The cold hard truth about rinsing yeast with boiled water

[Orthobrewsky]

No, I am disagree with what I wrote earlier. You are twisting what I what wrote earlier. The difference between boiled and sterile (autoclaved) water is that one is completely free of life. That difference doesn't make sterile (autoclaved) water a better choice than green beer.

I assure you I am not intentionally twisting anything you've said, but trying to see if I can determine your specific reasons for your stance.

In response to my saying:

"I don't know of any reason to think that the fermented beer over the yeast has less in the way of microbial impurities than boiled water."

You responded:

"Once again, it's the pH and the antiseptic known as ethanol, not microbiological purity that differentiates green beer from boiled water."

Thus, you seemed to concede the point, but indicated it was not at all the issue. If you can give reasons why the fermented beer over the yeast has less in the way of microbial impurities than boiled water, please share them.

At this time, I don't know whether you think that green beer has less microbiological impurity than boiled water. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

 

[mattd2]

I assure you I am not intentionally twisting anything you've said, but trying to see if I can determine your specific reasons for your stance.

In response to my saying:

"I don't know of any reason to think that the fermented beer over the yeast has less in the way of microbial impurities than boiled water."

You responded:

"Once again, it's the pH and the antiseptic known as ethanol, not microbiological purity that differentiates green beer from boiled water."

Thus, you seemed to concede the point, but indicated it was not at all the issue. If you can give reasons why the fermented beer over the yeast has less in the way of microbial impurities than boiled water, please share them.

At this time, I don't know whether you think that green beer has less microbiological impurity than boiled water. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

but that is not what he is saying - the argument is green beer is a better medium for storage because of the low pH and alcohol reduces the chance an infection will take hold.
PLus green beer has the trump card that an infection would of rared its head early. If no infection is present at bottling time then any bacteria/wild yeast would likely have been outcompeted already.

 

[EarlyAmateurZymurgist]

I'm curious what spores or bacteria are such a concern that it really matters. we don't have to worry about, well anything gram positive, brett, lacto, pedio. Those are taken care of with the boiling of the water.

The only thing I can think of is botulism. the toxins from that get killed at 165, but the spores do live. However, considering where it comes from and how rare it is, it's not a concern. If it were present, it would survive in cans of beer people made, since they are not autoclaved. Also, the bacteria that could survive in the boiled water used to wash yeast will not survive mashing and fermentation, especially with the reduced lag time you get from pitching starters anyway.

So, I guess I'm wondering exactly which spores are of such a concern to make such a fuss about it. Maybe acetobacter.. but doesn't it require oxygen to multiply?

Most vegetative bacteria cells are deactivated at 70C/158F. However, a liquid medium has to be raised 40 degrees Celcius above the vegetative deactivation temperature in order to deactivate spores (water boils at 100C/212F at normal atmospheric pressure). Furthermore, there is a deactivation period for spores. Since you mentioned it, one must subject a liquid medium to 2.52 minutes of moist 121C/250F heat at 15 PSI in order to kill Clostridium botulinum spores. It takes 33 minutes to kill Clostridium botulinum spores at 110C/230F, and a whopping 5 hours and twenty-eight minutes to kill Clostridium botulinum spores at 100C/212F. The 15 minutes at 121C/250F @ 15 psi guideline is based on the time that takes to deactivate Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores.

One needs to be careful when purchasing a pressure cooker today. It used to be that all pressure cookers that were sold in the United States were capable of reaching 121C/250F. However, things have changed in the last twenty years. Many budget pressure cookers that are sold today struggle to reach 110C/250F. When in doubt, one should purchase a roll of autoclave tape.

Here's what a piece of autoclave tape looks like after it has been through an autoclave cycle. It looks basically like a piece of masking tape before going into an autoclave or pressure cooker.

Note: Autoclave tape is merely a tool for ensuring that sterilization temperatures were reached. It does not indicate that the items are sterile.

 

[cervid]

Working in orthopedics I am quite familiar with sterile processing of instruments and proper sterile handling, sterile fields, etc.

