Next Article in Journal
Addition of β-Cyclodextrin or Gelatin Ιmproves Organoleptic and Physicochemical Attributes of Aronia Juice
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Non-Thermal Treatments of Clear Apple Juice on Exogenous Pectinases
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Non-Conventional Yeasts for Beer Production—Primary Screening of Strains

by
Polina Zapryanova
1,
Yordanka Gaytanska
2,
Vesela Shopska
1,*,
Rositsa Denkova-Kostova
3 and
Georgi Kostov
1
1
Department of Technology of Wine and Beer, University of Food Technologies—Plovdiv, 26 Maritza Boulevard, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
2
Department of Microbiology and Biotechnology, University of Food Technologies—Plovdiv, 26 Maritza Boulevard, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
3
Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Food Technologies—Plovdiv, 26 Maritza Boulevard, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Beverages 2025, 11(4), 114; https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040114
Submission received: 14 May 2025 / Revised: 18 June 2025 / Accepted: 23 July 2025 / Published: 6 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Beverage Technology Fermentation and Microbiology)

Abstract

Although beer fermentation has traditionally been carried out with Saccharomyces, the boom in craft brewing has led to the use of non-conventional yeast species for beer production. This group also includes non-Saccharomyces starters, which are commonly used in winemaking and which have different technological characteristics compared to standard representatives of the Saccharomyces genus. One of the important characteristics of the non-Saccharomyces group is the richer enzyme profile, which leads to the production of beverages with different taste and aroma profiles. The aim of this study was to investigate sweet and hopped wort fermentation with seven strains of active dry non-conventional yeasts of Lachancea spp., Metschnikowia spp., Torulaspora spp. and a mixed culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii. One ale and one lager active dry yeast strain were used as control strains. The extract consumption, ethanol production, degree of fermentation, pH drop, as well as the yeast secondary metabolites formed by the yeast (higher alcohols, esters and aldehydes) in sweet and hopped wort were investigated. The results indicated that all of the studied types of non-conventional yeasts have serious potential for use in beer production in order to obtain new beer styles. For the purposes of this study, statistical methods, principle component analysis (PCA) and correlation analysis were used, thus establishing the difference in the fermentation kinetics of the growth in the studied species in sweet and hopped wort. It was found that hopping had a significant influence on the fermentation kinetics of some of the species, which was probably due to the inhibitory effect of the iso-alpha-acids of hops. Directions for future research with the studied yeast species in beer production are presented.

1. Introduction

Beer is one of the most consumed beverages worldwide. Interest in its production dates back to ancient times. Initially, it was brewed via spontaneous fermentation, due to the wort inoculation by microorganisms found in the air. With the rise of science and the evolution of microbiological research, beer was produced through controlled fermentation with Saccharomyces yeast. Nowadays, the two main yeast types in brewing are Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ale yeast) and Saccharomyces pastorianus (lager yeast) [1,2]. However, the competitive market, combined with the increased interest of consumers for products with new taste and healthy benefits, led to the study of the possibilities of using non-conventional yeasts for beer production [3,4]. Non-conventional yeasts represent a wide range of Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeasts, which were initially considered as detrimental for alcoholic beverages because they negatively affected their sensorial characteristics [5,6]. However, the combination between wort composition, non-conventional yeast strain selection and accurate fermentation control can result in a beer with the desired sensory characteristics. Some wort ingredients (mainly carbohydrates and amino acids) are used by yeast during fermentation for the synthesis of new products, and others (mainly aromatic compounds) can be biologically transformed. Some of the yeast metabolites, such as sulfur compounds, organic and fatty acids, carbonyl compounds, higher alcohols and esters, significantly affect beer flavor and aroma [7,8].
The use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts is a new trend in the brewing industry, especially related to craft breweries. The goal is to search for new beer styles with different organoleptic profiles. In recent years, there has been a significant evolution in brewing practices, especially with regard to non-conventional yeast species, which leads to the production of beverages with a distinctive sensory profile [9,10,11,12,13,14]. The increased interest in non-Saccharomyces yeasts is due to their enzymatic profile, which is the basis for the production of various metabolites. For instance, yeasts such as Brettanomyces spp., Torulaspora del-brueckii, and others offer a wide array of organic compounds, such as esters, which can enrich the overall sensory experience of the beer [12,15,16]. Researchers are also interested in conducting mixed fermentations of non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces yeasts, which lead to the production of different profiles of the beverage [17,18,19]. Various studies have shown the importance of using non-Saccharomyces yeasts in beer production. Scientifically, research is dispersed in different directions—the possibilities of biodiversity for obtaining new styles of beverages [13,16] or the optimization of fermentation regimes for the accumulation of different metabolites [17,19]. The screening and application of novel yeasts are becoming common in craft breweries, reflecting the industry’s responsiveness to consumer preferences for bespoke flavors and aromas [10,17,20].
Non-Saccharomyces yeasts are finding their place in the production of so-called hybrid beer styles, which are preferred by modern beer consumers [17,21]. Of particular scientific interest are new sources of such yeasts—fruits, sourdoughs, spontaneously fermented mash and others [12,22]. As brewers continue to experiment with these novel yeasts, we anticipate even greater diversity in beer styles and flavors, supporting a sustainable model of craft brewing that emphasizes innovation and artisanal qualities [9,10,17].
Various non-conventional yeasts, such as Lachancea spp., Metschnikowia spp. and Torulaspora spp., have already been applied successfully at the laboratory scale in beer production [23,24,25]. Lachancea thermotolerans and Lachancea fermentati are good alternatives to bacteria for sour beer production due to their ability to produce lactic acid, ethanol and carbon dioxide from wort carbohydrates [26,27]. Usually, Lachancea yeasts are used in mixed fermentations with Saccharomyces yeasts in order to achieve a rapid and natural decrease in the pH of the finished beer [28]. However, it has been found that not all strains of Lachancea termotolerans are capable of producing lactic acid, which explains the fact that this yeast continues to be the subject of research [26,27]. Although Metschnikowia yeasts are used in commercial winemaking, there are few studies about their application in beer production. Metschnikowia pulcherrima shows β-D-glucosidase and cysteine-β-lyase activity, which results in a wide range of flavor-active metabolites in the final product. Moreover, the low alcohol tolerance of this yeast strain makes it suitable for the production of low-alcoholic beer [28,29]. Torulaspora delbrueckii is one of the most commonly used non-Saccharomyces yeasts in oenology, since these yeasts synthesize small amounts of undesirable compounds such as acetoin, acetaldehyde and acetic acid. Unlike winemaking, the interest in Torulaspora delbrueckii emerged at a much later stage in the brewing industry. However, different Torulaspora delbrueckii strains were investigated in mixed fermentations or co-fermentations with Saccharomyces in order to produce beer with interesting flavor profiles [30]. The main characteristics of the described yeast species were presented in Zapryanova et al., 2025 [31].
Hops are one of the main ingredients in beer, and their use has historically been associated with their antimicrobial properties. Traditional yeasts used in beer production are resistant to the influence of hop components. Certain non-Saccharomyces yeasts may exhibit different susceptibilities to hop acids compared to Saccharomyces strains, which could influence the overall microbial stability of the brew [9,32,33].
The aim of this study was to make a preliminary screening of eight non-conventional yeasts (seven non-Saccharomyces and one mixed culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii), as compared to two commercial brewer’s yeasts (one lager and one ale yeast). The selected yeast strains were tested in both sweet and hopped wort to assess not only their fermentation capacity and metabolite production but also the impact of hops on yeast performance. The study of the behavior of non-conventional yeasts, intended primarily for wine production, in the presence of hop bitters provides a new aspect of the possibilities for the application of these species in beer production. This study aims to determine the influence of hops on the primary and secondary metabolism of yeasts and the possibility of changes in the taste and aroma profile of the beverage. It also contributes to our understanding of how hop constituents may interact with yeast metabolism, potentially enabling more targeted formulations of wort and fermentation strategies in craft and specialty brewing.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Microorganisms

