Bugger

[drsmurto]

Wouldn't the H2O2 fizzing off the Napisan be a sanitiser at a high enough conc?

H2O2 reacts with just about everything, including metal ions in the solution. So to actually sanitise it would need to be in a very concentrated solution to overcome all the side reactions. At that point, even with pure sodium percabonate, you would need to rinse and rinse very well to remove all the byproducts/sodium carbonate leftover and that is without even considering what the effects of such a high concentration would have on the material you are trying to sanitise.

So maybe you could sanitise with it but i doubt many people, if any, would use it in high enough concentrations - not too mention the high dose rate would make it an expensive sanitiser that would require a lot of rinsing relative to the cheap no rinse sanitisers on the market.

 

[Mr Flocky]

For what it's worth, I cleaned with hot (but not boiling) water and Neo Pink powder (which I now see claims to be washing and sterilizing powder). Just didn't finish the job with Starsan.

I popped the lid on one of them today for dry hopping purposes, and it looks and smells fine, and the others seem to be emitting no off odours so I'm thinking I got away with it. But I'm not gonna tempt fate again - I can't imagine how little fun pouring 69 litres of beer down the drain would be.

 

[wyane]

Sodium percarbonate is a cleaner. For those advocating its sanitising qualities, please provide some evidence for its efficacy.

Hows me setting my 45th brew of the year today (somehow fell a week behind) "sanitising" with sodium percarbonate?
Half-arsed sage advice, yes, but the tea-leaves and goat intestines say it should work!

 

[drsmurto]

Hows me setting my 45th brew of the year today (somehow fell a week behind) "sanitising" with sodium percarbonate?
Half-arsed sage advice, yes, but the tea-leaves and goat intestines say it should work!

Apologies, i should have made it clear i was after evidence not of the anecdotal variety. A subtle but important difference.

 

[wyane]

Apologies, i should have made it clear i was after evidence not of the anecdotal variety. A subtle but important difference.

Apologies here too. Here I was thinking this was an online forum when it's obviously a highly influential peer-reviewed scientific journal. Subtlety is a spectrum ranging from sledgehammers to what-even-am-i-saying.

 

[drsmurto]

Apologies here too. Here I was thinking this was an online forum when it's obviously a highly influential peer-reviewed scientific journal. Subtlety is a spectrum ranging from sledgehammers to what-even-am-i-saying.

Head stuck in the sand?

People advocating half arsed approaches to sanitation are not useful for the new brewer/forum member who sees people reporting 'I don't sanitise and I've never had an infection in decades' and may take that as some form of ok to follow said half arsed approach. It's not. You have been lucky and that assumes you have the knowledge to know what the various infections taste like. I'm being generous and nice.

Sanitation is critical to brewing and should be the first thing people try to get right. Your approach is lazy and risky and it should be pointed out for those two elements.

 

[GalBrew]

I for one would prefer an evidence based answer, rather than the musings of various kit brewers......

 

[hoppy2B]

What about dry hopping with unsanitised hops? Now that's what I call half arsed. :lol:

 

[Juzdu]

On the other hand, you know what you also never see? Anyone posting messages saying "I only ever used a rigorous process of cleaning with hot water and sodium perc, then all of a sudden one day I got a horrible case of infected beer". Having to prove that his regime works, lucky or not, should be no different to someone posting that it doesn't.

I'm new, and am not challenging anyone's cleaning/sanitising regime...but one thing i've noticed is the huge amount of "but i've always done it this way" posts on home brew forums. Very few people ever seem to know why. In the few weeks I spent researching how to make my own beer before trying my first batch, I got so wound up about kit yeast being useless, nobody can make a tasty home brew with K&K, carb drops are a poor way to bottle prime.....in the end I thought stuff this, i'm gonna start at the very beginning. Made a K&K wheat beer with kit yeast and it tastes fine. I was ready to have one sip and throw the thing out due to "that home brew taste" that everyone threatened my beer would have.

Admittedly, i followed the instructions carefully in using stericlean to clean my FV and equipment, I watched my fermentation temps and checked my hydrometer readings regularly, all thanks to info I gained from forums. But there's a lot of "my way is the only way" stuff on these forums that just simply isn't true.

Anyway, I digress...BUT...if anyone's followed a similar cleaning routine to wyane, and STILL had beer infected during fermentation, i'd love to hear it. In the mean time, with 45 successful brews, I say more power to him.

 

[bignath]

Here I was thinking this was an online forum when it's obviously a highly influential peer-reviewed scientific journal.

It's both.

Yes it's a forum, but isn't the whole point of a forum to be a place where people can come and ask questions, increase knowledge, gather opinions, and learn from others?

There's a time and place to listen to what people say on forum's, and knowing who to listen to and who not to is useful. When certain people chime in on threads, they should be listened to. There are heaps of "those" people on here, and Dr. Smurto is one of them.

I'd listen to what he says. Just because you may have gotten away with something so far, doesn't mean it's the best practise for brewing, and when less experienced brewers come along looking for the same kinds of answers (and this sanitation/sterilisation issue comes up REGULARLY) and they read advice that's not in the best interests, then they'll take that as gospel.

then they will pass it on to other brewers as they get the courage up to leave an opinion on a forum, the cycle continues.

I often wonder what will become of this forum if it wasn't for the good work that experienced, dedicated brewers contribute, and what happens if they get pissed off with an increasing rate of incorrect info and leave. Then who will spread all the correct info?

There are risks in almost everything we do as brewers, and we have choices at every stage of the brewing process that can either be a good idea of a bad idea. Knowing when it's possible to cut corners and when it isn't is all fine and dandy, but that takes experience to decide, and once stuff is posted on the internet it stays out there for everyone to read, experienced or not.

 

[bignath]

What about dry hopping with unsanitised hops? Now that's what I call half arsed. :lol:

 

[drsmurto]

On the other hand, you know what you also never see? Anyone posting messages saying "I only ever used a rigorous process of cleaning with hot water and sodium perc, then all of a sudden one day I got a horrible case of infected beer". Having to prove that his regime works, lucky or not, should be no different to someone posting that it doesn't.

I'm new, and am not challenging anyone's cleaning/sanitising regime...but one thing i've noticed is the huge amount of "but i've always done it this way" posts on home brew forums. Very few people ever seem to know why. In the few weeks I spent researching how to make my own beer before trying my first batch, I got so wound up about kit yeast being useless, nobody can make a tasty home brew with K&K, carb drops are a poor way to bottle prime.....in the end I thought stuff this, i'm gonna start at the very beginning. Made a K&K wheat beer with kit yeast and it tastes fine. I was ready to have one sip and throw the thing out due to "that home brew taste" that everyone threatened my beer would have.

Admittedly, i followed the instructions carefully in using stericlean to clean my FV and equipment, I watched my fermentation temps and checked my hydrometer readings regularly, all thanks to info I gained from forums. But there's a lot of "my way is the only way" stuff on these forums that just simply isn't true.

Anyway, I digress...BUT...if anyone's followed a similar cleaning routine to wyane, and STILL had beer infected during fermentation, i'd love to hear it. In the mean time, with 45 successful brews, I say more power to him.

It's not my job to disprove the negative. That 'logic' is used by religous people - prove my invisible cloud dwelling being doesn't exist. You can't? Well then, he must exist.

Not sanitising is not clever nor should it be encouraged. Not, apparently, getting an infection from not sanitising is not evidence that not sanitising is effective. The word you are looking for is luck.

A thorough sanitation regime is the very first step to brewing good beer and is something overlooked by so many. It's not hard, nor is it costly. The same rules apply to 1st time kit brewers and career professional brewers alike.

 

[wyane]

All good and thanks for staying nice - really feeling the love

Others have done long dissertations on the wisdom of forums versus scientific publications. On the internet no-one knows you're a dog and all that. I like this forum and have gained some great tips here, have seen some far-out suggestions too (sanitising hops for dry-hopping!? hehheh!). I think most of us are wise enough to take any assertions from half-arsed kit brewers like meself with a grain of sodium chloride.

I'll keep playing Russian Roulette with this pistol that holds 45 (and counting) in the chamber. It's approaching midday so I'm gonna put a couple of bottles of anecdotal evidence in the fridge. Cheers and happy brewing!

 

[Nick JD]

A super-clean fermenter that's been well soaked in napisan and rinsed throughly with cold tap water is a lot more sanitised than a badly-cleaned fermenter that's had some Starsan sloshed about in it.

 

[Juzdu]

It's not my job to disprove the negative. That 'logic' is used by religous people - prove my invisible cloud dwelling being doesn't exist. You can't? Well then, he must exist.

Actually doc (and I can't believe I'm arguing a point here with you as you're kinda the closest thing i'll ever have to a god...if I may borrow your religious comparison), i'm asking you (or others) to prove the negative, not disprove it.

I want proof from someone that they've used a method similar to wyane and failed. He's provided proof that his method works (in 45 out of 45 cases at least, an impressive strike rate), you've provided proof that your method works (probably in a hell of a lot more than 45 cases), and you've even won awards using it. Up until now the proof from both of you is factual, not anecdotal.

If we could get factual info from anyone using non-sterilisation methods of cleaning that have failed, it'd pretty much wrap it up. If we don't get those facts, then it doesn't mean everyone should stop sterilising, it's obviously the safest way to run a clean shop. But it just might show us all that it's the uber way to clean stuff, and if you want to take a riskier approach then that's up to you.

And to BigNath's point, if anyone reads a 'no sterilise' method on this forum and takes it as gospel, they kinda deserve to get an infected beer, no? And what's the worst that happens? They learn from their mistakes....and it cost them a batch of beer. They come on here and say "Geez I saw that mug wyane post that i didn't need to sterilise, and my beer tastes like *****". And the sterilisers of this world can curse them for not doing proper research....and we all move on.

 

[gravey]

Actually doc (and I can't believe I'm arguing a point here with you as you're kinda the closest thing i'll ever have to a god...if I may borrow your religious comparison), i'm asking you (or others) to prove the negative, not disprove it.

I want proof from someone that they've used a method similar to wyane and failed. He's provided proof that his method works (in 45 out of 45 cases at least, an impressive strike rate), you've provided proof that your method works (probably in a hell of a lot more than 45 cases), and you've even won awards using it. Up until now the proof from both of you is factual, not anecdotal.

If we could get factual info from anyone using non-sterilisation methods of cleaning that have failed, it'd pretty much wrap it up. If we don't get those facts, then it doesn't mean everyone should stop sterilising, it's obviously the safest way to run a clean shop. But it just might show us all that it's the uber way to clean stuff, and if you want to take a riskier approach then that's up to you.

And to BigNath's point, if anyone reads a 'no sterilise' method on this forum and takes it as gospel, they kinda deserve to get an infected beer, no? And what's the worst that happens? They learn from their mistakes....and it cost them a batch of beer. They come on here and say "Geez I saw that mug wyane post that i didn't need to sterilise, and my beer tastes like *****". And the sterilisers of this world can curse them for not doing proper research....and we all move on.

I used the exact same method for about a year of homebrewing. roughly 20 batches. Then I got an infection. Now I sterilise with phos acid. Have I had an infection since?(another year, another 20 or so batches) The answer would be no. Anecdotal evidence, but I'm pretty sure the effects of sanitiser has been well proven.

Why NOT do it, this is what I dont understand? Clean you fermenter, and let the sanitiser do its thing while you brew.....it's not hard, its not expensive, its not time consuming, so why are people so willing to take the risk?

 

[wyane]

A super-clean fermenter that's been well soaked in napisan and rinsed throughly with cold tap water is a lot more sanitised than a badly-cleaned fermenter that's had some Starsan sloshed about in it.

Seems so. Palmer says, "In my opinion, percarbonate-based cleaners are the best choice for equipment cleaning".
So cleanliness is next to godliness but the beer triangle says "sanitation". Germs are bad, ask anyone who spent time in a hospital in the 18th Century. And surfactants aren't sanitisers. And I've tried numerous times to tell the wife that hot water from the tap doesn't kill germs.

I rinse all my gear after use making sure there are no visible deposits. Store it sealed and the FVs are empty for all of a day or two between uses so no chance of spots turning into little penicillin experiments.
Bottles (plastic, clear. I am obviously a heathen) are rinsed capped after use and stored in a cool dark place.

More heathen points: I don't even own a bottle brush (abrasives + plastic = scouring which is great for creating little pockets for grime to sit). Rinse after use, store clean, soak in warm solution of sodium percarbonate for 30mins then rinse and fill.

OK so how's this: we laff at sanitising hops for dry-hopping. Then Palmer says we should boil sugar for bulk priming. We need to do some experiments. B)

Edit: and why is is called Napisan anyway? What's the number for Choice magazine?

 

[drsmurto]

Actually doc (and I can't believe I'm arguing a point here with you as you're kinda the closest thing i'll ever have to a god...if I may borrow your religious comparison), i'm asking you (or others) to prove the negative, not disprove it.

I want proof from someone that they've used a method similar to wyane and failed. He's provided proof that his method works (in 45 out of 45 cases at least, an impressive strike rate), you've provided proof that your method works (probably in a hell of a lot more than 45 cases), and you've even won awards using it. Up until now the proof from both of you is factual, not anecdotal.

If we could get factual info from anyone using non-sterilisation methods of cleaning that have failed, it'd pretty much wrap it up. If we don't get those facts, then it doesn't mean everyone should stop sterilising, it's obviously the safest way to run a clean shop. But it just might show us all that it's the uber way to clean stuff, and if you want to take a riskier approach then that's up to you.