I'm not worried about botulism. If barley had it, humans would have been dying off a long time ago.

We've had a lot of conjecture here, and I'm asking.. specifically.. what spores are you concerned about making it into wort and surviving fermentation? Furthermore, what spores are of such a concern in a water source that is getting boiled?

Is this all hypothetical? Don't get me wrong, I love debating over 1%, that's what I do for a living, but for practicalities sake I'm looking for specific spores or organisms that are of concern.

My pressure cooker is old school. It's huge, with a weight, and a screw on lid. It's all good. I grew up canning foods and it was handed down, it's probably 30 years old. This is how I'm familiar with botulism and canning sterility, canning ph, etc.

It also brings to mind fermenting sausages. This is where one would expect to find a higher incidence of botulism. It's just so rare and a lot of people ferment sausages at home in traditional manners, or even to be sold. As long as they hold it long enough to achieve a 5-log kill it is considered safe and shelf stable, depending on what variety of meat you are processing, they can sell it.

 

[AnOldUR]

but that is not what he is saying - the argument is green beer is a better medium for storage because of the low pH and alcohol reduces the chance an infection will take hold.
Plus green beer has the trump card that an infection would of rared its head early if no infection is present at bottling time then any bacteria/wild yeast would likely have been outcompeted already.

But it’s in this solution that Brett and other bugs consume the sugars left behind by brewers yeast and make sour beers. The bacteria/wild yeast may have been outcompeted by the brewers yeast initially, but would be building a population on the residual sugars and not yet be detected.

I wouldn’t argue that in an ideal world his method could be slightly better a for a slightly longer period of storage, but most of us don’t live in that world. We’re not professional brewers in dedicated clean facilities or labs. We’re working in our less than sterile kitchens with pets and kids stirring things up. Our beer is exposed during gravity checks and open bucket transfers. I’ll continue to believe that my slurry is safer under boiled water than under month old beer that had the chance of being infected. I’d think that the bulk of that active contamination would be at work in the beer, not in the yeast cake. And if it were infected it may not be known until well after we've pitch our washed yeast in the next batch.

 

[mtnagel]

I am sorry for not answering your question. I planned to get to it, but thread kept scrolling.

Keeping a liquid culture alive without periodically repitching it is not a viable long-term storage strategy. You can periodically feed the culture by decanting the green beer and adding fresh bitter wort, but that's like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. It may work for a while, but you will eventually have to replace the culture.

You are basing your practice on the false belief that rinsing yeast with boiled tap water is beneficial to the health of the culture, it's not. A culture needs to be kept as aseptic as possible, which is already difficult to do in a brewery setting. Biological quality control is the key to good beer. Most infections are pitched with the culture. Once again, it is easier to propagate a weak culture than it is to clean up an infected culture; therefore, a brewer should focus his/her attention at keeping his/her pitching as clean as possible from a biological point of view, not an ingredient point of view.

It sounds like it's beneficial for longer term storage than simply harvesting, which everyone agrees should be used within a few weeks. People have reported using rinsed yeast 6-12 months after rinsing. I think the longest I went is 3 months and of course I always make a starter. Every time I've used rinsed yeast, fermentation proceeded as expected. Maybe it wasn't as good as it could have been if I used fresh yeast, but maybe it's close enough to be equivalent. So would you expect similar results with feeding the culture fresh bitter wort that you could get the yeast to wake up and be active? Even if it's not the best practice in the world.

I am a relative newbie (~2.5 years) and I'm am continuously trying to improve, but I strike a balance between using the absolutely best practices and what works and may save me some money. Rinsing yeast and storing for a few months allows me to save some money and it works even if it might not absolutely be the best practice.

 

[cervid]

That's some of my thought too. Any of the bugs that will feed off the non fermentable sugars, whether they can or can't survive boiling, would be in the beer itself. If it were in the water it would be moot since it would have nothing to feed on and would get beat out by the sacc early on in fermentation. Sure, long term it may build up enough to ruin a batch, but I've only reused mine maybe 4-5 times so far. I just don't make the same style enough.

