Clean VS Sanitized

[TorMag]

I am new to the brewing process myself and had the same question ("What did the do 100 years ago before starsan?") That being said, I have my bottle of Starsan and don't brew without it....

 

[Auger]

Drank a lot of sour beers.

Yes, "people" have bene making beer for centuries, if not millenia. Can you throw a bunch of fermentable stuff into a clay pot or wooden barrel and make "beer"? Of course you can, and that's how it was done for a long long time. And, really no need to speculate, just take a bunch of crushed grain or fruit, put it in a bucket outside and wait for something to happen. Then try drinking it. It will ferment, although it certainly won't be a BJCP-approved, style-appropriate beer as we think of it today. If that's what you're after, then correct there's certainly no need for refined chemical sanitizers and cleaners and the like. However, the general consensus is that if one wants consistently to make a clean, controlled, tasty beverage resembling what modern-day civilization thinks of as "good beer", then yes, a certain level of sanitization will be required. The form and extent that takes is completely up to the brewer.

 

[Gavin C]

Just like brewing, farming practices have evolved to encompass the modern day concepts of microbial life.

Animal husbandry and crop management while similar to millennia old practices have changed considerably. I'm sure the same is true of smithing/metalurgy.

As a farmer and a blacksmith I'm guessing that you make use of modern methods and don't restrict yourself to Egyptian or Sumerian technology.

Not really sure why you would be so skeptical of established brewing norms which have as their bedrock, solid irrefutable science. This relates not just to keeping nasties out but also to cultivating the desired microscopic life-forms instrumental in the creation of beer in all its forms.

I see no down-side to sanitary practices. It's cheap and both labor and time non-intensive. The same cannot be said of the corollary. Packaging in particular must be sanitary if one hopes to have any sort of product stability in the keg or bottle.

You are the brewer and decide what is done and not done in your home brewery.

Try not to get so bent out of shape when folks disagree with you on the internet, or during life in general. Best of luck going forward. I wish you every success.

 

[Yesfan]

I don't mean to pile on this guy, but seriously...anyone who is thinking about getting into this hobby should also consider practicing good sanitation. It's just common sense. Why would you spend hours on a brew day making your favorite beer, only to hope it "becomes your favorite" because you're afraid to use a chemical to give beer yeast an advantage?


As you've said, you're new to the hobby, so if some of those answers bother you, what are you going to do when you have a few soured batches in a row because you choose to no use a "chemical" sanitizer, especially after a few long brew days? The answer may be harsh, but I think that's just experience talking. This community has a lot, and I mean a LOT, to offer. "They say you should" because they have learned from years of experience. Give them a chance and just keep an open mind. That's all I'm saying.

 

[m00ps]

did someone mention a decoction or am I the only one get major deja vu here?

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

In the old days they "cleansed" the beer. I don't know if that meant they put sulfite or lime or whatever, but here is some text from the "A Treatise on the Brewing of Beer".

There is no coming at any exact time, with respect to
hours, when your beer will be ready to cleanse, therefore this must be
done by attention, in frequently examining when your beer is at its
full head of working, or what is commonly said, rather inclined to go
back; when it is in that state it should be cleansed immediately.

 

[blizz81]

did someone mention a decoction or am I the only one get major deja vu here?

Or the thread in electric brewing today where a guy equated using Fotek SSRs to "thinking outside the box" to posting a list of a bunch of esteemed scientists including Albert Einstein.


That thread + this one + "what is good beer"....good day on HBT.

 

[TheMadKing]

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=15996

here is another thread exploring the topic of historical sanitation practices.

I also went to an archaeology school on the island of Cyprus that was focused on their beer making practices. In particular we excavated a barley kiln that was used during the bronze age for malting barley. We also performed a reconstruction of the brewing practices of the age.

We crushed our grain using a stone grinder, then put them into water that had been heated in a copper tub near an open fire. We mashed and left the grain suspended in the liquid and then allowed it to open air ferment over the course of a week. At the end of the fermentation I volunteered to be the first to try this hot mess and it was essentially a buteric acid bomb. It tasted like sour vomit and was absolutely awful.

This reproduction was based on the available archaeological evidence that has been found on the island of beer in various stages of development. So I think the bronze age people of Cyprus just had an acquired taste for that stuff.

There is also a tribe in Africa that makes a honey beer by combining honey, honeycomb, ash from a fire, and chewed up grains that are then spit back into the beer.

There are plenty of methods of making beer that can be considered "historical" "natural" "chemical free" etc. In my opinion none of them are good according to our (mostly) western pallets. So as other's have said, some sort of sanitation practices are helpful if you want to make a consistently good beer and not risk throwing out $40 worth of ingredients.

