Clean VS Sanitized

[hunter_le five]

Let's go ahead and reinvent the wheel, while we're at it.

 

[Gavin C]

Let's go ahead and reinvent the wheel, while we're at it.

You've been suckered in by big circumference I see.

 

[1977Brewer]

You've been suckered in by big circumference I see.

So, we just threw phrasing out the window?

 

[TexasDroughtBrewery]

delete

 

[GuldTuborg]

Let's go ahead and reinvent the wheel, while we're at it.

Just to make it down the chem trail that much faster?

 

[madscientist451]

I've ben talking with my wife about clean vs sanitized. We both don't like to use sanitizers for anything. Just another chemical additive that isn't good for you. ............................................... This is my first foray into beer making and I don't want to use sanitizer.

I've read the entire thread and the OP has taken some heat for his original question and some subsequent comments. But I think the original question is a valid one: any tips for avoiding the use of chemicals?
Many brewers just accept the way things have always been done; I remember when BIAB first came on the scene, many veteran brewers advised against it and I heard comments like: "learn to brew the RIGHT way".
So would it be possible to brew beer without using chemical sanitizer?
I'll go out on a limb and say yes, its possible, here's how I would do it:
NOTE: I'm a big fan of using star-san, so I'm not trying this myself.
-- Do regular cleaning on the mash tun and boil kettle.
--Using boiling water to clean fermenting bucket, lid and airlock. I'm not sure if the water even has to be boiling, milk, for example, needs to be heated to 161F for 15 seconds to be considered safe by modern standards. Could brewing equipment be sanitized with hot, but not boiling water?
--After Fermenting, heat treat all bottling utensils: siphon, bottling bucket, bottles, caps and bottle the beer.
--After bottle conditioning, do a "stove top" bottle pasteurization as described in a thread in this forum.
--Let cool, refrigerate, and drink.
So the problem is, you can go through all these steps and you might still have an infected beer. Also, your beer flavor might be altered by the stove-top pasteurization.
It would be interesting to try, but in my opinion, using star-san isn't any worse for your health than consuming alcohol.
The use of sanitizing chemicals provides the brewer with the ability to reduce the number of variables that could produce a bad beer, and thus lets the brewer focus his/her attention on changing the variables that affect beer flavor, aroma, mouth feel and overall enjoyment.
Good Luck, if you try brewing without sanitizer, please report back how your beer is coming out.

 

[wmcc75]

I made a smart a$$ comment earlier and I'm sorry for that, it was all in good fun and I ment no offense by it. Now having said that I will say it would be somewhat foolish not to use sanitizer just to avoid chemicals in brewing. I consider myself a person who lives pretty clean (minus my occasional over consumption of beer) and would rather have the almost non existent amount of sanitizer left in my beer than risk an infected batch. It's just not worth the money, time, or effort you will put forth to leave to chance. If you are worried about the chemical sanitizers use c2h6o.

 

[Tiber_Brew]

--Using boiling water to clean fermenting bucket, lid and airlock. I'm not sure if the water even has to be boiling, milk, for example, needs to be heated to 161F for 15 seconds to be considered safe by modern standards.

It sounds like you are equating safe for consumption to sanitized for fermentation. The two are not necessarily the same, and are not done for the same purposes. Pasteurizing milk at 161F is done to kill harmful pathogens like bacteria and parasites, but is not necessarily "sanitized" to beer fermentation standards.

Could brewing equipment be sanitized with hot, but not boiling water?

Anything below 190F will require several minutes of contact time, as a general rule of thumb.

 

[madscientist451]

You are equating safe for consumption to sanitized for fermentation. The two are not necessarily the same, and are not done for the same purposes. Pasteurizing milk at 161F is done to kill harmful pathogens like bacteria and parasites, but is not necessarily "sanitized" to beer fermentation standards.


Anything below 190F will require several minutes of contact time, as a general rule of thumb.

I haven't "equated" anything. I did, however throw the idea of using hot water below boiling point for sanitation out there for others to comment on.
I provided the 161F for milk pasteurization as an example, nothing more.
I would agree with your general rule of thumb of 190F for several minutes as a good idea, but can not find any actual documentation to prove/disprove that practice.

 

[user 125772]

I'd be willing to bet you could make consistently good beer by sanitizing with just boiling water. My concern with that method is, you could be risking releasing plasticizers from plastic fermenters, risking broken glass carboys, or burning yourself with all the boiling water you'd be using.
I use Starsan because I feel it's effective, affordable, safe, and easy to use.

There's a lot of ways to ruin a batch of beer, in 8 years I haven't done it yet, but it's because I have a good grasp on all the factors and take steps to eliminate , or minimize as many as I can.

 

[Tiber_Brew]

I haven't "equated" anything. I did, however throw the idea of using hot water below boiling point for sanitation out there for others to comment on. I provided the 161F for milk pasteurization as an example, nothing more.

I find that using food pasteurization as an example is misleading, since food standards are in place for different organisms and for different reasons. What's acceptable for food pasteurization is not necessarily acceptable for brewing sanitation. I don't mean offense; I'm just trying to make this clear for OP.