Ten yeast strains were used in this study: seven non-Saccharomyces, two Saccharomyces yeasts and one mixed culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii (Table 1). The non-Saccharomyces yeasts were four strains of Lachancea thermotolerans, two strains of Torulaspora delbrueckii, and one strain of Metschnikowia pulcherrima. The Saccharomyces yeasts were Saccharomyces pastorianus (lager yeast) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Safale US-05 (ale yeast). All the yeasts used were active dry yeasts, and they were re-hydrated according to the producer’s instructions before usage.

2.2. Wort Preparation

Two wort types (sweet and hopped) were used for the experiments. They were produced with 4.5 kg coarsely ground Pilsen malt (Best Malz, Haidelberg, Germany) and 20.25 L of water. Mashing was conducted in a Braumeister (Speidel, Ofterdingen, Germany) by using following mashing steps: 45 °C for 10 min, 52 °C for 20 min, 63 °C for 30 min, 72 °C for 20 min, and 78 °C for 5 min. The lautering was conducted in the same Braumeister, and the wort obtained was divided into two equal parts. The first part was frozen at −18 °C. The second part was boiled in the same Braumeister for 60 min. Ten minutes after the start of the boiling, bitter hop Magnum (α-bitter acids of 14.4%) was added to obtain wort with 90 mg/L α-bitter acids. The hot trub was removed, and hopped wort was stored at −18 °C before its use for the experiments. The parameters of sweet and hopped wort produced are shown in Table 2.

2.3. Fermentation

Fermentations were carried out in 330 mL glass bottles, equipped with airlock systems, filled with concentrated sulphuric acid (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louise, MO, USA). Bottles were filled with 200 mL of sweet and hopped wort. Bottles with wort were sterilized by means of a Koch steam sterilizer. One milliliter of suspension of pre-rehydrated yeast was added to the cooled wort. The bottles were placed in a thermostat FOC 200i (VELP Scientific, Usmate, Italy). Fermentation was carried out at 27 °C under static conditions. The fermentation dynamic was monitored through daily measurements of the weight loss of the bottles due to the release of CO2. Fermentation finished when the difference in bottle weight between 2 consecutive days was below 0.1 g.

2.4. Analytical Procedures

2.4.1. Basic Wort and Beer Parameters

The analyses of basic wort and beer parameters (extract, alcohol, real degree of fermentation (RDF), and pH) were conducted according to the EBC methods of analysis [34]. Wort and beer extracts were measured using an Anton Paar DMA 35 density meter (Anton Paar, Graz, Austria). Alcohol content was also measured using the same density meter after simple distillation of the beer. The pH was determined by WTWinolab Ph7110 (Xylem analytics, Weiheim, Germany).

2.4.2. Secondary Metabolites Determination

Higher alcohols were measured using the p-dimethylaminobenzaldehyde method according to AOAC [35]. Ester concentration was determined according to ester saponification with sodium hydroxide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louise, MO, USA) after simple distillation of the beer [36]. The aldehyde concentration was determined according to the bisulphite method after simple distillation of the beer [36].

2.5. Mathematical and Statistical Analysis

2.5.1. Fermentation Dynamic Calculations

The fermentation dynamic was monitored by measuring the weight of the fermentation bottles. The method allows a large number of samples to be monitored simultaneously, as they are placed under identical fermentation conditions, which eliminates the possibility of methodological errors. The differences in the bottles weights compared to the beginning of the fermentation were calculated using Equation (1).
Δ M τ i = M in M τ i
where: ΔMτi is the difference between the initial bottle weight Min and the bottle weight at the moment of the measurement Mτi.
The daily change in beer real extract during fermentation was calculated on the basis of the bottles’ weight loss ΔMτi using Equation (2):
R E i = a Δ M τ i a = R E 0 R E f M in M f
where: RE0—original wort extract; REf—beer real extract; Mf—bottle weight at the end of fermentation.
The daily change in the beer alcohol content was rated on the basis of the beer real extract change during fermentation using Equation (3):
A C L i = b ( R E 0 R E i ) b = A L C f R E 0 R E F
where: b—coefficient of sugar conversion; ALCi—alcohol content of the sample; ALCf—alcohol content of beer at the end of fermentation.
The daily biomass accumulation was determined according to Parcunev et al. [37].

2.5.2. Determination of Kinetic Parameters of the Fermentation Processes

The kinetic parameters of each fermentation process were evaluated using standard models applied to biomass, substrate (wort real extract), and product (alcohol) concentration profiles collected during batch fermentations. The following parameters were calculated based on experimental data
  • Specific Growth Rate (μ)
The specific growth rate (μ) was estimated from the linear portion of the natural logarithm of biomass concentration (lnX) versus time (τ), according to the classical expression:
μ = d ln X d τ
This parameter represents the rate of exponential biomass increase and was determined by linear regression over the exponential phase of growth.
  • Biomass Yield on Substrate (YX/S)
Y X / S = Δ X Δ S
The biomass yield (YX/S) was calculated as the ratio between the net biomass formation (ΔX) and the amount of substrate consumed (ΔS) over the main growth period.
  • Product Yield on Substrate (YP/S) and Biomass (YP/X)
Y P / S = Δ P Δ S
Y P / X = Δ P Δ X
These yield coefficients were used to describe the efficiency of ethanol production from sugar and the specific productivity in relation to biomass growth.
  • Specific Substrate Consumption Rate (qs) and Specific Product Formation Rate (qp)
q S = μ Y X / S
q p = μ Y P / X
The specific substrate consumption rate and specific product formation rate represent the rates of substrate uptake and product (ethanol) formation per unit of biomass, respectively.
  • Volumetric Productivity (Qp)
Q P = Δ P Δ τ
Volumetric productivity was calculated as the slope of product concentration over time and provides an integrated measure of fermentation performance.

2.5.3. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

All computational analyses were performed using Python, version 3.11 (Python Software Foundation, Wilmington, DE, USA).
To assess the multivariate structure and relationships among yeast strains based on both kinetic performance and aroma-active metabolites, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed. The dataset integrated parameters describing fermentation kinetics and volatile metabolite concentrations.
The PCA included the following kinetic parameters: specific growth rate (μ), biomass yield on substrate (Yx/s), product yield on substrate (Yp/s), product yield on biomass (Yp/x), specific substrate consumption rate (qs), specific product formation rate (qp), volumetric productivity (Qp), maximum specific growth rate (μmax), and substrate saturation constant (Ks). Additionally, the concentrations of esters, aldehydes, and higher alcohols (all in mg/L) were included as representative aroma-active metabolites.
Prior to PCA, all variables were standardized using z-score normalization to ensure comparability between parameters with different units and scales. Standardization was performed using the StandardScaler function from the scikit-learn library.
The PCA was conducted using the PCA module from scikit-learn, with two principal components retained. The first two components explained a cumulative variance of approximately 64.7%, with PC1 and PC2 accounting for 47.0% and 17.6% of the total variance, respectively.
Each fermentation was categorized by yeast strain and wort type (sweet or hopped), with special attention given to control strains (S. pastorianus and S. cerevisiae). The analysis aimed to reveal clustering patterns based on fermentation behavior and to assess the impact of wort type on strain positioning in PCA space.
The resulting PCA scores were plotted, with strain labels overlaid and color-coded by wort type (ochre for sweet wort, green for hopped wort). Marker shape indicated yeast type (circles for Saccharomyces controls and squares for non-Saccharomyces strains).

