How good is your sanitation? The George Fix test

SSBrew - 728
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.
Dude

Dude

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
8,768
Reaction score
143
Location
Ramstein-Miesenbach
I blatantly stole this from another forum--but it looks like an awesome test to see how your procedures are.

Discuss.


Basically you take a wort sample in a sanitary container and seal it. Take the sample after cooling the wort, while you are filling your fermenter and before pitching the yeast. Store it in a warm place. Aim for 86 degrees. You wait for the lid to bulge or foam to form on the surface, bubbles rising, or other proof of active fermentation. You need to check the sample often so you can accurately note the length of time it took your "sanitary" wort sample to start fermentation. If it starts to ferment in under 24 hrs. the beer is a dumper. From 24-48 hours to ferment, expect off flavors in the beer. 48-72 hours to ferment would indicate no off flavors but better sanitation is needed. If it lasts 72 hrs. or more before fermentation starts you have adequate sanitation.

This is an easy test to perform and it has humbled a great deal of home brewers, myself included. I have had a home brewer tell me that many of the comercial brewers could not pass it. Whether this test is tougher than it needs to be or not I do not know, but it is my goal to pass the test on a regular basis.
I tested a Vienna that I brewed 4/04/06. I took great care concerning sanitation knowing I was going to test it. The test sample went 60 hours until fermentation began. I used a sanitized beer bottle/airlock. It was a slow ferment which lasted several weeks. I read somewhere that yeast cells can multiply 6-8 times with no oxygen depending on how healthy the cells were to start with. (I took the sample before aerating with O2) When the ferment was completed it left an obvious layer of yeast in the bottom of the bottle. The fermented test sample of beer didn't taste or smell like a bacterial infection. (no sour athletes foot or dirty diaper type stuff) I use Star San, I love it and will continue to use it regularly. I beleive it really works on bacteria but I am having trouble beleiving in its effectiveness in killing yeasts. The acid washing techniques given by Wyeast and White labs lead me to the same conclusion.
Click to expand...
 
Let me get this straight before I start cussing and saying this person is a real idiot, etc. Is this article stating that if your wort starts fermenting within 72 hours your sanitation sucks and your brew is shot?:confused:

How's a fresh, sanitary, wort going to start fermenting in the first place? Airborne yeasts? Is that what this is all about?

I'm cornfuzed!:drunk: :confused:
 
homebrewer_99 said:
Let me get this straight before I start cussing and saying this person is a real idiot, etc. Is this article stating that if your wort starts fermenting within 72 hours your sanitation sucks and your brew is shot?:confused:

How's a fresh sanitary wort going to start fermenting in the first place? Airborne yeasts? Is that what this is all about?

I'm cornfuzed!:drunk: :confused:
Click to expand...
I personally wouldn't call George Fix an idiot when it comes to home brewing.

EDIT: If it starts fermenting within 72 hours it wasn't sanitary wort.
 
I'm going to try this on my next brew Dude. I've always wondered if my procedures are effective. Great idea. Thanks for the article.
 
RichBrewer said:
I'm going to try this on my next brew Dude. I've always wondered if my procedures are effective. Great idea. Thanks for the article.
Click to expand...

Yeah sounds like a good test doesn't it?

homebrewer_99 said:
Airborne yeasts? Is that what this is all about?
Click to expand...

That is about what I got out of it. Not a stupid thing at all, IMHO.
 
Dude said:
Yeah sounds like a good test doesn't it? That is about what I got out of it. Not a stupid thing at all, IMHO.
Click to expand...
I'm not calling George an idiot, but it sure sounds like 3 wasted days to me. If you are truly dedicated to your brew and your sanitation practices then you should have nothing to worry about.:D

As far as airborne yeast goes you can't stop them. They're natural. Some breweries have used an open fermentation process for hundreds of years. IMO that does not mean they, or we, have a sanitation problem.

