Infection/Quality Problems: what we should know

Nothing is ever stickied in the general beer talk forums. However, site staff may entertain the suggestion to add a new heading to the site's Beer 101/Beer Education page to address infections and/or other quality issues. Currently, the only quality issue the Beer 101 page addresses are skunking, a very general discussion of freshness, and there a few quality-related definitions buried in the "Beer and Brewing Terminology" page. Keep in mind that site staff aren't looking for more work to do, so if someone thinks this would be valuable information they should volunteer to write something up [Not it! ] and get the Bros. blessing before proceeding. Obviously site staff would get the final edit. If anyone here thinks they are up for it, tag a site moderator or one of the Bros and ask them.

 

wet hops always go in at flameout in my brew house Jack.

 

Larry,

Many of the topics mentioned in this article was discussed in this prolific thread that was started by @jesskidden: http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...-craft-brewing-have-a-quality-problem.168942/

Cheers!

Jack

 

Me too out of concern that wet hops have the potential to introduce an infection if used for dry hopping.

Cheers!

 

If the brewery doesn't care then I would not buy their beer. There are plenty of other brewers who do care about quality who would appreciate our patronage.

FWIW, I've had several bad experiences with cans from a mobile can service and now I refuse to buy them. It's possible the brewer is being honest about their cans from the same batch being OK, but mobile canning can be so notoriously unpredictable for QA/QC that it doesn't really matter what their cans are like. If you were accurately describing the flavors any brewer should immediately recognize the signs of infection and not use the distributor/retailer as a scapegoat. As mentioned several times earlier in this thread, an infection starts at the brewery and the responsibility rests squarely on the brewer's shoulders. The only effect a distributor/retailer can have is refrigeration to slow down the infection.

 

Those pictures and videos of Brewers falling back into a big pile of hops are a thing of the past, as they don't know the destination of the hops and they might be used for dry hopping. Food safety has hit the hop yards.

 

This story is several years old but I figured I would share it since it is germane.

I bought a 4-pack of canned Pilsner that reeked of diacetyl. As an experienced brewer I was fairly sure what the issue was for this beer. I contacted the brewery via their website contact person. The brewery representative very strongly intimated that the issue was a distribution/storage issue. In other words it was not the brewery’s fault but a fault of the retailer or wholesale distributor. I responded with a brewing technical response and next thing you know I was exchanging e-mails with the brewery’s owner (President) who is an experienced brewer. It took a number of e-mail exchanges over a time period of weeks (month+) but eventually things were made right.

There is no doubt in my mind that the diacetyl in my Pilsner was due to rushed brewing at the contract brewery but the ‘first line of defense’ of the brewery was to deflect the issue as being a retailer/distributor problem. In other words don’t bother us with your problems, go elsewhere.

So the lessons of this story are:

1. Be persistent in dealing with the brewery with respect to a problem beer.

2. Or, just ‘write-off’ that brewery and never buy their beer again and let them know about your decision here!!

There is a saying along the lines of: a satisfied customer will tell a few friends/relatives about a good purchasing experience but a dissatisfied customer will tell something like 20 friends/relatives about an unsatisfactory purchasing experience. And for the case of social media like BeerAdvocate the number could be much, much greater than 20.

Breweries really should be responsive when they produce ‘problem’ beers and I take my hat off to Goose Island (AB) on how they are dealing with their problem beers in this instance.

Cheers!

 

Breweries that have not responded to infection inquiries in my experience:
- 3 Floyds

Breweries that HAVE responded:
- The Bruery
- In-Bev (bourbon county)

 

Three Floyds did offer refunds on one of the Rue variants. They didn't publish that info though.

 

Mikkeller Big Blend?

 

That is good to hear. A couple years back I had a $40 of BA moloko that was a gusher, and no response to me emails. At the time it was a big bummer for me, being from the west coast and all, I do not get to try their beers very often, so pretty much made me anti.

 

That is fair, you had to go to the Brewpub to return it. Not ideal or customer friendly.

 

And if you add "They didn't publish that info though" to the mix and the net result is very unfriendly to their customers.

Cheers!

 

No, it's due to the Brettanomyces in the case of Russian Stout. Had it been pasteurised, I doubt very much that it woiuld be drinkable after 20 years.

 

Any of the methods used to microbiologically stabilize beer are only effective if the incoming microbiological loading does not exceed the design criteria for the method or system being used. Most are designed to have minimal flavor impact on the product, so they necessarily require the loading to be low. As long as the system being employed is viewed by the brewer as an insurance policy to support an already clean product due to good practices upstream (i.e. effective sanitation and cleaning), then these systems are 99+% out to several decimal places effective. If, however, they are viewed as a means to clean up contaminated product, then they are certainly less effective, and stuff can slip through.

 

I know of several breweries which have released unintentionally infected beers as wild ales. But at least the flavor profile is not a surprise.

 

That would actually be a step back. When they microbiological test, they are using media specifically designed to encourage the growth of spoilage organisms without the inhibitors normally present in beer. So they will have a higher probability of finding things that forcing would not.

 

Mr. M_D_S I appreciate your input here but is there a pointed aspect you are making here?

Do you have a specific point you are making here?

Do you have a recommended suggestion on what process should be implemented?

I fully recognize that from a systematic viewpoint there are a number of differing methods/processes that could be implemented but what exactly are you suggesting here?

Cheers!

 

My point was in the context of the post to which I was responding, insofar a some methods are not absolutely effective.

As far as recommendations go, I believe brewers should focus on having thorough cleaning and sanitation programs first, utilizing a microbiological testing program sufficient to determine the effectiveness of those programs second and pursuing some means of microbiological stabilization third. Not all will have the resources to do all of those, but all of them should start with the first at a minimum.

There really is no one-size-fits all approach. A lot depends on what you're trying to protect against. If you have crappy micro control, but opt to allow your tunnel pasteurizer to fix all of your problems upstream, you may have to cook the bejesus out of it to ensure everything gets killed. This will have a larger flavor impact than running a super clean operation and doing a minimal amount of pasteurization just in case a stray bug gets through. A brewery may produce products that won't make it through a sterile filtration unit. That is the case with many craft breweries. Or a brewery may decide that marketing their products as unpasteurized is worth more from a marketing/branding perspective than the risks associated with not doing so. In all of these cases there are costs and benefits that breweries weigh, sometimes without even knowing it.

 

There is no denying that it "all depends".

Cheers!