2.5.4. Correlation Analysis

To assess the relationship between fermentation kinetics and metabolite formation, a Pearson correlation analysis was performed between key kinetic parameters and three classes of aroma-active metabolites: esters, aldehydes, and higher alcohols. The kinetic parameters included the following: μ—specific growth rate (1/day); Qp—volumetric productivity (g/L/day); Yp/s—product yield from substrate (g/g). The metabolite concentrations (mg/L) were previously quantified for each fermentation, separately for sweet wort (SW) and hopped wort (HW) fermentations. All data were compiled into a structured matrix and normalized where appropriate. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated using Python (SciPy library). The correlations were interpreted according to standard thresholds: weak (|r| < 0.3), moderate (0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.7), strong (|r| ≥ 0.7). The resulting coefficients were presented in a correlation matrix, enabling the identification of trends, such as the association between higher fermentation activity and increased ester formation, or the potential inverse relationship between aldehyde levels and process efficiency.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Basic Beer Parameters

The main parameters of beer produced from sweet and hopped wort are shown in Table 3. Fermentation time varied significantly depending on both the yeast strain and the wort type. Five strains, including S. pastorianus W34/70, T. delbrueckii PRELUDE, L. thermotolerans Ns-CHANCE, L. thermotolerans NEVEA, and L. thermotolerans CONCERTO, as well as the mixed culture (S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckii), exhibited the shortest fermentation times in sweet wort (5–6 days). This suggests higher adaptability and metabolic activity under experimental conditions. Although the fermentation temperature was more favorable for ale yeast activity, lager yeast (S. pastorianus) achieved a shorter fermentation time and higher real degree of fermentation (RDF). M. pulcherrima required the longest time (12 days), indicating a slower sugar utilization capacity, possibly due to limited maltose/maltotriose transport or suboptimal enzymatic activity. The lowest RDF was calculated for sweet wort fermentation with L. thermotolerans JAZZ.
Hop addition generally extended the fermentation time for most strains, possibly due to the antimicrobial activity of hop-derived iso-α-acids that can inhibit or slow yeast metabolism. Exceptions were observed with M. pulcherrima, whose fermentation duration remained unchanged, likely due to innate hop tolerance mechanisms.
The final pH values across all samples decreased due to organic acid production. Beers fermented with non-Saccharomyces yeasts often displayed pH values outside the typical 4.3–4.6 range [38], with L. thermotolerans Ns-CHANCE reaching 3.63, suggesting a potential for producing sour beer styles. However, variability among L. thermotolerans strains (e.g., L. thermotolerans NEVEA: pH 3.93; L. thermotolerans CONCERTO: pH 4.50) indicates that not all strains of this species are suitable for sour beer applications.

3.2. Secondary Metabolites

A great number of yeast by-products from alcoholic fermentation deeply contribute to the final taste/aroma of beer [39]. Therefore, knowledge of the synthesis of and/or reduction in different groups of metabolites is essential for the selection of the proper yeast strain. The results for the content of esters, aldehydes, and higher alcohols in the beers produced with sweet and hopped wort are presented in Table 4.
Esters are formed during fermentation by the enzymatic condensation of alcohol and organic acid. They are the largest group of flavor-active compounds, which impart fruity flavors to beer. Esters generally have a low odor threshold, and minor changes in their concentrations dramatically impact beer quality. Esters’ contribution to beer aroma strongly depends on the ratio between esters and higher alcohols. In lager beer, a 3–4:1 ratio of higher alcohols to esters is acceptable, while a higher ratio results in a dry taste and a less aromatic characteristic of the beer [40]. The highest ester concentrations were reported for the non-conventional yeast T. delbrueckii NSTD and L. thermotolerans NEVEA. Particularly notable were the results for L. thermotolerans NEVEA in hopped wort (200.96 mg/L) and T. delbrueckii NSTD in sweet wort (184.85 mg/L). The results for L. thermotolerans NEVEA were 1.5-times higher than the results for esters in hopped beer produced with the lager strain and 2.8-times higher than the results for the ale strain. Moreover, the ester concentration in two of hopped beers produced with T. delbrueckii strains was approximately 1.3-times higher than the lager strain and more than 2-times higher than the ale strain. This is another conformation to the fact that T. delbrueckii strains are considered good producers of esters, which is why they are proposed as cultures that can enrich the aroma of beer with fruity and floral notes [3]. Such high ester production is associated with an intense fruit and floral aroma profile sought in beer styles such as Saison, specialty ales and fruited sour ales.
Acetaldehyde is a compound produced by yeast as a by-product of ethanol fermentation that, in low concentrations, gives beverages a pleasant aroma (green apple); however, higher concentrations of this aldehyde significantly degrade flavor (etheric, pungent aroma). Increased aldehyde content may be an indicator of incomplete fermentation or cellular stress, but some aldehydes contribute to the aroma profile at low concentrations [41]. The highest value was recorded for T. delbrueckii NS-TD in hopped wort (76.69 mg/L) and M. pulcherrima B-NATURE in sweet wort (32.29 mg/L). However, most strains maintained moderate levels (<20 mg/L) in hopped wort fermentation, which is suitable from an aromatic point of view.
Higher alcohols are formed by yeast during fermentation via the catabolic (Ehrlich) and the anabolic (amino acid metabolism) pathways and can be used as precursors for ester synthesis. Higher alcohols contribute to the alcoholic or solvent-like aroma of beer and produce a warm feeling in the mouth [42]. Amounts of higher alcohols higher than 300 mg/L can lead to a pungent smell and taste in beer, whereas optimal levels impart desirable characteristics. The optimum concentration of higher alcohols in 12.0 °P beers brewed via bottom fermentation is 70–120 mg/L [40]. The highest production of higher alcohols was observed for the beer produced with hopped wort and mixed yeast cultures, which were 1.7-fold higher than the lager strain and almost 2.5-fold higher than the lager strain. The lowest higher alcohols concentration was measured in beer, produced with L. thermotolerans JAZZ.
The analysis of the results of the secondary metabolites shows significant differences in aroma formation. In non-conventional yeasts, this process is enhanced, and for individual groups of metabolites, the concentration reaches up to 2.8-times higher values than in standard yeast strains used in brewing. These elevated ester levels suggest strong potential for enriching beer aroma with fruity and floral notes, making such strains promising candidates for specialty and aromatic beer styles. Aldehyde production remained moderate in most samples, comparable to standard strains and below the sensory threshold for off-flavors, with some exceptions (T. delbrueckii NS-TD and M. Pulcherrima), which showed increased values, likely due to fermentation stress or the incomplete reduction of acetaldehyde. Regarding higher alcohols, levels in beers fermented with non-conventional yeasts were generally within acceptable sensory limits. Of course, these observations depend strictly on the fermentation conditions used and, above all, the temperature regime used, through which beers with different sensory characteristics can be obtained.
The study of the influence of different fermentation temperatures, as well as hopping (varying different hop types and concentrations), is the subject of future research.