 

[madscientist451]

I find that using food pasteurization as an example is misleading, since food standards are in place for different organisms and for different reasons. What's acceptable for food pasteurization is not necessarily acceptable for brewing sanitation. I don't mean offense; I'm just trying to make this clear for OP.

I'm not offended and I'd like to apologize for my snotty, nitpicking response to your use of the word "equate". But back to the sanitizing with chemicals vs/hot water discussion, why isn't the milk standard of 161F for 15 seconds acceptable? The milk standard was developed to eliminate illnesses caused by milk, which was a common occurrence before the 161F practice was widely adopted.
Are there different microbes that occur in brewing that can survive 161F for 15 seconds? What are they and exactly how and how long at what temperature do you have to go to get rid of them?
Is the "rule of thumb" of 190F found in any documentation or standards of brewing sanitation? I've been looking and can't find any.
I threw the "below boiling water" for sanitation question out there because I wasn't sure if plastic parts like airlocks and auto siphons can handle water that hot. I'm thinking they can, but just don't know for sure.
I do know that people have done no-boil "raw ale" where the wort only gets as hot as the batch sparge. I haven't done a no boil beer but would think the raw ale wort temperature would be in the 160-170 range? Is that hot enough for brewing sanitation?
Here's a link I found that says for dish washing, 171F for 30 seconds is required, I would suppose they have some rationale for that standard.

http://www.co.burlington.nj.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/614

 

[brew703]

I just started brewing last year and have always used sanitizer for all post boil equipment. Wouldn't do it any other way. I also could not see dumping a batch of beer because I didn't use sanitizer.

I would not consider myself a germ freak but I wash my hands several times during the course of the day just to prevent the spread of germs.

Life as we know it today is full of germs and I for one will do what I can to reduce my chances of getting some sort of infection, on my body, in my beer, etc.

When asking a question on any forum, be prepared for many different responses and sometimes those responses will only confuse you even more. I have been there . For the most part forums are a helpful place to get answer but not helpful when you get 15 different answers. Granted there are more than one way to accomplish anything but it would be nice, especially for newbies to get consistent answers.

To the OP, there were some replies given ways you could sanitize without using StarSan. Give those a try and see what happens. For me, I don't like wasting money therefore I choose to use a sanitizer to an attempt to make beer that is not infected.

 

[mcspanner]

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.

That's exactly the kind of experimental approach that a lot of the poster's here will applaud you for and take an interest in the outcome but I'd say your approach needs a bit more scientific rigour. Split your batches for a year and keep a careful log of the outcomes and your experiences. Any one of us could brew a one off that was un-sanitised and didn't get infected (or vice versa for that matter -although the odds are empirically proven to be longer on that outcome).

All the best with your brewing and I hope you enjoy the results!

 

[m00ps]

please provide solid examples of in-tallerance.

ftfy

 

[blizzard]

http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/library/backissues/issue1.2/raines.html

 

[Jim311]

If you want to learn about pasteurization you should do a little research on canning and why it is done. My understanding is that we use different temperatures for different products. For instance, we don't want to cook pickles, and they are generally safe to eat raw and don't harbor bacteria, so we don't need a pressure canner at all, generally just heat the cans to fairly low temperatures to kill the bacteria. But if we want to can something like a meat or pasta sauce with meat in it, we need a pressure canner to raise the temperature high enough and for long enough to kill bacteria like botulism. This is why it is recommend that you absolutely DO NOT make wort and can it for starters and such UNLESS you use a pressure canner. You can get violently, extremely, badly ill from poor procedures. Now, with that said, people use the no-chill method all the time. Find a vessel that's safe for boiling temperatures and use the wort to sanitize it. Note that I used the word sanitize, not sterilize. If you want to sterilize it you'll need higher temperatures than boiling, and for longer. Even the wort itself is not sterile despite being boiling. But for our purposes it should be good enough. Also, you're going to need to make sure that carboy is spotlessly clean, because if there's residue and stuff hiding in it, all bets are off. Organic soil being on your equipment will harbor all sorts of bacteria that will be difficult to kill unless you remove the soil.

 

[biestie]

Handwrought...I think you're nuts, but hey, we all are in some way.

As others have mentioned, if I were to stop using chemical sanitizer, as others have said, I'd treat everything that touches my beer post-boil with heat. My dishwasher has a sanitize cycle, I might try that and crank my hot water heater up to max. Maybe boil everything if that doesn't work. What I would say, is that you CAN'T just clean everything. You need to do something in place of the chemicals.

I honestly don't think that it'd be that hard to brew good beer without using chemical sanitizers. Most just choose not to because it'd be a pain. We all have developed our own brewing processes based on the limitations of what we have. You'll just be more limited than most.

 

[GuldTuborg]

If you want to learn about pasteurization you should do a little research on canning and why it is done. My understanding is that we use different temperatures for different products.

Yes, this has everything to do with pH and how you mean to store the item canned. Anything low pH (typically at or under 4.6 if memory serves) is suitable for water bath canning. Anything above that needs to be pressure cooked if you want it to be shelf stable.