But, decanting off all but a very minimal amount of beer would leave such a small amount of non fermentable sugars for it to eat in the first place. It is a lot easier, so I'm inclined to start trying it.

But, I also am still waiting on specifics as to what could possibly be in my boiled water that would be worse than the brett that might be building up in starters on beer generation to generation.

All things being equal, I'm busy enough to try it.. Boiling and cooling water is as much of a pita as canning wort. But, I guess my canner is big enough I could can like 15 or 20 quarts if I remember correctly.. It's been so long, but the wire canning basket in the bottom holds a lot. Maybe ten, I guess I should go check now that I think about it..

 

[mattd2]

But it’s in this solution that Brett and other bugs consume the sugars left behind by brewers yeast and make sour beers. The bacteria/wild yeast may have been outcompeted by the brewers yeast initially, but would be building a population on the residual sugars and not yet be detected.

I wouldn’t argue that in an ideal world his method could be slightly better a for a slightly longer period of storage, but most of us don’t live in that world. We’re not professional brewers in dedicated clean facilities or labs. We’re working in our less than sterile kitchens with pets and kids stirring things up. Our beer is exposed during gravity checks and open bucket transfers. I’ll continue to believe that my slurry is safer under boiled water than under month old beer that had the chance of being infected. I’d think that the bulk of that active contamination would be at work in the beer, not in the yeast cake. And if it were infected it may not be known until well after we've pitch our washed yeast in the next batch.

If Brett is in the beer it is likely in the yeast cake too - and there is a minimal amount of beer on top of the yeast in the OP's example. Brett may consume this little bit of beer but would the reproduce? So in the end would you not likely have relatively the same amount of Brett in both methods, i.e. a very small ratio compared with Sach.?

 

[AnOldUR]

All things being equal, I'm busy enough to try it.. Boiling and cooling water is as much of a pita as canning wort

Boil water in a Erlenmeyer flask with foil loosely over the top. When the boil is done and it’s cooled enough, tighten the foil slightly by hand. Let it cool more and then put a rubber band around the foil and stick it in the fridge. The whole thing can be done while dinner is being prepared. Now you have chilled, sanitary water ready on transfer day.

 

[Orthobrewsky]

but that is not what he is saying - the argument is green beer is a better medium for storage because of the low pH and alcohol reduces the chance an infection will take hold.
PLus green beer has the trump card that an infection would of rared its head early. If no infection is present at bottling time then any bacteria/wild yeast would likely have been outcompeted already.

OK, assuming he assents to your explanation of his intent, then this makes sense. But this still doesn't answer the question as to why sterile water, as opposed to boiled, makes any significant difference and, if it doesn't why has such a point been made about boiled versus sterile?

In places it seems he is saying that boiled water is likely to introduce infections such as

"If the culture wasn't infected before being rinsed with boiled water, you can bet that there is a good probability that it well be infected after being rinsed with boiled water."

and also

"I do not support the practice of storing yeast under autoclaved tap water either, but at least we are giving it a fighting chance by not adding yet another source of infection to the mix while removing its force field."

Is that not indicating that boiled water is a significant "source of infection" or is it only the removal or the "force field" he cares about?

If it is only about the force field, let's stop talking about whether the rinse is boiled or autoclaved. If it is really, for all practical purposes about the force field, let's see some experimental data from somewhere to indicate that rinsed samples have higher rates of infection.

How about at least a quote from some respected authority that rinsing is actually harmful in this situation and likely to lead to infection?

 

[AnOldUR]

If Brett is in the beer it is likely in the yeast cake too - and there is a minimal amount of beer on top of the yeast in the OP's example. Brett may consume this little bit of beer but would the reproduce? So in the end would you not likely have relatively the same amount of Brett in both methods, i.e. a very small ratio compared with Sach.?