3.3. Comparative Assessment of the Fermentation Kinetics: Statistical Processing and PCA

The kinetic parameters of the fermentation process provide an understanding of the influence of various parameters, such as pH, aeration, type and amount of substrate, as well as the influence of parameters such as hopping, for example. These parameters can be used to predict the dynamics of the fermentation process when changing conditions, as well as to scale the processes from the laboratory to industrial scale. Additionally, kinetic analysis allows for a comparative assessment of different types of yeast when the parameters of the environment are dimensionless.
Combining the kinetics of the fermentation process with statistical processing such as correlation analysis and principal component analysis provides a thorough analysis of the obtained results and allows for the grouping of yeasts into different groups. Such an approach has not been applied in the scientific literature to date when studying non-conventional yeast strains for beer production and represents a significant novelty in the present study. PCA reduces the dimensionality of the data by transforming intercorrelated variables into independent principal components, preserving the maximum variation. Correlation analysis allows for an assessment of the strength and direction of the relationship between different variables characteristic of the fermentation process and, in this case, an assessment of the hopping parameter.
To determine the fermentation kinetics, the fermentation dynamic was calculated as described in Section 2.5.1. The data on the fermentation dynamics of M. pulcherrima B-NATURE on sweet and hopped wort are shown in Figure 1. The data on the other fermentations can be found in the Supplementary File (Figures S1–S9).
The kinetic parameters for each of the fermentations are presented in Table 5. The data in Table 5 show that the specific growth rate μ was the highest for both lager and ale strains in sweet wort, due to the fact that these strains are typical beer strains and, therefore, they grow best in wort. However, the specific growth rate of T. delbrueckii PRELUDE in sweet wort was comparable to that of the ale strain. Moreover, the highest specific growth rate in hopped wort was calculated for T. delbrueckii PRELUDE, and it could explain the shortest fermentation time for this yeast strain (Table 1).
The yield coefficients (Yx/s, Yp/s, Yp/x), especially Yp/s, were quite variable compared to the lager and ale fermentations, which indicated different fermentation pathways, which is typical for non-Sacharomyces yeasts. Some of the non-conventional yeasts used (e.g., Lachancea, Torulaspora) showed high yields of product per unit substrate, which indicated good adaptation to the wort as a substrate (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7).
The values of the specific substrate consumption rate (qS) and specific product accumulation rate (qP) of non-conventional yeast were significantly different than the Saccharomyces yeasts. In some cases, especially for qP, it was 20–30% higher than the control variants with Saccharomyces yeasts, and in some cases, the parameter was up to 70% lower than the controls. This was due to the different adaptation of the cells to the wort, a substrate that was rather atypical for these yeast types (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7).
The volumetric productivity Qp of most non-conventional yeasts in hopped wort was lower than the lager yeast strain. Only T. delbrueckii PRELUDE showed 1.2–fold higher volumetric productivity. However, when a comparison was made with the ale strain, three non-conventional yeasts showed higher results—two T. delbrueckii strains and the mixed culture, which contained T. delbrueckii. This showed that T. delbrueckii strains have high potential for beer production, especially with good optimization of the fermentation process parameters (Table 6 and Table 7).
The results of the comparison of some of the kinetic parameters are presented in Figure 2. The data showed that part of the strains were distributed in a group that gave us a reason for searching for such a distribution using principal component analysis (PCA).
In order to comprehensively assess the fermentation characteristics and aromatic potential of the tested yeasts, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed (Figure 3). As shown in Figure 3, PC1 (47.0% variance explained) and PC2 (17.6% variance explained) effectively grouped the yeasts based on kinetic parameters and secondary metabolites. These two PCs were important to distinguish the tested yeast strains according to their technological properties. PCA revealed that yeast fermentations conducted in sweet wort exhibited more pronounced clustering compared to those in hopped wort, particularly among non-Saccharomyces strains. Most sweet wort samples were distributed throughout the positive range of PC1, suggesting comparable fermentation kinetics, likely reflecting similar sugar consumption rates and ethanol production across strains. Within this region, strains, such as S. pastorianus Saflager W34/70, S. cerevisiae Safale US-05, T. delbrueckii PRELUDE, L. thermotolerans Ns-CHANCE, L. thermotolerans CONCERTO L. thermotolerans NEVEA, and the mixed culture, were grouped closely, indicating metabolic similarity in the absence of hop-derived stress. Vertical dispersion along PC2 (ranging from approximately −1 to +1) within this cluster may reflect subtle differences in secondary metabolite production, such as esters, higher alcohols, or aldehydes. Outliers such as M. pulcherrima B-NATURE and L. thermotolerans JAZZ, positioned on the negative side of PC1, may represent strains with slower fermentation kinetics or distinct metabolic pathways. Notably, control strains in sweet wort were located within the same PC1 range as the non-Saccharomyces cluster, suggesting that under non-hopped conditions, yeast strains displayed more uniform fermentation profiles. Collectively, these observations indicated that sweet wort promoted similar fermentation behavior in different yeast species, with strain-specific differences primarily manifesting in metabolite composition rather than fermentation efficiency.
In contrast to the patterns observed in sweet wort, yeast fermentations in hopped wort displayed a markedly broader distribution across the PCA space, particularly among non-Saccharomyces strains (Figure 3). This dispersion likely reflected the different sensitivity to hop-derived antimicrobial compounds, such as iso-alpha acids, which are known to disrupt yeast membrane integrity and suppress growth in susceptible strains [1]. Some strains, including L. thermotolerans JAZZ, T. delbrueckii NSTD, and M. pulcherrima B-NATURE, are clustered in the lower quadrants, suggesting impaired fermentation or altered metabolite profiles under hop-induced stress. The ale and lager yeast strains in hopped wort were more tightly grouped and generally occupied central or upper-left positions, indicating more consistent behavior relative to the dispersed non-Saccharomyces group. Others, such as L. thermotolerans NEVEA and L. thermotolerans CONCERTO, which were positioned next to the lager strain, possibly showed enhanced metabolic adaptation or increased production of flavor-active compounds such as esters or fusel alcohols. These findings highlighted the role of hops as a tool for the selection of yeast strains suitable for brewing fermentation.
PCA analysis demonstrated the following:
  • Some of the non-Sacharomyces yeasts have profiles similar to classic brewing strains.
  • Others could be used as alternatives with distinctive aromatic capacity.
  • The type of wort (sweet or hopped) had a significant impact on the positioning in the component space, which should be taken into account in technological selection.
An overall correlation analysis was performed to establish the relationship between the main kinetic parameters of the fermentation (specific growth rate—μ, volumetric productivity—Qp, and product yield from substrate—Yp/s) and the main secondary metabolites (esters, aldehydes, and higher alcohols). The values of the correlation coefficients (Pearson) are presented in Table 8. The results showed a positive correlation between the ester and higher alcohols concentration and kinetic parameters, suggesting that more intense fermentation activity resulted in enhanced higher alcohols and ester synthesis. The negative correlation between aldehydes and fermentation parameters indicated that better fermentation activity led to a reduction in aldehydes.