Unfermented wort, which should be above pH 4.6, needs to be pressure cooked to be shelf stable, and for that reason.

 

[AkBrew907]

Interesting......

 

[Tiber_Brew]

why isn't the milk standard of 161F for 15 seconds acceptable?

Food pasteurization standards are targeted for different organisms that pose risks to our health, not necessarily for keeping beer spoiling bacteria out. Different organisms require different methods.

The milk standard was developed to eliminate illnesses caused by milk, which was a common occurrence before the 161F practice was widely adopted.

Again, no offense, but here it appears that you are equating pasteurization for food to sanitation for brewing. We don't sanitize brewing equipment for our health. Therefore, we are often targeting different organisms than food pasteurization methods do. And as I've said before, no known pathogens can survive in beer anyway, so all we as brewers are concerned with is killing the beer spoiling organisms. I'll expand on this in a bit.

Are there different microbes that occur in brewing that can survive 161F for 15 seconds?

Yes!

What are they

To name a few: Acetobacter, Pediococcus, Lactobacillus...

and exactly how and how long at what temperature do you have to go to get rid of them?

Approximately 212F for 10 minutes, ideally. Anyone who has made a yeast starter is familiar with this.

Is the "rule of thumb" of 190F found in any documentation or standards of brewing sanitation?

In brewing documentation? Probably not. It isn't a brewing standard. 190F as a minimum is a general rule of thumb to kill microorganisms if you can't bring water to a boil. Could you get away with a lower temperature for longer time? Possibly. The denature rate for beer spoiling organisms is a curve, and it's also statistically derived. Would you gamble with that? I wouldn't.

I do know that people have done no-boil "raw ale" where the wort only gets as hot as the batch sparge. I haven't done a no boil beer but would think the raw ale wort temperature would be in the 160-170 range? Is that hot enough for brewing sanitation?

No. Does that mean that the beer will be guaranteed to be infected? Not necessarily, but my money is on significant aceto and lacto growth. One of the most significant reasons for bringing wort to a boil is to kill spoiling organisms found in malt and water supplies.

Here's a link I found that says for dish washing, 171F for 30 seconds is required, I would suppose they have some rationale for that standard.

http://www.co.burlington.nj.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/614

Here's an analogous example that may help you see the point I'm making. Millions of homes in this country have tap water that is safe to drink. That is, it has either been treated or tested to confirm it does not contain pathogens detrimental to our health. It is not, however, considered sanitary by any halfway competent brewer. That is why we use "no rinse" sanitizers, and why we boil water first then let it cool to 90F to rehydrate dry yeast.

My point being: "safe to consume" does not necessarily mean "sanitized for brewing."

 

[Gavin C]

Food pasteurization........"sanitized for brewing."

Great Job Tiber. Thanks very much for adding this well presented, clear and accurate information.

 

[Jim311]

^ Good post. Just because it's safe to eat doesn't mean it doesn't still contain bacteria. Our stomachs and digestive tracts can tolerate all sorts of microorganism, in fact, our guts are *filled* with microorganisms. But there are certain ones that don't play nice with our guts, or our beers. For instance, Lacto may sour a beer and make it taste like total crap, but it's also the active culture in many probiotics in human health supplements.

 

[GuldTuborg]

For instance, Lacto may sour a beer and make it taste like total crap, but it's also the active culture in many probiotics in human health supplements.

It makes some really tasty beers, too.

 

[handwrought]

Thank you all for the in depth discussion on Clean Vs Sanitized. Being new to all this, I had no idea it was such a hot topic. I have gained a lot of great info here from you guys. I've always ben the guy to ask "why" when people say "thats the way its always ben done". Given that I have never brewed a beer but have consumed many, I will likely do my first several batches with sanitizer until I feel comfortable with my methods and setup. When I can achieve repeatable and predictable results, I will begin to experiment with Clean Vs Sanitized. There are many reasons I feel I need to experiment with this. For now I await the arrival of my kit so I can begin brewing with sanitized equipment. My apologies for getting bent out of shape for the flippant replies early on. Several of you have given very clear and reasonable descriptions/explanations as to the why sanitized. Time for a beer- Cheers!

 

[bigmunchez]

I realise that after some tense times, this thread has finally reached a kind of uneasy truce, so I'm somewhat reluctant to post, but I was trying something new with my brett/sour fermenter and thought of the OP. Might be of use in your future endeavours...

 

[handwrought]

I'm not sure what I'm looking at...

 

[1977Brewer]

I'm not sure what I'm looking at...

I think he's steam sanitizing it.

Or trying the hard way to melt it.

 

[Jim311]

Steam can actually be HOTTER than boiling water so I don't doubt it will sanitize. But it could also release chemicals from the plastic that boiling water never would, because once again, steam can be hotter than boiling water. I doubt that'll happen, but theoretically it could be subjecting the plastic to temperatures much higher than it was rated for, having the exact opposite effect he is looking for, which is to sanitize without exposing himself to "toxic" sanitizers.

 

[m00ps]

I think he's steam sanitizing it.

Or trying the hard way to melt it.

Plus, steam rises up. Not sideways