How important is sanitation, really?

[zacster]

I did an experiment with my last batch. I used my usual sanitation methods on the carboy, tubing, etc... and put my batch in the carboy, added the yeast, and sealed it up with my airlock. But within that process I of course took a sample so I could get the OG, which I did with my sanitized turkey baster and flask. I did not sanitize the hydrometer as it wasn't ever going to come in contact with my batch. I even sanitize the flask since I touch it with the baster as I fill it. So far, so good.

So I took my sample, and then left the sample with the hydrometer still in it, and forgot about it while I cleaned up everything else. (My goal is to leave the brewery/kitchen cleaner than when I started.) I had stuck it aside and didn't see it. It was totally exposed and uncovered.

After dinner a few hours later, I noticed the flask sitting there with the sample still in it, and it was getting active. So I left it. Well, it formed a krausen layer, and it bubbled like crazy. I decided to clear out some of the crud so I could take another reading. I poured the beer into a glass (probably sanitized by the dishwasher but no special care was taken), and cleaned the flask and hydrometer with plain water. I poured the liquid back in to take a reading, and it had dropped by about 30 points.

I left it another 2 days, and did the same process tonight. The reading had dropped another 20 points, now at 1.020, down from the OG of 1.070. Not too bad. Since I needed to end this experiment since I need the flask to take samples of the rest of the batch, I poured it back into the glass and tasted it. Wow, it was great. It came out exactly as I expected, but a little sweet as it still needed another few days. But really, I'd be happy with a brew that comes out like that.

So my point here is that I did a micro batch without sanitation, in an open container, and it came out just fine. The yeast was 1056, so it was nothing special.

For the rest of the batch I had two explosions, leaving it also exposed to the air, and not as sanitized as I usually do. It too seems to be OK so far.

Beer had been made for centuries without sanitation. Why are we so anal about it now? And lest anyone think I'm bucking years of research and experience, I will continue to sanitize as I always have.

 

[JLem]

Give it more time...any bacteria or wild yeast will be slow to take hold

 

[bja]

How important is sanitation, really?

Why don't you post back and let us know right after you realize that your last brew tastes like burnt rubber.

 

[Jayhem]

I've yet to have a contaminated batch in 3 years of brewing and some 250 gallons brewed. Yeast usually take off pretty quick so any contamination would remain suppressed, at least until the yeast slow down on the sugars, then your infection will take hold! I don't want to experience that so I always have the star san handy and keep my kettle covered during cooling and transferring to the FV's.

 

[Epimetheus]

Beer had been made for centuries without sanitation.

True. I have wondered about that. It would be interesting to find historical records on the taste of beer.

Did they only bother to record the good ones? Did the beer generally taste sour but no one cared? Not even hundreds of years back, what was the quality in commercial breweries before prohibition?

 

[patthebrewer]

IMHO.....very important for post boil equipment. Not so much for preboil equipment. The key here is to try and control as many variable as possible, as the variables can affect your beer taste and quality in random ways.

 

[peterj]

True. I have wondered about that. It would be interesting to find historical records on the taste of beer.

Did they only bother to record the good ones? Did the beer generally taste sour but no one cared? Not even hundreds of years back, what was the quality in commercial breweries before prohibition?

This was the origin of the British Mild style. The term Mild was used to mean any beer that was fresh and hadn't been aged and become stale and sour. So the taste was more mild than the aged soured beer. They would mix the fresh beer with the old beer to improve the taste.

 

[peterj]

So if you're a little lax with sanitation it's probably not too big of a deal if you're going to drink all the beer pretty fresh, but if you plan on aging it for any amount of time you need to be very conscious of you sanitation practices. Like JLem said, it can take a while for wild yeast and bacteria to take hold.

 

[billl]

"True. I have wondered about that. It would be interesting to find historical records on the taste of beer. "

There are lots and lots of historical records and they all indicate the same thing..... aged beer was sour. They were brewing with a mix of brewing yeasts, brett, and bacteria.

Open fermentations continued well after brewers learned about bacteria. The CO2 rising from the wort keeps most particles from landing in the brew during active fermentation, so the contamination risks are minimized. On a homebrewing scale, a $2 lid brings that risk from "minimized" to virtually eliminated.

The real contamination risk is in future generations. eg you get 1 bacteria landing in that wort this batch. It multiplies to 1,000 by the end and coats your fermentation vessel. You don't sanitize that before the next batch and now you go from thousands to millions in a hurry. If you are reusing the yeast (and bacteria) cake, it goes even faster.

 

[processhead]

Sanitation in brewing is a probability game.

If you want to increase your odds of brewing excellent beer every time, sanitation will be one of your highest priorities.

If you fail to do this, the quality of your beer will be inconsistent and you will be scratching your head wondering what went wrong. Really.

 

[stevehaun]

Making excellent beer is 99% cleaning and sanitation/1% brewing.

 

[agrazela]

"Proper sanitation is the brewer's condom" --Benjamin Franklin (should have said this)

 

[zacster]

Thanks everyone. Like I said, I'm not about to give up on the sanitation process, I just didn't see any ill effects from what I considered a dirty operation. We all miss a step here and there and that's the start of another "Did I ruin my beer" thread in the beginners forum. But this was done without any regard to sanitation and it was fine. I think what some of you said is probably true, if it had been left out for a few weeks it would have gotten infected. The active yeast keeps everything at bay.

In all my years of brewing the only infection I've encountered is when my keg tap leaked and all the beer ended up wasted in the garbage can I used with ice to get it cold. I didn't dump it right away and when I went out that weekend to clean it, it was pretty funky with mold growing.

 

[ImNoExpert]

Sanitation is like that quiet stop sign at desolate intersection. Yes, most of the time you could just drive through without stopping or even slowing and you would be fine. But that one time the semi truck has the right of way and is crossing...

I know I'll stop at the stop sign regardless of the traffic. If I get to lax on the road, I'm going to have a bad day. Get lax in the brewery and sooner or later you'll have a bad day.

EDIT: if this post makes no sense, blame EDwort and his apfelwein. Sorry!

 

[Rhumbline]

You've only got one data point, kind of hard to draw any conclusions. I am strict about sanitization since it's cheap, quick, and easy.

I cut a lot of corners, but not with sanitizing.

 

[zacster]

Now I wish my kids were still in grade school, where they have to do science projects. We could make up a batch and split it up into a sanitized control, and different levels of sanitation, and see what happens.

Sure, I could do this anyway, but why waste good beer? There has to be some sort of payback, and not having to do some other inane science project is payback enough.