3.4. Influence of Hopping on the Growth and Fermentation Activity of Non-Conventional Yeasts

Hopping is an important process in beer production, through which the drink is given a typical hop flavor and aroma, and its composition is stabilized. The characteristic beer flavor profile is due to various hop components (bitter acids and essential oils), but, at the same time, these components can have a significant impact on the beer stability. It is known that hop components can have antimicrobial effects, mainly on lactic acid bacteria but also on some yeast species [14,15,43]. The method and time of hop addition are of great importance for the hop flavor and aroma but also for the antimicrobial effects of some components [43,44,45,46,47,48].
Hops are a source of α-acids (mainly humulones) and β-acids, which, after isomerization during brewing, exhibit a pronounced antimicrobial effect. Although these compounds are traditionally effective against bacteria [49,50], the influence of hopping on the growth of non-conventional yeast species would be of interest. The results of this study revealed that hopping has a statistically significant effect on the growth and the metabolic activity of non-conventional yeast strains used in the fermentation process. This effect is expressed both at the level of biomass growth, on the kinetics of substrate uptake and the formation of secondary metabolites.
The PCA and correlation analysis performed show that Metschnikowia pulcherrima and Lachancea thermotolerans are sensitive to the presence of hop compounds, which affects the kinetic parameters (reduction in the specific growth rate) and, hence, the secondary metabolism associated with the growth of the microorganisms. Other strains, such as Torulaspora delbrueckii (PRELUDE and NSTD), show higher resistance to hopping and the preservation of fermentation activity, which makes them suitable for beers with a higher degree of hopping.
The study of the influence of hops on non-conventional species is an interesting scientific area that can be investigated. Such a study should include a wide range of parameters—hop species, hopping method and regime, amount of hops added, etc. The interaction between yeast selection and hopping methods (e.g., timing and intensity of hop additions) also significantly shapes the beer’s flavor profile, emphasizing the need for brewers to consider yeast and hop strategies synergistically [9,51]. From the point of view of the beer aroma profile, it should be noted that the richer enzyme profile of non-Saccharomyces species can have a significant impact on the beer flavor profile. For example, Brettanomyces custersii has shown higher β-glucosidase activity, which leads to the release of aroma components from hop glucosides [52]. Similarly, analogous dependencies in the studied strains can be sought in the future.

3.5. Sensory Evaluation and Application of the Studied Strains for the Production of Different Beer Styles

All variants showed good organoleptic characteristics. A detailed evaluation of the organoleptic characteristics is planned to be carried out when optimizing the fermentation regimes for each individual yeast species, which will be carried out in future studies. Based on the results obtained, we can summarize the application of the studied species for different beer styles (Table 9).

