingrames (858416) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @02:26PM (#25139921)
    Apparently they are having some difficulty with the beer, having broken out of its electric fences, it's been chasing around the lab technicians.
    Hopefully they won't figure out how to open the doors.
    • by jd (1658)
      I was more concerned with them extracting spice from worms, and whether the eyes of the researchers had changed any.
  • Finally! Science does something genuinely useful.

    Actually, I'm kind of curious how they were able to revive the yeast. That feat alone makes the article interesting. The beer is just a good finish to a hard day's work at the lab.

    The comment in the article about the yeast possibly evolving to metabolize a greater range of carbohydrates reminded me of the E-coli evolution experiment that recently garnered renewed attention [slashdot.org] when a major evolutionary change occured after about 30,000 generations.
  • Head (Score:1, Funny)

    by arizwebfoot (1228544)
    What kind of head do you get from yeast that old?

    --
    Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .
  • Link to the brewer (Score:5, Informative)

    by DeltaStorm (118517) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @02:32PM (#25140035) Homepage

    http://www.fossilfuelsbrewingco.com/ [fossilfuelsbrewingco.com]

    If you want to try it looks like you're going to have to go to California.

  • by Seakip18 (1106315) on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @02:34PM (#25140075) Journal

    Man, that's going to be one malty beer!

    I'm wondering what this yeast's brewing profile is. Could it lager? What's it attenuation?

    An interesting achievement and a even neater application of science!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I also wondered about the brewing profile. At what level does it attentricate? What about its level of galoration? Have you considered, perhaps, that yeast this old could cause a problem with the bipalipation process? Yeah, so what. I made it all up. I don't know shit about brewing beer.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by jd (1658)
        Early man had ADD. Assuming this applies to all ancient life, this yeast will not attentricate in the presence of shiny things and pretty colours. Bipalpation will not been a problem, as most elections produce a one-sided Government. Galoration will occur at a rate of one gallon a gallon. Gatoration can be expected to be snappy.
  • Mmmm. Beer. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Setherghd (942294)
    I feel a great disturbance in the Keg. As if millions of ancient yeast suddenly produced vast amounts of alcohol, and were suddenly consumed. I fear something terrible has happened.

    *burp*
  • by nomadic (141991)
    Any microbiologists want to let us know how yeast can survive that long? I mean, it was in amber so I assume it wasn't actually active all that time. But you'd think that after 45 million years no cell machinery would even exist, let alone function.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by X0563511 (793323)

      You don't need to be a microbiologist to understand the spore state [wikipedia.org].

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nomadic (141991)
        Nothing in that article explains how a spore can last 45 million years then become active.
  • by Danny Rathjens (8471) <(slashdot2) (at) (rathjens.org)> on Wednesday September 24, 2008 @03:12PM (#25140709)
    By "they", I mean the exact same guys. They first revived bacteria from a bee's stomach in 1993, and this article from 1995 mentions,

    Cano and his colleagues claim to have built up a menagerie of 1500 ancient microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi and yeast, over the past three and a half years. A few weeks ago they toasted their success with beer brewed from dinosaur-age yeast, which they dubbed Jurassic Amber Ale (the first batch is described as "pretty bad", but there are hopes of better brews soon).

    So apparently the news is that it doesn't taste as bad anymore for some strange reason? marketing? ;)
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619792.500-they-came-from-40-million-bc.html [newscientist.com]

    • So apparently the news is that it doesn't taste as bad anymore for some strange reason? marketing? ;)

      They could have found it's sweet spot for temperature and pressure range too, along with the necessary ingredient combination. The taste has a lot more variables than just the yeast. Nevermind that this might be a completely different yeast.

  • by Change (101897)
    There are two California Polytechnic State Universities, one in San Luis Obispo and one in Pomona. Dr. Raul Cano [calpoly.edu] is at CalPoly SLO. I guess their new slogan can be "Learn by brewing"...
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      When people say Cal Poly it usually refers to the one in SLO because that was the first one and it is more prestigious.

  • Beer [facebook.com] and mead [facebook.com] and cider [facebook.com] are so fun to make.
  • This is kinda disturbing. If an alien race wants to take us over, will they just put something in an alcoholic drink and claim that it will give us a high like never before? We wouldn't be able to resist. "Sure, it's melting my face off. But oh, what a clean finish!"

    Kidding aside, how did this guy know that a 45 Million year old yeast wouldn't, you know, kill him? If it's that old it couldn't have been used (and therefore proven safe) by our ancestors--that way predates human evolution. Couldn't it ha

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Atrox666 (957601)
      I think they used the biological testing technique of the "Double dog dare". ..besides undergrads will drink anything with alcohol in it and it's not like you'll ever run out.
  • unlike more modern yeasts, which can consume just about any kind of sugar,

    Um, I thought the whole point of adding lactose and dextrins was that yeast (modern or not) can't eat that stuff, so you get to keep some sugar in your fermented beer (for body). Isn't (even modern) yeast limited to eating the really simple sugars (glucose and maltose)?

    Maybe this ancient yeast can't even handle maltose or something?

    • I don't know about yeasts used for brewing, but the kind used for making bread metabolize sucrose just fine.
  • Call me up when they make a bourbon from some ancient, preserved corn.
  • This could produce a new bread flavor, as different from baker's yeast and sourdough breads as they are from each other.

  • Take ancient DNA to make dinosaur clones to rule the world? or ancient super diseases? or morally questionable practices? Nope, "Hey I know! Let's make beer out of it!" There are very very few times I love my country. This is definitely one of them. I would love 2 bottles of this. One to try, one as a souvenir.

  • Couldn't this be as dangerous as stuff from space? Millions of years might have been plenty of time for us to LOSE an immunity to something.

    It begs the question "Did you make sure it was safe before drinking it?".

  • Seems like it is also called "Tyrannosaurus-Rat beer" or "T-Rat beer" for short. Somehow that was also lost to marketing I suppose:

    http://calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/Spring-08/ancient-ale.html [calpoly.edu]

    (from the link of their front page at the right bottom).

  • Am I the only one that would think twice before actually ingesting this stuff?

    It just doesn't sound like a great idea. I'd wait a few months and see how the first guys to have a drink are doing.
  • Later on the scientists realized that the "weird spiciness" was due to the fact that they were trying to make beer out of a weevil's dung.
  • So the yeast from the gut of a 45M Year old weevil is restricted to a narrow band of carbohydrates compared to modern yeast.

    But have they compared it to yest from the guts of current day Weevils?

Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.

Working...