I'm not a stupid person, but I can't figure out the point of the experiment.:confused:

Color me drunk...:drunk:
 
I guess homebrewers who have consistently made great beer should feel reasonably comfortable with their procedures. OF course, I agree that proper sanitation is critical. But if it ain't broke......:)
 
I think this could be a good barometer of how clean your system is, to an extent. I think that if you get growth after 24-48 hrs this is bad. But if it takes more then a week before anything grows then you win. I would just throw it out after 3-4 days because eventually something will grow in there. Its not as if you sterilized anything, all you do by sanitizing is keep the microbe count down to a reasonable level. Down enough to give the yeast a chance to out number anything else. Now does this mean that if after 3 weeks that 1 foreign yeast bud has had enough time to multiply by the billions and show growth in your test sample that your a bad brewer? no. But if youve got a bubbling airlock in your sample within 24 hrs, you might want to locate the problem (i gaurentee if you get fast growth you will taste it in the beer)

p.s. it will take more then a few microbes to humble me!
 
Sounds like one more cause for unnecessary worryment. The taste of the finished product is enough of a barometer, it's fairly easy to tell if theres anything in there that shouldn't be.
 
Awsome idea.

I don't think there are wasted days here since you don't delay pitching. And if you use a test tube or small jar for that, you don't even waste much wort either. Make sure you take the sample out of the primary after aeration and before pitching. This way you will check the sanitation for the boil, chilling, transfer to primary and of the primary inself. If you fail the test, I wouldn't dump it right away, but you know that you have to improve your sanitation. If you pass the test and do have an infection in the beer, you know that it was not contaminated when you pitched the yeast. So either the yeast or your later handling of the beer brought the germs in.

Now I may have a fast ferment test and a sanitation test going for my beers. ;)

Sierra Nevada QC for example sreaks their final beer on agar plates to check its bacteria level.


Kai
 
Kaiser said:
I don't think there are wasted days here since you don't delay pitching. And if you use a test tube or small jar for that, you don't even waste much wort either. Make sure you take the sample out of the primary after aeration and before pitching. This way you will check the sanitation for the boil, chilling, transfer to primary and of the primary inself. If you fail the test, I wouldn't dump it right away, but you know that you have to improve your sanitation. If you pass the test and do have an infection in the beer, you know that it was not contaminated when you pitched the yeast. So either the yeast or your later handling of the beer brought the germs in.
Click to expand...

Well said. I posted it because I think sanitation is often overlooked. People assume they have great procedures.

My brewery will never be a lab environment, but I'd at least like to be able to say my procedures are somewhat sanitary. I'll definitely do this test next time I brew.
 
Dude said:
Well said. I posted it because I think sanitation is often overlooked. People assume they have great procedures.
Click to expand...

I even think that it goes both ways. Some brewers do to little and some brewers do way to much and could make their sanitation more efficient w/o jeopardizing their beer.

I want to know where I stand since have optimized my sanitation quite a bit.

Kai
 
mysterio said:
Sounds like one more cause for unnecessary worryment. The taste of the finished product is enough of a barometer, it's fairly easy to tell if theres anything in there that shouldn't be.
Click to expand...


I'm with you on this one. Sanitizing is definitely important, but it doesn't pay to give yourself more headaches. After 10 years of brewing and no skunky batches, I must be doing an adequate job of keeping it clean. Besides, my wife (an OR nurse) tells me that the kitchen is never cleaner than when I brew. Good enough for me.
 
Usually the thing that gets infected is the fermenter so a small sample wont really tell you anything. If you use a bucket and it gets a scratch it can harbor bacteria, a small sample won't help you a bit....
 
Kaiser said:
I even think that it goes both ways. Some brewers do to little and some brewers do way to much and could make their sanitation more efficient w/o jeopardizing their beer...I want to know where I stand since have optimized my sanitation quite a bit...Kai
Click to expand...
...kinda like the hydrometer debate, huh?...:drunk:

ablrbrau: I agree with you. With 13 years of success I'm not about to throw in what I consider an unwarranted test.;)
 
I have a couple questions about the test.

