Spooky season Friday - ahhhghhh! Botulism !

[Broken Crow]

Life expectancy was like 30 years old and there was death in every food so you kinda were probably pretty used to being blindsided by sickness

Did that change and nobody told me?

 

[MaxStout]

What's that you say? Leaving beer at room temp for a long time? Say it ain't so!

 

[Dland]

I still do this every brew day. Danger is my middle name.

 

[grampamark]

I’ve quit worrying about contracting botulism from homebrew. Now I worry about dying when a meteorite crashes through my roof while I’m hiding under the bed during the zombie apocalypse. I mean, the odds of that happening must be at least an order of magnitude greater than getting botulism from homebrew, amirite?

 

[zosimus]

I’ve quit worrying about contracting botulism from homebrew. Now I worry about dying when a meteorite crashes through my roof while I’m hiding under the bed during the zombie apocalypse. I mean, the odds of that happening must be at least an order of magnitude greater than getting botulism from homebrew, amirite?

Yeah
I'm not exactly rational. I know that. Albeit I feel a bit better about it

 

[kevin58]

What's that you say? Leaving beer at room temp for a long time? Say it ain't so!

View attachment 859375

And then there were the yards at the largest breweries in the world, Barclay Perkins and Whitbread, in London. Stacks and stacks of barrels of beer left OUTSIDE in all seasons and all weather for 12 months. Or the mammoth porter vats that held beer for 12 months. Not just dark beers either... this photo was captioned "Pale Ale Cellar" from the Eldridge Pope brewery.

 

[zosimus]

What's that you say? Leaving beer at room temp for a long time? Say it ain't so!

View attachment 859375

Yes, barrel aged is a thing, but a lot of those are higher alcohol. I'd be more worried about low alcohol (less than 6% beer), high pH sitting at room temperature in low oxygen places with seals.
I should note, I'm getting this from scientific journals where they tested whether the toxin could form in specific environments and they observed that the toxin was present when pH was high enough and alcohol content was low enough. So this isn't just theoretical... It has happened

 

[Broothru]

Tannins extracted from oak barrel staves have preservative/antiseptic properties, as do hops. They can suppress the production of toxins from botulism spores, like alcohol does, but does little to destroy the spores that actually produce those toxins. As has previously been stated, destruction of the spores requires exposure to 240F temperature for that to occur.

 

[zosimus]

Tannins extracted from oak barrel staves have preservative/antiseptic properties, as do hops. They can suppress the production of toxins from botulism spores, like alcohol does, but does little to destroy the spores that actually produce those toxins. As has previously been stated, destruction of the spores requires exposure to 240F temperature for that to occur.

Yeah, I haven't read much research done from hops, but I can imagine that is a big thing that prevents the growth of the bacteria (and subsequent toxins)!

 

[sibelman]

When first getting involved in homebrewing many years ago, I received the reassuring wisdom that food safety was not a concern. Apparently, that was only mostly true. Dang!

However, given all I've read here, triggered by @zosimus's concerns, it seems that if I make fresh starters and don't make low-ABV and oddly high pH beers, the old wisdom is still entirely true.

 

[worlddivides]

Yes, barrel aged is a thing, but a lot of those are higher alcohol. I'd be more worried about low alcohol (less than 6% beer), high pH sitting at room temperature in low oxygen places with seals.
I should note, I'm getting this from scientific journals where they tested whether the toxin could form in specific environments and they observed that the toxin was present when pH was high enough and alcohol content was low enough. So this isn't just theoretical... It has happened

Kinda odd how your definition of "low alcohol beer" is "less than 6%." 4% to 6% is the most common ABV range on the planet for beers, and thus "average alcohol beer." 90%+ of the beers sold around the world are in between 4% and 6% ABV (most mainstream lagers are typically around 4.5%, 5%, or 5.5%). I don't consider something "low alcohol" unless it's under 4%. Most of the beers I make nowadays are between 3% and 5% ABV. I only consider it low alcohol if it's under 4%.

Although 3% ABV beers aren't as common nowadays, in the past, whenever a brewery made a beer, they would also make a "small beer" from the second runnings. This was typically drank instead of water and was in between 0.5% and 3% alcohol. Were brewers all getting botulism from their low-ABV higher-pH small beers they were drinking with every meal?