I hope whatever you decide works well for you!

Cheers.

 

[user 4295]

I came here looking for honest answers to an honest question. I am new to home brewing and have an interest in not having to buy one more unnecessary product because "they" say I should. If some of you guys can't deal with that then please don't suggest that I am off my rocker, believe in chem trials and are trolling. Way to share info! Of all the posts only about 3 actually address what I was asking about. To those people I say thank you! The rest of you can jump on the chem trail...

Sorry for my snarky comment, I just couldn't resist, as this topic comes up frequently around here. I will do my best to attempt to answer your question honestly. As you know, beer has been made for thousands of years. During most of that time sanitation was not a consideration, because before 1856, when Pasteur came up with germ theory, the concept of sanitation didn't exist. Brewers learned through trial and error what worked and what didn't and that cleaner equipment yielded better beer, even if they didn't understand why.

With the industrial revolution, and a wider understanding of chemistry and microbiology, it became clear that good cleaning and sanitation practices were an absolute necessity in order to obtain the best product possible. What we brewers have access to know is the culmination of many, many years of experimentation and scientific discovery. There are many methods of sanitizing, most of which are impractical for the homebrewer (i.e. steam or dry heat, UV light, etc). Other chemical sanitizers, such as bleach for example, are good at sanitizing, but they must be rinsed, and with bleach, it's reactive with stainless steel. Iodine based sanitizers were used for many years, and still are. They work well, but they have their own issues, like staining everything they come in contact with.

The earliest Brewers had no idea how the sugar laden mashes they made ended up as beer. They were openly fermented and relied on wild yeast to accomplish the fermentation. Some batches would be good, and some would be sour and nasty. I suspect that home brewing today without good cleaning and sanitizing procedures would yield similar results. Some good batches and some nasty ones. Totally hit or miss.

I've been brewing beer since 2005. Aside from my very first batch (Alton Brown's Amber Wave), in which I used some kind of detergent to clean and bleach to sanitize, I've been using PBW and Star-San. I'm happy to report that in the hundreds of batches I've made I've not had a single infected batch. I didn't come up with my procedures on my own. They came from reading about the experiences of other brewers, and listening to the advice of more experienced brewers than I. As the years have gone by, more and more homebrewers were singing the praises of Star-San, so it really is a great product and it makes the very important act of sanitizing your equipment quick and easy with absolutely zero down side. So remember, don't fear the foam, lol! I hope this information is helpful.

I've never been an "it's good enough" kind of a guy. There are many ways to make beer, even good beer, but there are only a few ways to make really, really good beer, and even fewer to make great beer. It's up to you to decide what's best for you, and what results you're willing to accept. Happy brewing my friend.

 

[handwrought]

We live in a society were hand sanitizer is at the grocery store entrance. All the micro organisms have become the enemy! Some of the replies to this thread have shown me how in-tallerant some people can be when asked a question that challenges current beliefs. Non the less, I have learned that un-sanitized equipment can allow the beer to sour and remove the predictability of the outcome. Also, that it is outside the convention of modern home brewing. I also know there are some regional beers that are regional because of the local organisms in the air. This leads me to the decision to brew my 1st batch using sanitizer and then brew up another batch with the same recipe and do it without sanitizer.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

We live in a society were hand sanitizer is at the grocery store entrance. All the micro organisms have become the enemy! Some of the replies to this thread have shown me how in-tallerant some people can be when asked a question that challenges current beliefs. Non the less, I have learned that un-sanitized equipment can allow the beer to sour and remove the predictability of the outcome. Also, that it is outside the convention of modern home brewing. I also know there are some regional beers that are regional because of the local organisms in the air. This leads me to the decision to brew my 1st batch using sanitizer and then brew up another batch with the same recipe and do it without sanitizer.

1 batch without means little.

Brew 4 without, and report back. I expect 3 of 4 will go south.

Even batches WITH sanitizer can go south because there are numerous pathways for microbes to enter after the wort has cooled below the threshold of death temperature.

Furthermore, even those regional beer brewers employ sanitation until a specific point in the process where they intentionally inoculate the wort.

 

[slym2none]

Please provide solid examples of intolerance.

 

[blizz81]

We live in a society were hand sanitizer is at the grocery store entrance. All the micro organisms have become the enemy! Some of the replies to this thread have shown me how in-tallerant some people can be when asked a question that challenges current beliefs.

Yes - because every brewer that sanitizes their equipment is a hand-sanitizing-using germ freak.