And to BigNath's point, if anyone reads a 'no sterilise' method on this forum and takes it as gospel, they kinda deserve to get an infected beer, no? And what's the worst that happens? They learn from their mistakes....and it cost them a batch of beer. They come on here and say "Geez I saw that mug wyane post that i didn't need to sterilise, and my beer tastes like *****". And the sterilisers of this world can curse them for not doing proper research....and we all move on.

Proof that wyane has the ability to identify the taste of the various infections he risks by not sanitising would be a useful starting point.

45 out of 45 is statistically impressive but it doesn't alter the fact that he is not sanitising.

Sanitising and sterilising are two very different things. We aren't being sterile when we sanitise, far from it.

Whats the worst that can happen from not sanitising? Bottle bombs. Fragments of glass moving at significant speed. Personally, not something i am keen to experience but then i am not a fan of russian roulette or gambling in general.

There are vast numbers of strains of yeast and bacteria floating around in the air, living on various plants, in your hair, in your mouth, in your gut, that are more than happy to live/thrive/multiply in wort/beer. They have all evolved to utilise suagrs and the various products derived from the metabolism of sugars and other molecules in high sugar environments . Sanitising is reducing the risk that these organisms don't take hold. If you leave wort without pitching any yeast something will 'ferment' your wort, that is a given. By sanitising we reduce the numbers of these species allowing the yeast we pitch to thrive and outcompete other species.

Again, i will make the point that my posts are simply to ensure that misinformation is not bandied about. I don't subscribe to the notion that 'someone who reads about people not sanitising and not getting an infection deserve to drink infected beer'. The forum is for fellow brewers to share our experiences and help each other.

Propagating myths that not sanitising is ok is not helpful. Basic, common sense tells you that not sanitising is risky. If you choose to take the risk, that is your choice, but don't expect me to sit back and watch while people regurgitate their risk taking experiences as gospel.

If my posts get through to a few people and convince them to at least think about their sanitation regime then my time typing these posts has been worthwhile.

 

[Dunkelbrau]

Proof that wyane has the ability to identify the taste of the various infections he risks by not sanitising would be a useful starting point.

45 out of 45 is statistically impressive but it doesn't alter the fact that he is not sanitising.

Sanitising and sterilising are two very different things. We aren't being sterile when we sanitise, far from it.

Whats the worst that can happen from not sanitising? Bottle bombs. Fragments of glass moving at significant speed. Personally, not something i am keen to experience but then i am not a fan of russian roulette or gambling in general.

There are vast numbers of strains of yeast and bacteria floating around in the air, living on various plants, in your hair, in your mouth, in your gut, that are more than happy to live/thrive/multiply in wort/beer. They have all evolved to utilise suagrs and the various products derived from the metabolism of sugars and other molecules in high sugar environments . Sanitising is reducing the risk that these organisms don't take hold. If you leave wort without pitching any yeast something will 'ferment' your wort, that is a given. By sanitising we reduce the numbers of these species allowing the yeast we pitch to thrive and outcompete other species.

Again, i will make the point that my posts are simply to ensure that misinformation is not bandied about. I don't subscribe to the notion that 'someone who reads about people not sanitising and not getting an infection deserve to drink infected beer'. The forum is for fellow brewers to share our experiences and help each other.

Propagating myths that not sanitising is ok is not helpful. Basic, common sense tells you that not sanitising is risky. If you choose to take the risk, that is your choice, but don't expect me to sit back and watch while people regurgitate their risk taking experiences as gospel.

If my posts get through to a few people and convince them to at least think about their sanitation regime then my time typing these posts has been worthwhile.

I 100% agree. Sanitation and cleaning is VERY important. Great post above!
A bloke at work told me he never sanitises.. Offered to bring in and swap some brews, I don't even want to try it.. He ferments at high temps, rinses and brews again. I couldn't do it.
In the time it takes me to get my kits going with my hop additions (boiling with DME) my gear is all sanitised. No extra effort!

 

[wyane]

Just for the record it's 44 out of 45. One batch had a slight aroma of ethyl acetate on the trub after bottling.
Prior to using sodium-percarbonate I was using a bleach solution (250mL in 25L).
mhb put me onto the sodium-percarbonate (not via this forum, in his shop). As bleach breaks down some chemicals can leech into plastic and transfer some unwanted flavours into your beer.

I can't seem to see how I advocated for not sanitising. Just added comments based on my experience. As for taking advice from mugs, isn't that what the internet was made for?
I like my hit rate and final product, so will keep slowly refining the process.

And Doc, keep doing what you're doing. Great advice and well dispensed. I'm not here to propagate myths but if there was One True Way to brew, then this whole thing would be redundant and we could argue about economic theory or other exciting stuff like that. Methods and mileage will vary. That's one reason why I find brewing so enjoyable.