 

[zosimus]

Kinda odd how your definition of "low alcohol beer" is "less than 6%." 4% to 6% is the most common ABV range on the planet for beers, and thus "average alcohol beer." 90%+ of the beers sold around the world are in between 4% and 6% ABV (most mainstream lagers are typically around 4.5%, 5%, or 5.5%). I don't consider something "low alcohol" unless it's under 4%. Most of the beers I make nowadays are between 3% and 5% ABV. I only consider it low alcohol if it's under 4%.

I am only saying 6% because that is the threshold for the bacteria growth for C. Botulinum which causes botulism.
Above 6% inhibits growth of the bacteria entirely.
So 'low' is more relative to the fact that the bacteria can grow if it is less than the 6%

 

[worlddivides]

I am only saying 6% because that is the threshold for the bacteria growth for C. Botulinum which causes botulism.
Above 6% inhibits growth of the bacteria entirely.
So 'low' is more relative to the fact that the bacteria can grow if it is less than the 6%

I'm more likely to get botulism from honey than from low-ABV, low-pH beers, but I still eat honey quite often.

Also, for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer

 

[camonick]

Yeah
I'm not exactly rational. I know that. Albeit I feel a bit better about it

I think you’re getting an awful lot of heartburn over nothing.

 

[zosimus]

I'm more likely to get botulism from honey than from low-ABV, low-pH beers, but I still eat honey quite often.

Also, for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer

Honey is known to often have the spores that cause botulism. The spores themselves are practically harmless to us because our bodies can filter them out. However, infant botulism exists because infants have not developed those anti-bacterial mechanisms, so it is possible for bacteria to grow in an infants stomach thus creating the toxin.
The bacteria itself is not the cause of Botulism, it is when the spore begins to reproduce that a separate toxin is excreted and it is the toxin that causes botulism.
The bacteria's spore is found on honey, but it does not grow (thus creating the toxin) for a few reasons. One is that honey is too acidic (under 4.6pH) , two is that honey is to syrupy (not enough water content) and three, honey does not have the necessary proteins necessary for the bacteria to begin to reproduce, thus inhibiting any form of growth and toxins to form. Not to mention honey is typically not sealed away from oxygen which also prohibits growth. There is virtually no risk in meads due to those reasons. Beer on the other hand, meets many of the thresholds for the bacteria's growth including the necessary proteins and higher pH
Note: Our bodies do not filter out the toxin and it is incredibly deadly, thus if the toxin exists before it reaches our stomachs, our bodies will be affected (unlike with just consuming the spores)

 

[Broothru]

I'm more likely to get botulism from honey than from low-ABV, low-pH beers, but I still eat honey quite often.

Also, for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer

The average pH of honey is 3.9. The range of honey. Typical range is 3.4 - 6.0, according to U.C. Cal/Davis.

 

[zosimus]

I'm more likely to get botulism from honey than from low-ABV, low-pH beers, but I still eat honey quite often.

Also, for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer

Also here is a study done on the risk of pathogen in low alcohol beers. It is a real risk
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X23068679

 

[Closet Fermenter]

Also here is a study done on the risk of pathogen in low alcohol beers. It is a real risk
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X23068679

So, what if I just agree with you and say forget beer, and you should just really drink hard liquor.

Problem solved!

 

[worlddivides]

Also here is a study done on the risk of pathogen in low alcohol beers. It is a real risk
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X23068679

I'm not going to disagree with the honey part because my point was that there's virtually zero risk of me getting botulism from honey, which ACTUALLY causes botulism quite often (almost always in infants). You can come up with theoreticals for botulism from beer, but you can't actually give a single example of anyone ever having gotten botulism from beer. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's incredibly unlikely.