4. Conclusions

A comparative analysis of the possibilities of using non-conventional yeasts for beer production was conducted, and the data were compared with the fermentation carried out with two brewing strains—one lager and one ale. The data from the study showed that non-conventional yeasts had significant potential for application in beer fermentation. Strains from the genera Metschnikowia, Torulaspora, and Lachancea demonstrated potential for the production of fermentation metabolites, in some cases higher than those obtained with traditional brewing yeasts. Wort hopping had a clear impact on the yeast kinetics and metabolite production, with the suppression of μ and qs observed in certain strains. The obtained data confirm the possibility of the targeted selection of strains and technological parameters with the aim of optimizing fermentation processes and developing innovative products with a sustainable nature.
An important aspect of the results obtained is the assessment of the influence of hopping on the fermentation capacity of the studied species from the genera Metschnikowia, Torulaspora and Lachancea. The obtained data show that when using these species for beer production, the type and amount of hops should be carefully considered in order to obtain high-quality beer. For this purpose, additional analyses can be conducted to assess the type of hops, the stages of their use and, last but not least, the amount used. The combined approach with kinetic analysis and multivariate analysis can allow for the assessment of more parameters.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/beverages11040114/s1, Figure S1: Fermentation dynamics of S. pastorianus Saflager W34/70 (control 1) on sweet and hopped wort; Figure S2: Fermentation dynamics of S. cerevisiae Safale US-05 (control 2) on sweet and hopped wort; Figure S3: Fermentation dynamics of T. delbrueckii NS-TD on sweet and hopped wort; Figure S4; Fermentation dynamics of T. delbrueckii PRELUDE on sweet and hopped wort; Figure S5: Fermentation dynamics of L. thermotolerans CONCERTO on sweet and hopped wort; Figure S6: Fermentation dynamics of L. thermotolerans NEVEA on sweet and hopped wort; Figure S7. Fermentation dynamics of L. thermotolerans JAZZ on sweet and hopped wort; Figure S8: Fermentation dynamics of L. thermotolerans Ns-CHANCE on sweet and hopped wort; Figure S9: Fermentation dynamics of S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckii WILD and PURE on sweet and hopped wort.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.K. and V.S.; methodology, V.S.; software, G.K.; validation, G.K., V.S. and R.D.-K.; formal analysis, P.Z. and Y.G.; investigation, P.Z. and Y.G.; resources, G.K. and P.Z.; data curation, P.Z., V.S. and G.K.; writing—original draft preparation, V.S., P.Z. and Y.G.; writing—review and editing, V.S., R.D.-K. and G.K.; visualization, P.Z. and Y.G.; supervision, G.K.; project administration, Y.G.; funding acquisition, Y.G., P.Z. and G.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research is funded by the project “Non-conventional Types of Yeast for the Production of Innovative Beverages—Sustainable Technologies”, National Program “Young Scientists and Postdoctoral Students-2”, Ministry of Education and Science, Republic of Bulgaria.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. Due to the ongoing nature of the broader research project and institutional data protection policies, the dataset is not yet publicly archived.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Novonesis, Sermia Ltd., Enoekspert Ltd., Bevision Ltd. and Eno Pro Ltd. for supplying us with active dry yeast, needed for our experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Roselli, G.; Kerruish, D.; Crow, M.; Smart, K.; Powell, C. The two faces of microorganisms in traditional brewing and the implications for no-and low-alcohol beers. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1346724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lodolo, E.; Kock, J.; Axcell, B.; Brooks, M. The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae—The main character in beer brewing. FEMS Yeast Res. 2008, 8, 1018–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Satora, P.; Pater, A. The Influence of Different Non-Conventional Yeasts on the Odour-Active Compounds of Produced Beers. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Canonico, L.; Agarbati, A.; Comitini, F.; Ciani, M. Unravelling the potential of non-conventional yeasts and recycled brewers spent grains (BSG) for non-alcoholic and low alcohol beer (NABLAB). Lwt 2023, 190, 115528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gschaedler, A. Contribution of non-conventional yeasts in alcoholic beverages. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 13, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Capece, A.; De Fusco, D.; Pietrafesa, R.; Siesto, G.; Romano, P. Performance of Wild Non-Conventional Yeasts in Fermentation of Wort Based on Different Malt Extracts to Select Novel Starters for Low-Alcohol Beers. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Capece, A.; Romaniello, R.; Siesto, G.; Romano, P. Conventional and non-conventional yeasts in beer production. Fermentation 2018, 4, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Budroni, M.; Zara, G.; Ciani, M.; Comitini, F. Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces starter yeasts. BREW Technol. 2017, 1, 81–100. [Google Scholar]
  9. Michel, M.; Meier-Dörnberg, T.; Jacob, F.; Methner, F.; Wagner, R.; Hutzler, M. Review: Pure non-Saccharomyces starter cultures for beer fermentation with a focus on secondary metabolites and practical applications. J. Inst. Brew. 2016, 122, 569–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Callejo, M.J.; Tesfaye, W.; González, M.C.; Morata, A. Craft beers: Current situation and future trends. In New Advances on Fermentation Processes; Martínez-Espinosa, R.M., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rossi, S.; Turchetti, B.; Sileoni, V.; Marconi, O.; Perretti, G. Evaluation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains isolated from non-brewing environments in beer production. J. Inst. Brew. 2018, 124, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Canonico, L.; Galli, E.; Ciani, E.; Comitini, F.; Ciani, M. Exploitation of three non-conventional yeast species in the brewing process. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Iorizzo, M.; Coppola, F.; Letizia, F.; Testa, B.; Sorrentino, E. Role of yeasts in the brewing process: Tradition and innovation. Processes 2021, 9, 839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Methner, Y.; Hutzler, M.; Matoulková, D.; Jacob, F.; Michel, M. Screening for the brewing ability of different non-Saccharomyces yeasts. Fermentation 2019, 5, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Estela-Escalante, W.; Rosales-Mendoza, S.; Moscosa-Santillán, M.; González-Ramírez, J. Evaluation of the fermentative potential of Candida zemplinina yeasts for craft beer fermentation. J. Inst. Brew. 2016, 122, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ravasio, D.; Carlin, S.; Boekhout, T.; Groenewald, M.; Vrhovšek, U.; Walther, A.; Wendland, J. Adding flavor to beverages with non-conventional yeasts. Fermentation 2018, 4, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Callejo, M.; González, C.; Morata, A. Use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in bottle fermentation of aged beers. In Brewing Technology; Kanauchi, M., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017; pp. 101–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Estela-Escalante, W. Perspectives and uses of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in fermented beverages. In Frontiers and New Trends in the Science of Fermented Food and Beverages; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nasuti, C.; Ruffini, J.; Sola, L.; Di Bacco, M.; Raimondi, S.; Candeliere, F.; Solieri, L. Sour Beer as Bioreservoir of Novel Craft Ale Yeast Cultures. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Tijerino, M.; Martín-González, M.; Domingo, J.; Huang, J. Life cycle assessment of craft beer brewing at different scales on a unit operation basis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lentz, M.; Putzke, T.; Hessler, R.; Luman, E. Genetic and physiological characterization of yeast isolated from ripe fruit and analysis of fermentation and brewing potential. J. Inst. Brew. 2014, 120, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Galli, V.; Venturi, M.; Guerrini, S.; Mangani, S.; Barbato, D.; Vallesi, G.; Granchi, L. Exploitation of selected sourdough Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains for the production of a craft raspberry fruit beer. Foods 2023, 12, 3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Einfalt, D. Barley-sorghum craft beer production with Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Torulaspora delbrueckii and Metschnikowia pulcherrima yeast strains. EurFood Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Toh, D.; Chua, J.; Lu, Y.; Liu, S. Evaluation of the potential of commercial non-Saccharomyces yeast strains of Torulaspora delbrueckii and Lachancea thermotolerans in beer fermentation. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 2049–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Karaulli, J.; Xhaferaj, N.; Testa, B.; Letizia, F.; Kycyk, O.; Ruci, M.; Kongoli, R.; Lamce, F.; Lioha, I.; Sulaj, K.; et al. Application of Saccharomyces cerevisiae 31 and Metschnikowia pulcherrima 62, isolated from Albanian vineyards, as new starters in the production of ale style beers. In Proceedings of the II-International Biological and Life Sciences Congress Biolic, Antalya, Turkey, 30 October–1 November 2024; p. 410. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellis, D.; Kerr, E.; Schenk, G.; Schulz, B. Metabolomics of Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts in Fermented Beverages. Beverages 2022, 8, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Postigo, V.; Esteban, S.; Arroyo, T. Lachancea thermotolerans, an innovative alternative for sour beer production. Beverages 2023, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fu, X.; Guo, L.; Li, Y.; Chen, X.; Song, Y.; Li, S. Transcriptional Analysis of Mixed-Culture Fermentation of Lachancea Thermotolerans and Saccharomyces Cerevisiae for Natural Fruity Sour Beer. Fermentation 2024, 10, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karaulli, J.; Xhaferaj, N.; Coppola, F.; Testa, B.; Letizia, F.; Kyçyk, O.; Kongoli, R.; Ruci, M.; Lamce, F.; Sulaj, K.; et al. Bioprospecting of Metschnikowia pulcherrima Strains, Isolated from a Vineyard Ecosystem, as Novel Starter Cultures for Craft Beer Production. Fermentation 2024, 10, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Canonico, L.; Agarbati, A.; Comitini, F.; Ciani, M. Torulaspora delbrueckii in the brewing process: A new approach to enhance bioflavour and to reduce ethanol content. Food Microbiol. 2016, 56, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Zapryanova, P.; Gaytanska, Y.; Shopska, V.; Kostov, G. Non-conventional yeasts in beer production—A review. BIO Web Conf. 2025, 170, 01015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gerhards, S.; Talaverano, M.; Andrés, A.; Sánchez, C.; Lozano, J.; García-Latorre, C.; Rodrigo, S. Different Dry Hopping and Fermentation Methods: Influence on Beer Nutritional Quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 101, 2828–2835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sanekata, A.; Tanigawa, A.; Takoi, K.; Nakayama, Y.; Tsuchiya, Y. Identification and Characterization of Geranic Acid as a Unique Flavor Compound of Hops (Humulus lupulus L.) Variety Sorachi Ace. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 12285–12295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. EBC Analytica. Available online: https://brewup.eu/ebc-analytica/beer (accessed on 21 April 2025).
  35. AOAC International. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 18th ed.; AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  36. Marinov, M. Practice for Analysis and Control of Alcohol Beverages and Ethanol; Academic Publisher of UFT: Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 2010; pp. 72–79. [Google Scholar]
  37. Parcunev, I.; Naydenova, V.; Kostov, G.; Yanakiev, Y.; Popova, Z.; Kaneva, M.; Ignatov, I. Modeling Of Alcohol Fermentation In Brewing—Some Practical Approaches. In Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation, Shaping Reality through Simulation, Koblenz, Germany, 29 May–1 June 2012; pp. 434–440. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pyrovolou, K.; Tataridis, P.; Revelou, P.-K.; Strati, I.F.; Konteles, S.J.; Tarantilis, P.A.; Houhoula, D.; Batrinou, A. Fermentation of a Strong Dark Ale Hybrid Beer Enriched with Carob (Ceratonia siliqua L.) Syrup with Enhanced Polyphenol Profile. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shopska, V.; Dzhivoderova-Zarcheva, M.; Kostov, G. Continuous Primary Beer Fermentation with Yeast Immobilized in Alginate–Chitosan Microcapsules with a Liquid Core. Beverages 2024, 10, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nasuti, C.; Solieri, L. Yeast Bioflavoring in Beer: Complexity Decoded and Built up Again. Fermentation 2024, 10, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gasiński, A.; Kawa-Rygielska, J.; Mikulski, D.; Kłosowski, G.; Głowacki, A. Application of white grape pomace in the brewing technology and its impact on the concentration of esters and alcohols, physicochemical parameteres and antioxidative properties of the beer. Food Chem. 2022, 367, 130646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ferreira, I.M.; Guido, L.F. Impact of Wort Amino Acids on Beer Flavour: A Review. Fermentation 2018, 4, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Keukeleire, D. Fundamentals of Beer and Hop Chemistry. Quím. Nova 2000, 23, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gomes, F.D.O.; Guimarães, B.P.; Ceola, D.; Ghesti, G.F. Advances in dry hopping for industrial brewing: A review. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sanekata, A.; Tanigawa, A.; Takoi, K.; Nakayama, Y.; Tsuchiya, Y. Interesting Behavior of Geranic Acid during the Beer Brewing Process: Why Could Geranic Acid Remain at a Higher Level Only in the Beer Using Sorachi Ace Hops? J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 18489–18498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. McCabe, A.; Keyes, J.; Hemetsberger, H.; Kurr, C.; Albright, B.; Ward, M.; Cole, C. Aroma Profile Development in Beer Fermented with Azacca, Idaho-7, and Sultana Hops. Molecules 2023, 28, 5802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Klimczak, K.; Cioch-Skoneczny, M.; Duda-Chodak, A. Effects of Dry-Hopping on Beer Chemistry and Sensory Properties—A Review. Molecules 2023, 28, 6648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kirkpatrick, K.; Shellhammer, T. Evidence of Dextrin Hydrolyzing Enzymes in Cascade Hops (Humulus lupulus). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 9121–9126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Vaughan, A.; O’Sullivan, T.; van Sinderen, D. Enhancing the Microbiological Stability of Malt and Beer—A Review. J. Inst. Brew. 2005, 111, 355–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Haakensen, M.; Schubert, A.; Ziola, B. Broth and Agar Hop-Gradient Plates Used to Evaluate the Beer-Spoilage Potential of Lactobacillus and Pediococcus Isolates. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 130, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Klimczak, K.; Cioch-Skoneczny, M.; Poreda, A. Evaluation of Non-Saccharomyces Yeast for Low-Alcohol Beer Production. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 6755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gamero, A.; Dijkstra, A.; Smit, B.; de Jong, C. Aromatic Potential of Diverse Non-Conventional Yeast Species for Winemaking and Brewing. Fermentation 2020, 6, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Fermentation dynamics of M. pulcheririma B-NATURE on sweet and hopped wort.
Figure 1. Fermentation dynamics of M. pulcheririma B-NATURE on sweet and hopped wort.
Beverages 11 00114 g001
Figure 2. Comparison of some of kinetic parameters in sweet and hopped wort.
Figure 2. Comparison of some of kinetic parameters in sweet and hopped wort.
Beverages 11 00114 g002
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA).
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA).
Beverages 11 00114 g003
Table 1. Yeast strains used for the experiments.
Table 1. Yeast strains used for the experiments.
Yeast StrainsManufacturer
Saccharomyces pastorianus Saflager W34/70Fermentis by Lesaffre, Lambersart, France
Saccharomyces cerevisiae Safale US-05Fermentis by Lesaffre, Lambersart, France
Torulaspora delbrueckii Viniferm NS-TDAgrovin, Alcázar de San Juan, Spain
