Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 23, 2016 at 3:26 comment added John The 'skunking' reaction requires riboflavin from the yeast hop compounds. Some brewers have avoided or minimized skunking by using hops that have had these compounds chemically reduced (redox, not quantity), these are referred to as rho, tetra and hexa hops, and can also be purchased as extracts, but are costly.
Dec 2, 2015 at 16:55 comment added Eric Deloak You know though, I thought more on the UV thing. I actually think it may be possible... Way way back there was a whole article on the skunk aroma from sunlight - light-struck beer in Zymurgy. I can't remember all the chemistry, but it was from compounds in the hops. However the article said that beers from the UK (some others too) were immune because of some chemical property that was different in them. Therefor Newcastle or Samuel Smiths are unlikely to be skunky. Well, it might be possible to treat with UV and avoid the skunk. However there may be other detrimental effects...
Dec 2, 2015 at 16:49 comment added Eric Deloak But I have have rare spoiled batches before bottling. Some I've dumped. Some I've saved. One I'm making now may be an example. It was due to old yeast (which I didn't pay attention to). So bacteria (and/or wild yeasts) may have proliferated. Even with sanitary conditions I could not absolutely prevent them (I'd have to have made the beer in a sterile environment, which is extremely difficult, really impossible. I made it into a Belgian Dark Ale. It still may be dumped. I'm not worried about getting sick from it. I just might not like the flavor or aroma, etc.
Dec 2, 2015 at 16:44 comment added Eric Deloak You don't sterilize bottles or equipment, you sanitize them. Regardless, you don't do this to kill pathogens. It's to keep organisms you didn't intend to get in beer, to get in. But if you think you are keeping everything out, you don't know about bacteria. It's everywhere, in the air, on your clothes, in dust, everywhere. It gets in the beer. We are OK after we drink it. Spoilage of beer is much easier at the early stages, and that's where you need the best sanitation. I don't think I ever had a spoiled beer after bottling (after hundreds made).
Dec 2, 2015 at 14:06 comment added Programmer If there are no harmful bacteria in beer, then why do we sterilize the equipment/bottles at all?
Nov 28, 2015 at 17:34 history edited Eric Deloak CC BY-SA 3.0
added 295 characters in body
Nov 28, 2015 at 17:22 comment added John These organisms can be harmful to beer, not people. Lacto and pediococcus have been present in many comm. beers we've plated. The latter can create diacetyl. Pasteurization kills all organisms that can alter the beer (both yeast and bact.) This as you said is for consistency but also shelf life. These will (generally) last much longer than untreated beers. Non-sterile filtering (>0.45um) is for aesthetics. This isn't to say that all beer that aren't pasteurized or st.-filt'ed are contaminated, but rather there's a greater probability they are and will have reduced shelf life as a result
Nov 28, 2015 at 17:10 comment added Eric Deloak Not harmful bacteria. They pasteurize and filter mainly for consistency. And there are numerous examples of beers that are not pasteurized or filtered. I've harvested and cultured many yeasts from bottled beers - mainly imports. Friends who own a microbrewery filter for looks as they can't wait for settling. Look here in this forum's post homebrew.stackexchange.com/questions/6230/…
Nov 27, 2015 at 22:04 comment added John While UV is bad for beer, and will generate off-flavours, bacteria most certainly can survive in finished beer, a cursory search will provide many examples. This is a prime reason for pasteurization and or sterile filtration with commercial breweries.
Nov 26, 2015 at 18:55 history answered Eric Deloak CC BY-SA 3.0