I'll also note that the definition of "low alcohol beers" in that study is actually low alcohol such as 0.5% or 1% and not "below 6%" like you theorized. And yes, if you were making 1.5% ABV beer with a high pH, using no hops, and containing little to no CO2 (carbonic acid also lowers pH), then sure, you'd be increasing the risks of it, but even that study is not saying that foodborne pathogens are likely to survive. It actually states that multiple times right from the beginning. It even gives the range of "Traditional ethanol concentration" as 3.5% to 5.0% as making it safe. The 17ppm it mentions would be around 10 IBU, which is a relatively low bittering level (hence why sour beers traditionally have IBUs below 10 IBUs because they don't want the hops to stifle bacterial growth).

I know that you realize botulism in beer is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly unlikely, but you sound like you're trying to convince yourself that it's much more likely than it actually is.

Beer is generally considered safe from foodborne pathogens due to several intrinsic and extrinsic hurdles. These traditional hurdles include ethanol concentration (typically 3.5–5.0%), hops bitter acids (approx. 17–55 ppm iso-alpha acids), low pH (approx. 3.9–4.4), high amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide (2–2.5 v/v), low oxygen (<0.1 ppm), and lack of nutritive substances (Leistner, 2000, Menz et al., 2009). In addition, processing methods such as mashing, wort boiling, pasteurization, sterile filtration, and cold storage provide further protection against harmful microorganisms (Menz et al., 2011).

 

[worlddivides]

The average pH of honey is 3.9. The range of honey. Typical range is 3.4 - 6.0, according to U.C. Cal/Davis.

The production of the toxin that causes botulism from honey does not occur in the packaged honey but in the stomach of the person who consumed it. This is largely believed to be due to the immune system being unable to prevent this. It mostly happens in infants under 1 years old because their immune system hasn't developed the proper defenses yet, but it very rarely also occurs in adults (known as adult intestinal toxemia).

 

[zosimus]

I'm not going to disagree with the honey part because my point was that there's virtually zero risk of me getting botulism from honey, which ACTUALLY causes botulism quite often (almost always in infants). You can come up with theoreticals for botulism from beer, but you can't actually give a single example of anyone ever having gotten botulism from beer. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's incredibly unlikely.

I'll also note that the definition of "low alcohol beers" in that study is actually low alcohol such as 0.5% or 1% and not "below 6%" like you theorized. And yes, if you were making 1.5% ABV beer with a high pH, using no hops, and containing little to no CO2 (carbonic acid also lowers pH), then sure, you'd be increasing the risks of it, but even that study is not saying that foodborne pathogens are likely to survive. It actually states that multiple times right from the beginning. It even gives the range of "Traditional ethanol concentration" as 3.5% to 5.0% as making it safe. The 17ppm it mentions would be around 10 IBU, which is a relatively low bittering level (hence why sour beers traditionally have IBUs below 10 IBUs because they don't want the hops to stifle bacterial growth).

I know that you realize botulism in beer is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly unlikely, but you sound like you're trying to convince yourself that it's much more likely than it actually is.

The study was referencing a wider brush of pathogens and it appears they did not go in depth into the C. Botulinum one which I believe is why they said that most ethanol concentrations will inhibit most pathogens.
I am saying that based on the current recommendations by the FDA, any beer clocking in above 4.6pH and below 6% alcohol should be pressure canned after 240 fahrenheit which isn't done. The recommendation doesnt take into account the alcohol, but I'm adding it there due to it inhibiting growth.
I think it's incredibly unlikely, but I'm more trying to understand why it is, given the scientific understanding of environments that botulism grows..this is more of me trying to understand why, not so much that I'm trying to convince myself. Like from all that I've read, given a less than 6%abv and a higher than 4.6pH, low oxygen environment and proteins that beer has, it should be a thing that happens way more often. But it doesn't, which is more of my curiosity in asking why. There are warnings out there from scientists, but the warnings are mostly theoretical. Besides the cases in prison hooch (which I don't want to dismiss entirely because those were technically homebrews, regardless of how sanitary).
But yeah, more curiosity and science thinking at this point

I should also note from my studies, sanitizer like starsan does not destroy botulism either so that's not a sufficient explanation quite either.
We also know the spores exist in grains used for brewing

 

[zosimus]

I'm not going to disagree with the honey part because my point was that there's virtually zero risk of me getting botulism from honey, which ACTUALLY causes botulism quite often (almost always in infants). You can come up with theoreticals for botulism from beer, but you can't actually give a single example of anyone ever having gotten botulism from beer. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's incredibly unlikely.