1) If you use the same sanitizing steps for all of your pertinent brewing items, how easy is it to pinpoint the bottleneck, so to speak, in the system? More importantly, if you use the same sanitizing system for your "sanitized container" ,that you're placing your sample in, as you do for the rest of your brewing equipment, how do you know if the container isn't the problem? I just don't see how you can realistically pinpoint where the problem occured if you fail the test.

2) What happens if you fail the test? Do you immediately throw out the rest of the batch figuring you're screwed? I would guess most would continue on and hope for the best. The question would then be, what good is running the test in the first place? If the answer is to make your process simply MORE sanitary, then I guess I see the point, but I think you're still left with trying to answer my first question.

3) How much difference is it really going to make? I'll use myself as an example. I'm on approximately brew number 10. Could be 9, could be 11. Not sure. So far, I've loved every brew I've made. Am I 100% certain my practices are completely sanitary? No. Considering I have a very finite amount of time to brew and 2 children under the age of 3 it's getting harder. However, I'm still producing very tasty beer. Would a MORE sanitary environment produce a better tasting beer? Perhaps, but I'm not sure I'd notice nor be willing to take on the steps necessary answer my first question from above.

I just think it seems like another opportunity to worry about a hobby that has the tag line "Relax, don't worry and have a home brew." Just my 2cents. And I'm actually interested in seeing what those of you find out when running this test. I think it's a very intersting theory, just has a couple holes in the actual application.
 
I guess the idea is to see, where you stand in terms of sanitation and if it would need some improvement. I don't think that you can easily pinpoint a problem, but you may already know about steps that could cause more infection than others.

But this isn't really a test to worry about. Its just another took to diagnose a problem if you have one. Which means I wouldn't throw out the batch, but if it tastes slighly wrong I know that I have to be more sanitary when handling the fresh wort.

Since you don't have to do much more than collecting a sample of wort I to get a decent measure of your sanitation I feel that it is worth the effort.

And yes, this could be a debate about the necessity of brewing techniques like any other.

Kai
 
Kaiser said:
I guess the idea is to see, where you stand in terms of sanitation and if it would need some improvement. I don't think that you can easily pinpoint a problem, but you may already know about steps that could cause more infection than others.

But this isn't really a test to worry about. Its just another took to diagnose a problem if you have one. Which means I wouldn't throw out the batch, but if it tastes slighly wrong I know that I have to be more sanitary when handling the fresh wort.

Since you don't have to do much more than collecting a sample of wort I to get a decent measure of your sanitation I feel that it is worth the effort.

And yes, this could be a debate about the necessity of brewing techniques like any other.

Kai
Click to expand...
It's an "interesting" test I'll agree, but as I said earlier, no matter how conscientious and careful we are about sanitation there's no way to stop airborne yeasts if they are determined to be the problem.
 
MilwaukeeHomeBrewer said:
1) If you use the same sanitizing steps for all of your pertinent brewing items, how easy is it to pinpoint the bottleneck, so to speak, in the system? More importantly, if you use the same sanitizing system for your "sanitized container" ,that you're placing your sample in, as you do for the rest of your brewing equipment, how do you know if the container isn't the problem? I just don't see how you can realistically pinpoint where the problem occured if you fail the test.
Click to expand...

I think it is less a test of your equipment than your ability to sanitize something. If you fail the test, you lose your boy scouts "Sanitization" badge.


Bjorn Borg said:
p.s. it will take more then a few microbes to humble me!
Click to expand...

try ameobic dysentery.
 
homebrewer_99 said:
no matter how conscientious and careful we are about sanitation there's no way to stop airborne yeasts if they are determined to be the problem.
Click to expand...
yeast do not have wants, desires, intentions, or determinations.
for this reason, there are many ways to stop them from doing things. they are easily outsmarted.
 