Torulaspora delbrueckii Viniflora PRELUDENovonesis, Bagsværd, Denmark
Metschnikowia pulcherrima EXELLENCE B-Nature BIOPROTECTIONLamothe-Abiet, Bordeaux, France
Lachancea thermotolerans Viniferm Ns-CHANCEAgrovin, Alcázar de San Juan, Spain
Lachancea thermotolerans JAZZLamothe-Abiet, Bordeaux, France
Lachancea thermotolerans NEVEASAS Sofralab, Magenta, France
Lachancea thermotolerans/formerly Klyuveromyces thermotolerans/
Viniflora CONCERTO
Novonesis, Bagsværd, Denmark
Saccharomyces cerevisiae/Torulaspora delbrueckii Oenoferm Wild and PureERBSLÖH Gaisenheim GmbH, Gaisenheim, Germany
Table 2. Sweet and hopped wort characteristics.
Table 2. Sweet and hopped wort characteristics.
Wort TypeInitial Extract, °PpH
Sweet wort11.3 ± 0.16.22 ± 0.02
Hopped wort12.0 ± 0.16.06 ± 0.01
Table 3. Basic parameters of beer produced.
Table 3. Basic parameters of beer produced.
Yeast StrainWort TypeFermentation Time,
Days
Real Extract,
°P
Alcohol,
% w/w
RDF,
%
pH
S. pastorianus Saflager W34/70Sweet wort54.7 ± 0.103.70 ± 0.1559.804.75 ± 0.15
Hopped wort94.8 ± 0.153.88 ± 0.1461.724.93 ± 0.07
S. cerevisiae Safale US-05Sweet wort74.9 ± 0.163.47 ± 0.1157.373.34 ± 0.03
Hopped wort123.8 ± 0.144.42 ± 0.1368.834.46 ± 0.08
T. delbrueckii NS-TDSweet wort85.3 ± 0.123.12 ± 0.1354.063.50 ± 0.09
Hopped wort94.6 ± 0.163.88 ± 0.1463.184.61 ± 0.11
T. delbrueckii PRELUDESweet wort55.2 ± 0.163.06 ± 0.1654.934.70 ± 0.06
Hopped wort65.7 ± 0.113.18 ± 0.1153.214.86 ± 0.07
M. pulcherrima B-NATURESweet wort124.6 ± 0.143.70 ± 0.1260.693.70 ± 0.09
Hopped wort125.3 ± 0.153.18 ± 0.1356.734.50 ± 0.11
L. thermotolerans
Ns-CHANCE
Sweet wort56.0 ± 0.182.84 ± 0.1548.123.53 ± 0.12
Hopped wort163.3 ± 0.103.30 ± 0.1673.453.63 ± 0.08
L. thermotolerans JAZZSweet wort86.4 ± 0.153.06 ± 0.1643.954.04 ± 0.06
Hopped wort115.8 ± 0.113.30 ± 0.1151.774.25 ± 0.06
L. thermotolerans NEVEASweet wort56.0 ± 0.153.00 ± 0.1348.123.64 ± 0.06
Hopped wort95.5 ± 0.183.30 ± 0.1047.023.93 ± 0.04
L. thermotolerans
CONCERTO
Sweet wort55.6 ± 0.173.06 ± 0.1051.414.02 ± 0.06
Hopped wort95.9 ± 0.163.30 ± 0.1652.594.50 ± 0.05
S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckii
WILD and PURE
Sweet wort55.5 ± 0.142.95 ± 0.0853.173.88 ± 0.10
Hopped wort86.4 ± 0.123.06 ± 0.1047.844.67 ± 0.11
Table 4. Secondary metabolites produced by yeast strains during fermentation of sweet and hopped wort.
Table 4. Secondary metabolites produced by yeast strains during fermentation of sweet and hopped wort.
EstersAldehydesHigher Alcohols
SWHWSWHWSWHW
S. pastorianusSaflager W34/7088.15 ± 5.56136.5 ± 5.478.07 ± 0.336.05 ± 0.8510.26 ± 1.0214.62 ± 1.43
S. cerevisiaeSafale US-0588.15 ± 4.8772.03 ± 4.4312.11 ± 0.408.07 ± 1.109.7 ± 1.109.95 ± 1.05
M. pulcherrimaB-NATURE72.03 ± 3.8872.03 ± 4.5632.29 ± 1.228.07 ± 1.103.53 ± 0.422.39 ± 0.32
T. delbrueckiiNSTD184.85 ± 8.63168.73 ± 3.2610.09 ± 1.1076.69 ± 4.4311.09 ± 1.238.19 ± 1.10
T. delbrueckiiPRELUDE168.73 ± 5.2172.03 ± 4.5610.09 ± 1.6010.09 ± 1.114.91 ± 0.564.03 ± 0.33
L. thermotoleransCONCERTO104.27 ± 5.44120.38 ± 4.7626.24 ± 2.2612.11 ± 1.8311.59 ± 1.5912.98 ± 0.88
L. thermotoleransNEVEA152.61 ± 5.86200.96 ± 7.8626.24 ± 2.7212.11 ± 1.8511.34 ± 1.3414.49 ± 1.05
L. thermotoleransJAZZ152.62 ± 6.3372.03 ± 4.5610.09 ± 1.1016.15 ± 1.664.92 ± 0.661.76 ± 0.23
L. thermotoleransNS CHANCE120.38 ± 7.7572.03 ± 3.4510.09 ± 1.1022.2 ± 2.263.28 ± 0.438.06 ± 1.10
S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckiiWILD and PURE72.03 ± 4.59184.84 ± 6.3426.23 ± 2.108.07 ± 0.998.82 ± 1.0024.32 ± 1.33
SW—sweet wort; HW—hopped wort.
Table 5. Kinetic parameters of fermentations with Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeast strains.
Table 5. Kinetic parameters of fermentations with Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeast strains.
μmax (Day−1)Yx/sYp/sYp/xqsqpQp
SWHWSWHWSWHWSWHWSWHWSWHWSWHW
S. pastorianusSaflager W34/700.0810.0530.1000.0900.5610.5395.6065.9690.8090.5830.4530.3140.7400.431
S. cerevisiaeSafale US-050.0700.0470.1000.0920.5420.5495.4206.0000.7020.5080.3810.2790.4960.375
M. pulcherrimaB-NATURE0.0460.0140.1000.0900.5520.4755.5205.3000.4640.1590.2560.0750.3080.265
T. delbrueckiiNSTD0.0170.0070.1000.0910.5330.5245.3305.7910.1680.0820.0900.0430.4000.431
T. delbrueckiiPRELUDE0.0710.0670.1000.0890.5310.5055.3105.6800.7130.7550.3790.3810.6480.530
L.
thermotolerans
CONCERTO0.0640.0470.1000.0890.5370.5415.3706.1100.6390.5280.3430.2850.6120.367
L. thermotoleransNEVEA0.0670.0570.1000.0890.5660.5085.6605.6900.6680.6410.3780.3250.6000.367
L. thermotoleransJAZZ0.0280.0140.1000.0890.6250.5326.2456.0000.2810.1530.1750.0820.3830.300
L. thermotoleransNS-CHANCE0.0620.0460.1000.0920.5360.5565.3596.0500.6200.5000.3320.2780.5680.303
S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckiiWILD and PURE0.0690.0460.1000.0880.5090.5465.0866.2450.6850.5260.3490.2870.5900.383
SW—sweet wort; HW—hopped wort.
Table 6. Comparison between kinetic parameters of non-Saccharomyces and lager yeast strains.
Table 6. Comparison between kinetic parameters of non-Saccharomyces and lager yeast strains.
μmax (day−1)Yp/sqpQp
SWHWSWHWSWHWSWHW
M. pulcherrimaB-NATURE0.5740.2710.9850.8810.5650.2400.4160.615
T. delbrueckiiNSTD0.2080.1410.9500.9730.1980.1370.5411.000
T. delbrueckiiPRELUDE0.8821.2740.9470.9370.8361.2120.8761.229
L. thermotoleransCONCERTO0.7900.8870.9581.0040.7570.9070.8270.851
L.thermotoleransNEVEA0.8261.0861.0100.9420.8341.0350.8110.851
L.thermotoleransJAZZ0.3470.2581.1140.9880.3870.2590.5170.696
L. thermotoleransNS CHANCE0.7670.8730.9561.0320.7330.8850.7680.702
S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckiiWILD and PURE0.8480.8730.9071.0140.7690.9140.7970.887
Table 7. Comparison between kinetic parameters of non-Saccharomyces and ale yeast strains.
Table 7. Comparison between kinetic parameters of non-Saccharomyces and ale yeast strains.
μmax (day−1)Yp/sqpQp
SWHWSWHWSWHWSWHW
M. pulcherrimaB-NATURE0.6610.3061.0180.8660.6720.2700.6210.707
T. delbrueckiiNSTD0.2390.1600.9830.9550.2350.1540.8061.150
T. delbrueckiiPRELUDE1.0161.4440.9800.9200.9951.3671.3061.413
L. thermotoleransCONCERTO0.9101.0050.9910.9860.9001.0221.2340.979
L.thermotoleransNEVEA0.9511.2311.0440.9250.9921.1671.2100.978
L.thermotoleransJAZZ0.4000.2921.1520.9700.4600.2920.7710.800
L. thermotoleransNS CHANCE0.8840.9890.9891.0140.8720.9971.1450.807
S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckiiWILD and PURE0.9760.9900.9380.9960.9151.0301.1901.020
Table 8. Overall correlation coefficients between kinetic parameters and secondary metabolite concentration.
Table 8. Overall correlation coefficients between kinetic parameters and secondary metabolite concentration.
MetabolitesμQpYp/s
Esters0.550.620.48
Aldehydes−0.15−0.33−0.21
Higher Alcohols0.440.380.35
Table 9. Key traits and beer styles.
Table 9. Key traits and beer styles.
Yeast StrainKey TraitsSuggested Beer Styles
Torulaspora delbrueckii
(Prelude, NS-TD)
Fruity esters
Good hop tolerance
Moderate higher alcohols
Blonde Ale
Specialty Ales
Dry-Hopped Pale Ales
Lachancea thermotolerans
(Nevea, Concerto, NS-Chance)
Low pH
Moderate alcohol
Sour Beers
Fruited Gose
Metschnikowia pulcherrima
(B-Nature)
Slow fermentation
Low alcohol
Low-Alcohol Beers
Specialty Herbal Beers
S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckii
(Wild and Pure)
Aromatic complexity
Moderate acidity
High higher alcohols
New England IPA
Mixed-Fermentation Beers
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zapryanova, P.; Gaytanska, Y.; Shopska, V.; Denkova-Kostova, R.; Kostov, G. Non-Conventional Yeasts for Beer Production—Primary Screening of Strains. Beverages 2025, 11, 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040114

AMA Style

Zapryanova P, Gaytanska Y, Shopska V, Denkova-Kostova R, Kostov G. Non-Conventional Yeasts for Beer Production—Primary Screening of Strains. Beverages. 2025; 11(4):114. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040114

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zapryanova, Polina, Yordanka Gaytanska, Vesela Shopska, Rositsa Denkova-Kostova, and Georgi Kostov. 2025. "Non-Conventional Yeasts for Beer Production—Primary Screening of Strains" Beverages 11, no. 4: 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040114

APA Style

Zapryanova, P., Gaytanska, Y., Shopska, V., Denkova-Kostova, R., & Kostov, G. (2025). Non-Conventional Yeasts for Beer Production—Primary Screening of Strains. Beverages, 11(4), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040114

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop