More residual sugar, more likely to get infected? - Home Brew Forums

Register Now!
Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > General Beer Discussion > More residual sugar, more likely to get infected?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-02-2011, 08:22 PM   #1
StophJS
Recipes 
 
Sep 2011
Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 312
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts



I mentioned this in another post I made but didn't really get any responses on that point. I'm wondering if anyone has had experience to back this up, particularly in brews with lactose or maltodextrin in them. My only infected batch was a stout with 1/2 lb of lactose in it, and that got me thinking about why that could have been. Maybe just bad luck, but maybe it was the leftover sugar. Brewer's yeast does not eat these sugars, but that's not true of some types of wild yeast or bacteria. To me this would indicate that wild yeast or bacteria are more likely to start growing in a beer where these "leftover" sugars are present. Has anyone else had experience with this or looked into the science of this?

 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 08:31 PM   #2
unionrdr
Heavyweight homebrewing author
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
 
unionrdr's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Feb 2011
Sheffield, Ohio
Posts: 38,919
Liked 3674 Times on 3158 Posts


Well,take for instance the South American chicha,made by chewing the corn & then spitting it into a vessel with water to ferment. It turns out the amylase enzyme in spit that does the job of fermenting. I remember Sam making a batch,tested all the men & women in the office. The women had higher levels of it then men. So it can break down long chain sugars.
But as long as the beer stays sealed,I don't think it's much of a concern in our context.
__________________
NEW books on amazon/Kindle! Check it out now...
Home Brewing- https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PBAP6JO
Distopian Sci-Fi- https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NTA0L6G
New! John Henry- https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GBV3UXU

 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2011, 04:12 AM   #3
Dogphish
Recipes 
 
Nov 2010
Beach, VA
Posts: 651
Liked 7 Times on 6 Posts


spit does not ferment the sugar. the enzymes in the spit perform the mashing (unfermentable sugars are broken down into fermentable sugars by enzymes).

dextrose does not cause infections. unsanitized/improperly sanitized equipment causes infections. the wort is sterile after you boil it for 10 or more minutes. after you cool it, something has to infect it in order for it to turn sour.
__________________
Tap: Centennial IPA (SMASH)
Tap: Dogfish Head Ginger Saison
Bottle: Stone 11th Anniversary Black IPA clone
Secondary: Flemish Brown Sour Ale

 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2011, 06:32 AM   #4
StophJS
Recipes 
 
Sep 2011
Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 312
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts


Something has to get into it to infect it of course, but there is never a batch of homebrew brewed that doesn't get something in it. Any time your beer or a post-sanitization utensil is exposed to the air for even a couple seconds, it is exposed to all the airborne contaminants contained in air, i.e. wild yeast. The question of whether or not the beer develops a full blown infection has to do with whether any nasties can really get a hold on your beer. My thinking is that the presence of all this sugar makes it easier for them to do so.

 
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
infected beer (yeah, it's really infected) - rant. jtakacs General Beer Discussion 36 04-20-2012 11:24 PM
Candi Syrup (not sugar) and Beet Sugar hiphops General Beer Discussion 5 08-29-2011 10:01 PM
Adding some sort of sugar to barleywine, should I make candi sugar? HalfPint General Beer Discussion 10 11-12-2010 01:32 AM
ALMOST infected carnevoodoo General Beer Discussion 5 07-02-2007 12:56 PM
Infected! D*Bo General Beer Discussion 4 09-19-2006 02:25 AM


Forum Jump