How sensitive is beer to infection?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Asrial

Active Member
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Sorø
This is a question put out for worries;
I did my first beer a couple of days ago, right now it's in the primary, but I want some of my fears blown away please.
My very first brew was a blueberry/raspberry mead, which I actually didn't handle that good at all. I opened the fermenter and just plunged my gravity measurer into the barrel and read it from there. I cleaned it with regular water before and after... And I let it ferment directly on a heated floor, in a room where there might have been directly exposed to sunlight. The mead is fine now though, but now it's quite :off:

Now, my points of concern:
1. We didn't have ANYTHING to cool down the wort with, so my dad and I covered the cauldrons and sealed them with the lid on, and let it rest the night over. Lids were heat-treated, so they were perfectly clean, but what's the odd of foreign bacteria entering the wort this way?
2. I added some dry hops to the wort before closing the lid on the fermenter, but is cleaning hands/scissors/bag with disinfecting agents, then opening the vacuumsealed bag with the scissors and plunging the measured amount of hops into the wort the proper way of dryhopping, or does it have a chance of infecting?
3. Is using clean, plain socks as hopping bags a hygienic way of adding hops to the wort in the boiling phase? (we had nothing besides socks, and we've just used 2 hrs of hand-pressing the malt-grains for residual sparging sugars.)

I'd very much like to know, since it's my first beer, and want to know if my method was too bohemian. :drunk:
 
Lucky for you, honey is a very difficult environment for bacteria to breed in. I wouldn't worry about letting it chill overnight-- I did this with a tripel recently and I tasted a sample yesterday and it's going to seriously break some hearts.

It is MUCH harder to infect a batch than one thinks.

Hops make it harder for bacteria to grow-- they're a great anti-bacterial.

Socks would be okay, but you definitely want the water to flow through the holding medium to pass along all those oils-- use stockings if you can.

Or run to the hardware store and pick up nylon strainer bags from the paint section. They work like gold!
 
Wow.... Socks? If I had half these issues, I wouldn't brew...but, you'll probably end up with beer, so don't worry too much. You say you cleaned everything with water...no sanitizer? This is a very bad idea. You absolutely need to clean everything with sanitizer or the risk of contamination skyrockets.

1. This is my biggest concern for your infection. Long cooling times mean the beer is stuck in that "sweet spot" where bacteria loves to play. Having the pot sealed was a good idea, but there's still a good chance that there was already bacteria in the pot.

2. This sounds fine to me.

3. First off, you shouldn't be pressing the malt at all, it's a bad practice. Second, using a sock as a hop back probably doesn't allow much of the hops essential oils and flavors to get through to the wort. Not to mention....who knows what's in the sock (dust, bacteria, dirt fibers) regardless of whether you think it's clean.

I would check your inventory before you brew next. If you don't have something, don't brew. Cutting corners will lead to an infection or bad beer eventually. You may get by this time, but it'll happen.
 
@Suthrncomfrt1884 Yes, I used sanitizer for everything that touched the beer post-boil. And may I ask why pressing the malt is bad?
And I kind of figured out that since the socks are relatively dense in comparison to stockings and other fine mesh cloths, I had to dry-hop to get my desired level of aroma.

@Revvy I just skimmed the threads, nice reads indeed and it just made me way more comfortable in this case!

Anyway, this was a first try, learning experience! Materials cost me 60$ for a 22 liter batch, so it isn't a bank breaker if it flops. :)
 
Short reply - beer is harder to infect than you'd think. It is something to be concerned about, but not to freak out over if you did something wrong, chances are you will be fine, especially if you used sanitizer.

Long answer - Socks?!
 
^ My beer is now labelled "Asrials socky pale ale! Contains 5% sock!" :rockin:
 
Um, prisoners use socks in their version of "homebrewing" all the time. (But that's USUALLY where they get the yeast from.) ;)

Since they were clean, and you added them to the boil, they are fine to use them as hopsacks.
 
And may I ask why pressing the malt is bad?

It releases tannins into your beer. I made this mistake the first time I brewed and it had a very strong taste of the specialty grains I used and the beer wasn't very tasty.

You make mistakes to learn from them. My first all grain this past weekend was a nightmare, but I did learn a lot about the process. My beer looks like a bowl of Cream of Wheat in the fermenter though; live and learn!
 
It releases tannins into your beer. I made this mistake the first time I brewed and it had a very strong taste of the specialty grains I used and the beer wasn't very tasty.

No. It. Doesn't.

And the taste of "specialty grains" is NOT tannins. And you don't get them from squeezing a grain bag!!!!!

Read this, and about 10,000 other discussions debunking that myth.
 
+1 to Revvy,

There was a guy this week that put his BIAB grains into a friggin wine press rated to 400 lbs of direct pressure, and he didn't extract any tannins. I'd call that a pretty good scientific conclusion.

Hundred of other posts have pretty much demonstrated that only high temps (180+) and really extreme PH issues can extract tannins. The squeezing/tannin myth was propogated in one of the popular homebrewing books from the 1990s.

If you have any modern evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it!
 
No. It. Doesn't.

And the taste of "specialty grains" is NOT tannins. And you don't get them from squeezing a grain bag!!!!!

Read this, and about 10,000 other discussions debunking that myth.

Just going off of what happened the first time I brewed. I squeezed the hell out of the bag, and my beer tasted like taking a spoon full of the steeping grains. It was an IIPA and after 2 months of sampling and waiting, it never mellowed out.

Needless to say, I won't chance ruining another batch for a little extra wort.
 
Well, also tannins do not produce a "taste," they produce a "mouthfeel" most often described as cottonmouth or pucker without a taste.

A spoon full of steeping grains taste sounds like the amount of steeping grains or hops were out of balance, not tannins. Beer is supposed to taste like the grain you use balanced in proportion to style by the bitterness of the hops you use.
 
Well, also tannins do not produce a "taste," they produce a "mouthfeel" most often described as cottonmouth or pucker without a taste.

A spoon full of steeping grains taste sounds like the amount of steeping grains or hops were out of balance, not tannins. Beer is supposed to taste like the grain you use balanced in proportion to style by the bitterness of the hops you use.

Gotcha, it was my first go round on brewing, and at the time, the consensus after reading and researching was due to squeezing the bag.

It did have a high IBU count (don't have the info in front of me, beersmith isn't on the work comp) but the hop flavor was there. It just took a turn south at the very end of the flavor! Thanks for the clarification.
 
I don't want to be argumentative, but bad info is my pet peeve. Honey is a nice place for bacteria to grow. In fact, honey could have or harbor bacteria that could hurt you. I'm just saying:)
 
revolutioned said:
I don't want to be argumentative, but bad info is my pet peeve. Honey is a nice place for bacteria to grow. In fact, honey could have or harbor bacteria that could hurt you. I'm just saying:)

I think this is bad info. Honey is actually a bacteria killer.
 
I don't want to be argumentative, but bad info is my pet peeve. Honey is a nice place for bacteria to grow. In fact, honey could have or harbor bacteria that could hurt you. I'm just saying:)

I believe that honey is, in fact, not a nice place for bacteria to grow at all. It is very low in water. It can harbor dormant bad guys, which is not the same thing.
 
The Internet says it kills bacteria, but my nursing books say it does not. Go figure.

"The Internet" also says that RIGHT NOW Elvis is having a 3-way with Sadaam Hussein and 122 year-old Hitler after plotting on how to spread Mad Cow disease to newborn chihuahuas in an effort to kill Paris Hilton and all Paris Hilton clones thoughout North America, Europe, and Asia.....there's even a grainy video reportedly taped by Big Foot (who's a voyeur, apparently) on YouTube.

I wish it was true, but alas, anyone can post anything on "The Internet." It's one step down from "The News." :ban:
 
I believe that honey is, in fact, not a nice place for bacteria to grow at all. It is very low in water. It can harbor dormant bad guys, which is not the same thing.

AFAIK, honey is not a nice place for bacteria to grow and live. Maybe certain types might like it, but in general, it's not a nice place. It was used for a long time as a means of treating burns and abrasions. Turns out it has anti-bacterial properties.

...Many studies have demonstrated that honey has antibacterial activity in vitro, and a small number of clinical case studies have shown that application of honey to severely infected cutaneous wounds is capable of clearing infection from the wound and improving tissue healing. The physicochemical properties (eg, osmotic effects and pH) of honey also aid in its antibacterial actions...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12439453

...Honeys with an average level of antibacterial activity could be expected to be effective in preventing the growth of pseudomonads on the surface of a wound even if the honey were diluted more than ten-fold by exudation from the wound....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10455629

...Honey is a natural product that has been recently introduced in modern medical practice. Honey's antibacterial properties and its effects on wound healing have been thoroughly investigated. Laboratory studies and clinical trials have shown that honey is an effective broad-spectrum antibacterial agent....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21479349

Observations show it is a broad spectrum antimicrobial agent with efficacy against bacteria, fungi, protozoa and viruses. It is also capable of eliminating malodours from wounds, eradicating antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria from wounds and acting as an effective prophylactic agent at the exit sites of medical devices.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18293880
 
Back
Top