I don’t completely disagree with this and the fact that storing the slurry under a few ounces of beer is better than water. But I don't think that you can effectively rinse the yeast in the pint or so of beer suggested. The beer concentration is still integrated into the cake rather then what is essentially just water after rinsing the traditional way. May be I’m only fooling myself, but I like seeing a nice white, clean slurry like the one I posted earlier (and my new avatar). To get that it takes a relatively large volume of water. I would agree that decanting after traditional rinsing and topping with a few ounces of beer would be a better storage method. But that sounds like too much work for what you’d accomplish, especially if you’ll be pitching in short order. The method I described in that post is really simple and effective at producing a clean ready to pitch slurry.

 

[cervid]

Boil water in a Erlenmeyer flask with foil loosely over the top. When the boil is done and it’s cooled enough, tighten the foil slightly by hand. Let it cool more and then put a rubber band around the foil and stick it in the fridge. The whole thing can be done while dinner is being prepared. Now you have chilled, sanitary water ready on transfer day.

This is what I do. Except with a foam stopper. I make big ass starters that are unhopped and then split it up based on what calculators say the numbers are and what kind of brew I'm using it for.

I just stepped up to a 5L starter and plate to cut down on the work, steps, etc.

Previously, I've been washing and seen others wash back when I first started brewing. I just got back into it last year, it's been a while and a lot has changed.

Considering I'm harvesting from starters the only thing my trub has is proteins, which aren't a concern. So, I'm inclined to try this and keep it under some un hopped starter beer for the handful of times I'll use them. If I can turn a $7 vial of yeast into costing about .50, well, that's all I really care about.

I'm not anal enough, nor do I personally notice such a huge difference between yeasts used in style that would cause me to go to the trouble of slanting and plating. I'll just buy a new vial.

But, to be honest.. Until EAZ responds with what exactly what spores he's so concerned about this has kind of turned into a joke for me.

It's like debating whether a cup is on a table or the table is under the cup. An exercise in futility followed by a war of attrition. He who posts last wins!!! although, either way you do it is fine anyway, it really doesn't matter.. See what I'm saying?

If this turns into politics I'm unsubscribing.. Because, that's what it feels like..

 

[EarlyAmateurZymurgist]

But I don't think that you can effectively rinse the yeast in the pint or so of beer suggested. The beer concentration is still integrated into the cake rather then what is essentially just water after rinsing the traditional way. May be I’m only fooling myself, but I like seeing a nice white, clean slurry like the one I posted earlier (and my new avatar). To get that it takes a relatively large volume of water.

A culture does not need to be kept clean organically. It needs to be kept clean microbiologically. Every yeast handling point should be treated as an infection vector. Rinsing yeast with boiled water is an unnecessary step that does little more than introduce one or more infection vectors.

 

[mattd2]

I win.............??????????

 

[EarlyAmateurZymurgist]

I assure you I am not intentionally twisting anything you've said, but trying to see if I can determine your specific reasons for your stance.

In response to my saying:

"I don't know of any reason to think that the fermented beer over the yeast has less in the way of microbial impurities than boiled water."

You responded:

"Once again, it's the pH and the antiseptic known as ethanol, not microbiological purity that differentiates green beer from boiled water."

Thus, you seemed to concede the point, but indicated it was not at all the issue. If you can give reasons why the fermented beer over the yeast has less in the way of microbial impurities than boiled water, please share them.

At this time, I don't know whether you think that green beer has less microbiological impurity than boiled water. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

You're missing the point that it doesn't matter that green beer may have microbiological impurities. Any impurities that may be in the green beer are also in the culture. The culture is biologically stable because of its pH and ethanol content (most bacteria are pH and ethanol sensitive). When one replaces the green beer with boiled water, one not only risks introducing new wild microflora into to the equation, the new wild microflora and any existing wild microflora can now start because one has raised the pH of the culture and removed the alcohol.

Let's use food canning as an example of pH affects bacteria. There are foods that can be canned via boiling water bath and foods that require pressure canning. Can you guess what types of food can be canned via boiling water immersion? If you guessed low pH foods, then it is starting click. In order for boiling water canning to be successful, a food stuff must have a pH that is below 4.6. Boiling canned low pH food does not kill Clostridium botulinum spores. The boiling water bath deactivates the vegetative cells, and the low pH prevents the spores from germinating.