I'll also note that the definition of "low alcohol beers" in that study is actually low alcohol such as 0.5% or 1% and not "below 6%" like you theorized. And yes, if you were making 1.5% ABV beer with a high pH, using no hops, and containing little to no CO2 (carbonic acid also lowers pH), then sure, you'd be increasing the risks of it, but even that study is not saying that foodborne pathogens are likely to survive. It actually states that multiple times right from the beginning. It even gives the range of "Traditional ethanol concentration" as 3.5% to 5.0% as making it safe. The 17ppm it mentions would be around 10 IBU, which is a relatively low bittering level (hence why sour beers traditionally have IBUs below 10 IBUs because they don't want the hops to stifle bacterial growth).

I know that you realize botulism in beer is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly unlikely, but you sound like you're trying to convince yourself that it's much more likely than it actually is.

Out of the few more scientific articles I've read (one written by a microbiologist who is also a homebrewer), the explanation was that most beer is less than 4.6pH. But from my studies, that's not entirely true so I'm more so asking the question as to, if not pH (and alcohol)... then why

 

[mac_1103]

I'm more likely to get botulism from honey

Not unless you're an infant under a year old.

The spores themselves are practically harmless to us because our bodies can filter them out. However, infant botulism exists because infants have not developed those anti-bacterial mechanisms

The spores are harmless to adults and children over the age of about a year if ingested. Although infants should not be fed raw honey, most infant botulism cases are thought to result from ingesting dust particles that carry spores rather than food.

 

[worlddivides]

Not unless you're an infant under a year old.

You think I'm more likely to get botulism from beer? Because I can actually find instances of adults who got botulism from eating raw honey, but I can't find any instances of anyone who got botulism from beer.

 

[worlddivides]

Out of the few more scientific articles I've read (one written by a microbiologist who is also a homebrewer), the explanation was that most beer is less than 4.6pH. But from my studies, that's not entirely true so I'm more so asking the question as to, if not pH (and alcohol)... then why

I think we've already addressed that excessively in both this thread and the other one. Low pH, alcohol, hops' antibacterial properties, and so on. The examples of "higher pH beers" are typically higher hopped for one thing. It's not just pH and alcohol, though those are arguably the two biggest factors.

 

[mac_1103]

You think I'm more likely to get botulism from beer?

I meant that you're also extremely unlikely to get it from honey. Unless you're less than one year old. So don't feed homebrew to infants either.

 

[mac_1103]

Also here is a study done on the risk of pathogen in low alcohol beers. It is a real risk

Commercial beer, not homebrew. Theoretical risk only - they found the bacteria in the beer; they did not report an outbreak associated with low- or non-alcoholic beer.

 

[zosimus]

I meant that you're also extremely unlikely to get it from honey. Unless you're less than one year old. So don't feed homebrew to infants either.

I think this is also with immunocompromised adults (ie the cases with adults). I'll have to look into that though

 

[zosimus]

I think we've already addressed that excessively in both this thread and the other one. Low pH, alcohol, hops' antibacterial properties, and so on. The examples of "higher pH beers" are typically higher hopped for one thing. It's not just pH and alcohol, though those are arguably the two biggest factors.

I'm not completely convinced on hops antibacterial properties as this is pretty inconclusive and understudied in the scientific sphere. But I am willing to accept that as a potential possibility but would want more research done.
Alcohol begins to inhibit c. Botulinum growth starting at 4%abv (so growth and toxin is still observed) and was observed to have completely been stunted at 6%abv, so yeah as long as you have 4% or higher, it becomes less likely.

 

[zosimus]

Commercial beer, not homebrew. Theoretical risk only - they found the bacteria in the beer; they did not report an outbreak associated with low- or non-alcoholic beer.

If it's a risk in commercial beer then it would be for homebrew too..
Just because something hasn't been reported yet doesn't mean it hasn't happened. There are such things as unreported cases and mild cases that weren't reported at all. It is very rare so doctors often do not know to look for it in patients exhibiting symptoms (that a million other conditions also exhibit).