We just don't like wasting our time and money, that's all. I would question your "in-tallerance" towards proven science when you start doubting the safety of common brewing sanitizers, saying it's the Overworld Powers of "them" that want you to use them. Then again, we must have all ingested enough sanitizer that we're now under "their" control.

 

[iijakii]

There's a difference between overusing hand sanitizer and antibiotics etc in general and sanitizing your carboy or using anti bacterial after taking a dump before you go to work at Chipotle.

 

[hunter_le five]

I almost never wash my hands, unless it's brew-day.

 

[TheMadKing]

We live in a society were hand sanitizer is at the grocery store entrance. All the micro organisms have become the enemy! Some of the replies to this thread have shown me how in-tallerant some people can be when asked a question that challenges current beliefs. Non the less, I have learned that un-sanitized equipment can allow the beer to sour and remove the predictability of the outcome. Also, that it is outside the convention of modern home brewing. I also know there are some regional beers that are regional because of the local organisms in the air. This leads me to the decision to brew my 1st batch using sanitizer and then brew up another batch with the same recipe and do it without sanitizer.

I 100% agree that hand sanitizer is overused and that certain chemicals such as triclosan and other "broad spectrum" antibiotics do pose dangers of producing MRSA and whatnot. However that is because in/on our bodies, a balanced spectrum of a wide variety of microorganisms is beneficial, and may play a part in immune response, allergies, and a host of other previously unknown areas. A monoculture of bacteria is a serious danger to our health, but a monoculture of yeast is the ONLY way to make good beer. So it's a sound principal for your own health, just not for making good beer.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I almost never wash my hands, unless it's brew-day.

I am particularly fond of washing after using restroom, but not drying, and then shaking someones hand.


Keeps them guessing.

 

[BGBC]

We live in a society were hand sanitizer is at the grocery store entrance. All the micro organisms have become the enemy! Some of the replies to this thread have shown me how in-tallerant some people can be when asked a question that challenges current beliefs. Non the less, I have learned that un-sanitized equipment can allow the beer to sour and remove the predictability of the outcome. Also, that it is outside the convention of modern home brewing. I also know there are some regional beers that are regional because of the local organisms in the air. This leads me to the decision to brew my 1st batch using sanitizer and then brew up another batch with the same recipe and do it without sanitizer.

It's not intolerance, it's shared knowledge and experience. I'll also vote for the sanitizer, even for brewing intentional sour beers. It doesn't guarantee a positive outcome, but it's a pretty effective insurance policy.

Skip the sanitizer if you want to though - your end product will still be beer, it's just more likely to not be the beer you intended.

 

[user 4295]

We live in a society were hand sanitizer is at the grocery store entrance. All the micro organisms have become the enemy! Some of the replies to this thread have shown me how in-tallerant some people can be when asked a question that challenges current beliefs. Non the less, I have learned that un-sanitized equipment can allow the beer to sour and remove the predictability of the outcome. Also, that it is outside the convention of modern home brewing. I also know there are some regional beers that are regional because of the local organisms in the air. This leads me to the decision to brew my 1st batch using sanitizer and then brew up another batch with the same recipe and do it without sanitizer.

You may be able to make many batches, not use a sanitizer of any kind, and still not have an infected batch. That method may work repeatedly, right up until it doesn't. Sanitizing, however you choose to do it, will yield repeatable results, and give you some peace of mind. So why not do it? Brewers have been concerned about eliminating potential pathogens in there beers long before the world had a bottle of hand sanitizer staring you in the face every where you look.

We don't make beer. Yeast make beer. All we do as Brewers is create the best possible environment for the yeast to do their thing without interference from any competing micro organisms. There is no reason not to do it, other than being a contrarian. Being a contrarian is not necessarily a bad thing, as many innovations have come from people who are driven to find better, perhaps even controversial ways of doing things. Best of luck to you.

 

[BGBC]

A monoculture of bacteria is a serious danger to our health, but a monoculture of yeast is the ONLY way to consistently make the same beer, each time.

I mostly agree, but ftfy anyway

See: sours

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I 100% agree that hand sanitizer is overused and that certain chemicals such as triclosan and other "broad spectrum" antibiotics do pose dangers of producing MRSA and whatnot. However that is because in/on our bodies, a balanced spectrum of a wide variety of microorganisms is beneficial, and may play a part in immune response, allergies, and a host of other previously unknown areas. A monoculture of bacteria is a serious danger to our health, but a monoculture of yeast is the ONLY way to make good beer. So it's a sound principal for your own health, just not for making good beer.

And, ironically, current studies support that "chemicals" are responsible for maintaining the necessary biodiversity of gut/intestinal flora that keeps other tribes/cultures remarkably disease free.

 

[TheMadKing]

I mostly agree, but ftfy anyway

See: sours

thanks! I was generalizing to make the point but I figured someone would point that out

 

[TheMadKing]

And, ironically, current studies support that "chemicals" are responsible for maintaining the necessary biodiversity of gut/intestinal flora that keeps other tribes/cultures remarkably disease free.

That's not terribly ironic considering that everything you've we've ever touched is made of "chemicals", it's really more inevitable I would say

 

[Hobo]

We live in a society were hand sanitizer is at the grocery store entrance. All the micro organisms have become the enemy!

Not all germs are enemies. Just enough of them to make people ill because many fail to wash their hands when needed. Similarly, there's enough germs around to make your beer become ill as well. Sanitization is simple common sense.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

That's not terribly ironic considering that everything you've we've ever touched is made of "chemicals", it's really more inevitable I would say

The irony is in the idea that we lack said chemicals.

 

[blizzard]

One more piece of advice for the non-sanitized beer: do some reading and calculating into how much yeast you should pitch into your beer and do not skimp on this part.

 

[HumboldtBrewer]

Handwrought, welcome to the community and the wonderful hobby of homebrewing. Your question is not absurd by any means, as homebrewing is all about experimentation. I myself love to brew both sour/funky and clean beers, and with both I use proper sanitizing practices. Why sanitize when funking or souring a beer? Because there are bacteria and wild yeast (i.e. acetobacter) that can overtake the intended souring bacteria (Lactobacillus or Pediococus) or funky yeasts (Brettanomyces) that make a sour or funky beer tasty. I myself have accidentally not sanitized some of my batches when I was starting, and the resulting beers became infected and undrinkable, wasting time and money. My wife and I tend to live a healthier lifestyle by minimizing processed meats (I mainly hunt for our meat or raise pigs and sheep), and also minimize our usage of chemicals. But, I don't bat an eye about using cleaning agents such as One Step or PBW and sanitizing solution such as Sani-Clean or Star-San. By all means, do a side by side comparison and let us all know the outcome. This is a strong community of like minded minds, some more argumentative than others, but we are a community. I hope you stick with this hobby as it's one of the most rewarding activities in my life. Best of luck to you, and don't forget to update us on the sanitized vs. unsanitized experiment.

 

[Tiber_Brew]

We live in a society were hand sanitizer is at the grocery store entrance. All the micro organisms have become the enemy! Some of the replies to this thread have shown me how in-tallerant some people can be when asked a question that challenges current beliefs. Non the less, I have learned that un-sanitized equipment can allow the beer to sour and remove the predictability of the outcome. Also, that it is outside the convention of modern home brewing. I also know there are some regional beers that are regional because of the local organisms in the air. This leads me to the decision to brew my 1st batch using sanitizer and then brew up another batch with the same recipe and do it without sanitizer.

You have to keep in mind that sanitizing brewing equipment has nothing to do with the effects of microbiological organisms on our health. There are no known pathogens that can survive in beer, which in turn cannot impact our health. Unlike sanitation requirements in the food industry, brewery sanitation S.O.P. are not there to reduce health risks. However, as crudely as the point has been made here, we sanitize our equipment so that we ensure the fermentation activity of the desired organism, basically eliminating (or coming close) the biological competition to our brewer's yeast that we pitch into our wort. This increases our chances at producing a better quality product with better consistency.

You don't have to sanitize your brewing equipment, but you will almost definitely like the resulting product better if you do. And, as others have pointed out, there are no health risks from sanitizing chemicals when used according to manufacturer's recommendations.

 

[GuldTuborg]

Some of the replies to this thread have shown me how in-tallerant some people can be when asked a question that challenges current beliefs.

Seriously? Your attitude is going south over this? People responded to an assumption in your original question that there is not any evidence for, and displays a lack of understanding basic nuance of chemistry and biology, and rightly so. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to suggest sanitizers made for brewing are perfectly safe to use.

If you really want to combat this "in-tallerant" crowd, go post something in the Brew Science or Debate forums. Provide lots of evidence. There will be plenty provided to counter your claim, I can assure you. If you'd rather not, I'd suggest being a bit more selective in where you toss about the accusations of intolerance.

 

[GNBrews]

This leads me to the decision to brew my 1st batch using sanitizer and then brew up another batch with the same recipe and do it without sanitizer.

Science! Good luck with your experiments; hopefully you end up with tasty beer.

The suggestion of using ethanol to sanitize your equipment is a good one. Some cheap "White Eagle" vodka or similar in a spray bottle should serve you without worry about using halogens, or caustic/acidic solutions.