The pH of green beer is in the range of 4.1 to 4.2 (beer's low pH is integral to its stability as a food stuff). Only a very select group of bacteria spores can germinate in a 4.1 pH solution. You do not want these microorganisms in your brewery because they are known as beer spoilage organisms. Common beer spoilage bacteria are strains from the Lactobacillus, Pedicoccus, and Acetobacter families. These bacteria strains have the potential to render a brewery non-operable if not tightly controlled.

While I do not wish to take this thread off on tangent, here's a link to a thesis dealing with the microbiological stability of beer and hop resistant beer spoilage bacteria.

dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/science/2002/k.sakamoto/thesis.pdf

"Beer has been recognized for hundreds of years as a safe beverage. It is hard to spoil and has a remarkable microbiological stability. The reason is that beer is an unfavorable medium for many micro-organisms due to the presence of ethanol (0.5-10% w/w), hop bitter compounds (approx. 17-55 ppm of iso-&#945;-acids), the high content of carbondioxide (approx. 0.5% w/v), the low pH (3.8-4.7), the extremely reduced content of oxygen (<0.1 ppm) and the presence of only traces of nutritive substances such as glucose, maltose and maltotriose. These latter carbon sources have been substrates for brewing yeast during fermentation. As a result pathogens such as Salmonellae typhimurium and Staphylococcus aureus do not grow or survive in beer (Bunker, 1955)."

 

[ColoHox]

The pH of green beer is in the range of 4.1 to 4.2 (beer's low pH is integral to its stability as a food stuff). Only a very select group of bacteria spores can germinate in a 4.1 pH solution. You do not want these microorganisms in your brewery because they are known as beer spoilage organisms. Common beer spoilage bacteria are strains from the Lactobacillus, Pedicoccus, and Acetobacter families. These bacteria strains have the potential to render a brewery non-operable if not tightly controlled.

While I do not wish to take this thread off on tangent, here's a link to a thesis dealing with the microbiological stability of beer and hop resistant beer spoilage bacteria.

There is a problem with your microbiology here. The beer spoilage organisms you listed (Lacto, Pedio, Aceto) are NOT spore formers. The common sanitation practices are sufficient to avoid these organisms, as long as they are thorough. In fact, the ONLY beer spoilage organism that is a spore-former is from the genus Bacillus and it is sensitive to hops, and thus not a serious threat. Also, I am not sure if you read the source you posted, but they do not describe a single spore-forming bacteria involved in beer spoilage.

Your whole premise of avoiding bacterial spores is irrelevant. Spores are just not a concern, and mostly for the reasons you have already mentioned (particularly pH).

 

[gwapogorilla]

So, boiling "ISN'T" hot enough to kill the organisms in water. Looks like pressure cooking isn't either since water can't get more than 212*......period.
Maybe I'll go to Japan and get some juice from Fukashima. I'm sure that will be hot enough to kill those f*&king organisms!

 

[boydster]

So, boiling "ISN'T" hot enough to kill the organisms in water. Looks like pressure cooking isn't either since water can't get more than 212*......period.
Maybe I'll go to Japan and get some juice from Fukashima. I'm sure that will be hot enough to kill those f*&king organisms!

Well... Water can get hotter than 212 under pressure, hence the mentioning of autoclaves and pressure cookers.

Good luck in Fukushima. Try the sushi.

 

[cervid]

I win.............??????????

Look up the words prose, then facetious. I'm sure many understood it and appreciated it's context.

Edit: Were you talking about my post, or did I miss somtheing?

 

[EarlyAmateurZymurgist]

We've had a lot of conjecture here, and I'm asking.. specifically.. what spores are you concerned about making it into wort and surviving fermentation? Furthermore, what spores are of such a concern in a water source that is getting boiled?

Is this all hypothetical? Don't get me wrong, I love debating over 1%, that's what I do for a living, but for practicalities sake I'm looking for specific spores or organisms that are of concern.