　鯰　 said:
I think it is less a test of your equipment than your ability to sanitize something. If you fail the test, you lose your boy scouts "Sanitization" badge.




try ameobic dysentery.
Click to expand...

Hey if i eat some guys poop then i deserve bloody diarrea!
 
I did this test with the last batch that I brewed. It took 3 days for the sample to turn from clear to hazy, but it took 2 weeks for it to actually grow visible gunk (a white ring). Now the question is, do I have to wait until it turns hazy, or untill I see more activity? I didn't use an airlock (just sanitized foil over a small glass cup), so I couldn't check for co2 production.

The beer tastes fine :)

Kai
 
I have only one batch under my sleeves (which is still in the bottle and have no idea what's going to be like), but if the original poster's quote were to be true, everyting else I read about fermenting cycle must be bogus.
 
TekelBira said:
but if the original poster's quote were to be true, everyting else I read about fermenting cycle must be bogus.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying here. None of this contradicts with what the literature writes about fermrntation. And if you have other things to worry about with your brewing, you shouldn't worry about this test at all.

Kai
 
Interesting. I also did the test, mine turned cloudy by the end of 4th day. I let it ferment and then put in to the frige to clear. It did not clear even after a week. Surprisingly smell and taste of it was very much Belgian-beer alike.
 
Bringing this thread back from the dead.

I inadvertently did this test this week. I brewed last sunday and had an extra 1/2 gallon of wort that I collected in a sanitized gallon jug. I had planned to throw some yeast or bugs in it just to play around.

I had forgotten about the jug until this morning. When I checked there were no signs of fermentation and I checked the wort with my refractometer and it hadn't budged at all. It was something like 112 hours since I filled up the jug.

Since I didn't have any bacteria in there that could stand the hopped wort, I pitched some of the dregs I'd had from an orval. That should get it funked out. I imagine this will turn out pretty nasty since the wort came from a wit, but who knows.
 
Robbw said:
I guess homebrewers who have consistently made great beer should feel reasonably comfortable with their procedures. OF course, I agree that proper sanitation is critical. But if it ain't broke......:)
Click to expand...

+1

I think this may be useful if you are having problems as a way to try to identify what step the contamination is coming from, but otherwise, as Charlie says, "relax, don't worry...have a homebrew."
 
This is a typical process control test that can be used to sniff out where, say in a factory line, contamination is occuring. A sample is drawn off at various stages of the process to find where the "bottleneck" is.
For the homebrewer its more of a fun curiosity (I mean most homebrewers are very inquisitive people by nature).

BTW:
1) contamination in the wort will not necessarily show up like a yeast ferment - if the optical density of the wort goes up (it gets cloudy) you can rest asured that some living cells have taken up residence.
2) Some types of contamination - eg mold - is very slow and could take weeks to show up. (when I have harvested yeast from belgian beer for instance I didn't see any activity for about 5-6 days, and that was yeast)
3) Just because some organism can set up shop in clean wort doesn't mean that it could necessarily survive in beer. That is to say, that once the yeast have done most of their work in a few days, your contaminating organism may not have been able to survive in the new enviroment.

In the industrial setting the contaminating element would be grown out and identified so that proper measures could be taken...if needed.
 

Similar threads

B
Yeast Scientists: Why not create yeast collections before brewing?
Replies
2
Views
389
McMullan
McMullan
S
Anyone ever get a stuck fermentation with WLP300?
Replies
12
Views
439
jdauria
jdauria
Z
Another taking FG question
Replies
15
Views
828
Ramjet
R
abrewhal
Sanitize or not sanitize?
Replies
17
Views
1K
VikeMan
VikeMan
R
Yet another thing I learned on my last brew day
Replies
19
Views
1K
redrocker652002
R

Latest posts

Back
Top