If all you are worrying about is pathogens, then go ahead an rinse your yeast with boiled water and store it under boiled water. I am worried about flavor altering house microflora that are everywhere in the average house, including the water supply. For example, my water source often has low-levels of iron bacteria in the summer, which is why I do not brew in the summer months. I would suspect that most house water supplies are not completely bacteria free. There very few homes that are Lactobaccilus and Acetobacter free zones.

What that said, many thread contributors appear to be focusing on one part of my original posting; namely, the fact that boiled water is not sterile. That is only part of the equation. The bigger part is that a) water lacks the antiseptic qualities of ethanol, b) the pH of water is bacteria friendly, and c) no liquid culture or batch of beer is 100% spore free; thus, even if one manages to use water that is 100% spore free, it still raises the pH of the culture, which allows spores in the culture to germinate. Storing the culture under beer prevents spores from turning into vegetative cells. Most beer infections can be traced back the culture.

Here's something that everyone reading this thread should understand. Yeast cells, on average, divide every ninety minutes. Bacteria cells divide every thirty minutes, which means the bacteria population experiences an eightfold increase in the same amount of time it takes the yeast culture to double. In three hours, the yeast cell count has increased by a factor four whereas the bacteria population has increased by a factor of sixty-four. In six hours, the yeast cell count has increased by a factor of sixteen whereas the bacteria population has increased by a factor of four thousand and ninety-six. As one can see, a small number of vegetative bacteria cells can turn into a very large number of bacteria cells very quickly.

 

[cervid]

You're missing the point that it doesn't matter that green beer may have microbiological impurities. Any impurities that may be in the green beer are also in the culture. The culture is biologically stable because of its pH and ethanol content (most bacteria are pH and ethanol sensitive). When one replaces the green beer with boiled water, one not only risks introducing new wild microflora into to the equation, the new wild microflora and any existing wild microflora can now start because one has raised the pH of the culture and removed the alcohol.

Let's use food canning as an example of pH affects bacteria. There are foods that can be canned via boiling water bath and foods that require pressure canning. Can you guess what types of food can be canned via boiling water immersion? If you guessed low pH foods, then it is starting click. In order for boiling water canning to be successful, a food stuff must have a pH that is below 4.6. Boiling canned low pH food does not kill Clostridium botulinum spores. The boiling water bath deactivates the vegetative cells, and the low pH prevents the spores from germinating.

The pH of green beer is in the range of 4.1 to 4.2 (beer's low pH is integral to its stability as a food stuff). Only a very select group of bacteria spores can germinate in a 4.1 pH solution. You do not want these microorganisms in your brewery because they are known as beer spoilage organisms. Common beer spoilage bacteria are strains from the Lactobacillus, Pedicoccus, and Acetobacter families. These bacteria strains have the potential to render a brewery non-operable if not tightly controlled.

While I do not wish to take this thread off on tangent, here's a link to a thesis dealing with the microbiological stability of beer and hop resistant beer spoilage bacteria.

dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/science/2002/k.sakamoto/thesis.pdf

"Beer has been recognized for hundreds of years as a safe beverage. It is hard to spoil and has a remarkable microbiological stability. The reason is that beer is an unfavorable medium for many micro-organisms due to the presence of ethanol (0.5-10% w/w), hop bitter compounds (approx. 17-55 ppm of iso-&#945;-acids), the high content of carbondioxide (approx. 0.5% w/v), the low pH (3.8-4.7), the extremely reduced content of oxygen (<0.1 ppm) and the presence of only traces of nutritive substances such as glucose, maltose and maltotriose. These latter carbon sources have been substrates for brewing yeast during fermentation. As a result pathogens such as Salmonellae typhimurium and Staphylococcus aureus do not grow or survive in beer (Bunker, 1955)."

You still have yet to specify which spores you are speaking of.. I know the traditional idea is that wort is too low in ph, but it's not that low... It's not any lower than un cooked fermented pig meat when properly combined with nitrate or nitrite... It's not low enough to be sterilized in a hot water bath. Which is why we add citric acid when canning certain things. A little Vitamin C never hurt anyone..

I'm not a zymurgist, but until you can actually specify which spores or organisms you are concerned about, I call bull****...

Oh and.. that study you just quoted doesn't matter. Why? Because I sense the only spores or organisms EAZ can come up with are brett, lacto, pedio, and botulinum (which I pointed out as it's likely the only gram positive bacterium that could survive said conditions).

 

[cervid]

Lacto is in your mouth.. You better not breath when you do anything beer related!!!

It's also on most foods.. Acetobacter is on the fruit flies rampant in my home in the fall, as I live in an area that has tons of fruit farms.

Big deal... Whether I store it under beer or water, those same organisms would live.. would they not??

I'm really starting to believe you lack the ability to give me the name of a micro organism, besides the ones I have listed, that would infect a stored yeast sample. That would effect the 'flavor profile' as you say. I don't care about pathogens.. I know enough to know it's a bunch if hogwash.

I also know that, although your OP was well written, was kind of full of ****. Any flavor altering compounds you speak of could and would exist regardless of which method you use...

 

[mattd2]

Look up the words prose, then facetious. I'm sure many understood it and appreciated it's context.

Edit: Were you talking about my post, or did I miss somtheing?

No it was directed at your post, I was just being facetious that my post would be last before this gets moved to the debate forum

Wait were you saying that you were being facetious or I was????

 

[cervid]

It doesn't matter what green beers ph is.. That's after fermentation. All this **** you are talking about would take hold pre fermentation..

You keep bringing up the boiled water.. That wort isn't sterile. Wort is at best 5.2. Boiling it doesn't sterilize it. The reduction in ph it undergoes during fermentation would happen regardless of if you washed it or not.

Name an orgaism or spore. If you can. Your're full of crap and deal in hypotheticals.. Sorry to call you out, but it's getting old. Call someone, your 'mentors' you mentioned.. give me an orgaism..

 

[cervid]

No it was directed at your post, I was just being facetious that my post would be last before this gets moved to the debate forum

Wait were you saying that you were being facetious or I was????

I like your style!

 

[EarlyAmateurZymurgist]

So, boiling "ISN'T" hot enough to kill the organisms in water. Looks like pressure cooking isn't either since water can't get more than 212*......period.
Maybe I'll go to Japan and get some juice from Fukashima. I'm sure that will be hot enough to kill those f*&king organisms!

Water boils at 212F/100C at standard atmospheric pressure (atm). If we raise the pressure under which water is boiled to 15 pounds per square (psi) inch above normal atmospheric pressure, the boiling point increases to 250F/121C. Basically, the water inside of a 15 psi pressure cooker operated at sea level experiences a little more two atms.

 

[cervid]

He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about..

Why haven't you given me a spore or micro organism yet EAZ.. Besides the ones I've named. Brett, lacto, pedio, botulinum. All I know is it had better be gram negative and had better be relevant.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

"For brewing industry, beer spoilage bacteria have been problematic for centuries. They include some lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus brevis, Lactobacillus lindneri and Pediococcus damnosus, and some Gram-negative bacteria such as Pectinatus cerevisiiphilus, Pectinatus frisingensis and Megasphaera cerevisiae."

Source: "Beer spoilage bacteria and hop resistance", Kanta Sakamoto and Wil N. Konings.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168160503001533

 

[boydster]

It doesn't matter what green beers ph is.. That's after fermentation. All this **** you are talking about would take hold pre fermentation..

If you are talking about harvesting and reusing a yeast culture, then anything taking place "after fermentation" is taking place before the harvested yeast is pitched for the next batch... thus, making it "pre fermentation," no?

 

[cervid]

If you are talking about harvesting and reusing a yeast culture, then anything taking place "after fermentation" is taking place before the harvested yeast is pitched for the next batch... thus, making it "pre fermentation," no?

After you use your racking cane, after you breath over it, after there is an exchange of air, after you clean your equipment with hot water and pbw or oxyclean and SNAITIZE with iodohor or star san..

Yeah, it'll all still be there.