First batch down the f'in drain...

[Valcarde]

Your stomach acid would kill most bacteria. There are very few that can actually hurt you from eating or drinking them... however the products they produce (toxins, chemicals, etc.) can hurt you. So, if you don't want to taste it, then don't.

Two things got ya here: lack of sanitizer and lack of yeast "take off". If the yeast colony had gotten going nice and good, they could have kept the bacteria in check, potentially. The beer might have had an "off" taste, but it would have been drinkable.

Sorry 'bout your beer.

I was going to make a smarmy remark about 'Botulism says hi', but after taking a moment to actually look up botulism, it's not the Clostridium botulinum (hurr, my big werd fer th'dai) that causes Botulism, but the products it makes during anaerobic conditions.

 

[Justibone]

Pathogenic bacteria like E coli, Salmonella, or others could potentially have grown there and they will give you a heck of gastroenteritis despite of your stomach acids.

Compared to the literally millions of species and subspecies of bacteria that can potentially grow in a carbohydrate rich and antibiotic-free culture, the likelihood of these particular pathogenic species taking hold is very small.

Additionally, most E. coli is actually harmless in food. Many people eat huge amounts of E. coli with their meals (b/c they don't wash their hands often enough), but unless it is capable of producing a toxin it is totally harmless.

http://www.about-ecoli.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O157:H7

Food poisoning form bacterial infections affects hundreds of people every day! We don’t want homebrews to end up on the CDC statistics, do we?

Most of the dangerous things that associate with grains would have died from the boiling (B. cereus, for example). That leaves the likely source of beer infection from boiled wort to be 1) some bug floating in the air that dropped in, or 2) a bug carried on his hands, or 3) a bug that lived in the bucket or cleanser he used.

I am NOT, NOT recommending that anyone drink infected beer, however, the LIKELIHOOD of harm resulting from doing so is very small. If harm is done, the most LIKELY explanation (as I said above) is not due to a colony establishing itself in your digestive tract, but rather from a toxin (such as shigella toxin) produced by bacteria, or from chemical byproducts (sulfites, etc).

If you get true food poisoning from a sip of infected beer, buy a lotto ticket that day, and make sure to stay inside if it starts to thunder.

FOOTNOTE: pregnant women should avoid any chance of food poisoning whatsoever, always.

 

[Justibone]

I was going to make a smarmy remark about 'Botulism says hi', but after taking a moment to actually look up botulism, it's not the Clostridium botulinum (hurr, my big werd fer th'dai) that causes Botulism, but the products it makes during anaerobic conditions.

Yes, botulism would be nasty-nasty.

Chances are small, though... and dose is important.

Still could happen.

 

[Indyking]

Compared to the literally millions of species and subspecies of bacteria that can potentially grow in a carbohydrate rich and antibiotic-free culture, the likelihood of these particular pathogenic species taking hold is very small.

Additionally, most E. coli is actually harmless in food. Many people eat huge amounts of E. coli with their meals (b/c they don't wash their hands often enough), but unless it is capable of producing a toxin it is totally harmless.

http://www.about-ecoli.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O157:H7



Most of the dangerous things that associate with grains would have died from the boiling (B. cereus, for example). That leaves the likely source of beer infection from boiled wort to be 1) some bug floating in the air that dropped in, or 2) a bug carried on his hands, or 3) a bug that lived in the bucket or cleanser he used.

I am NOT, NOT recommending that anyone drink infected beer, however, the LIKELIHOOD of harm resulting from doing so is very small. If harm is done, the most LIKELY explanation (as I said above) is not due to a colony establishing itself in your digestive tract, but rather from a toxin (such as shigella toxin) produced by bacteria, or from chemical byproducts (sulfites, etc).

If you get true food poisoning from a sip of infected beer, buy a lotto ticket that day, and make sure to stay inside if it starts to thunder.

FOOTNOTE: pregnant women should avoid any chance of food poisoning whatsoever, always.

We're going totally off-topic here, forgive me, but one cannot get bacterial toxins or other harmful products from them without having an active colony of bacteria producing them to begin with! What specifically will injury the GI tract is not the point! The point is... pathogenic bacteria can grow in contaminated wort and give you a bad enteritis, regardless of what means they use to overcomes your defenses. Just try it... trsut me, I have seen real examples of it more than once…

BTW, don’t rely on sites like wikipedia and about.com for your research… the info on them can be wrong and they have disclaimers for it!

 

[Justibone]

BTW, don’t rely on sites like wikipedia and about.com for your research… the info on them can be wrong and they have disclaimers for it!

Wikipedia was closer than my microbiology textbooks. *shrug*

If you re-read my post, I originally said he shouldn't drink it if he didn't want to.

My point is, strictly statistically speaking, infected wort is unlikely to be dangerous to imbibe. That said, I probably wouldn't drink it anyways.

 

[Indyking]

Wikipedia was closer than my microbiology textbooks. *shrug*

If you re-read my post, I originally said he shouldn't drink it if he didn't want to.

My point is, strictly statistically speaking, infected wort is unlikely to be dangerous to imbibe. That said, I probably wouldn't drink it anyways.

Fair enough... I wouldn't drink it either!

My wife is a PhD bacteriologist... I just got off the phone with her and asked what she thinks of drinking possibly contaminated wort... without a second of hesitation she answered "why don't you try it to find out" translating: not a got idea honey! Cheers...

 

[jbrookeiv]

Emailed Austin Homebrew Supply about the issue I had. I'm thinking my yeast arrived dead (even with a cold pack), and they agreed. They are sending out a replacement free of charge.

That is an AWESOME business move, and I will continue to support their company. This ****ty situation just turned out great.

 

[cheezydemon3]

ABSOLUTE WORST CASE.......

You re boil that phucker, cool it and pitch new yeast.

OR

pitch that....stuff that kills everything off in wine, wait, repitch.

That beer COULD be fine.

Oh yeah....get a turkey fryer....STATT!!!

 

[TenaciousJ]

we've got a saying back home....if it's brown drink it down. if it's black send it back


was the bucket used for anything (unrelated to brewing) before it was used as a fermentation bucket?

 

[jbrookeiv]

we've got a saying back home....if it's brown drink it down. if it's black send it back


was the bucket used for anything (unrelated to brewing) before it was used as a fermentation bucket?

Nope, bought it with a homebrewing kit.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I'm telling you, I have had brews at BOTTLING that smelled bad but were good.

NO WAY mold or anything else got that big a hold that fast.

That is probably just starting krausen.

 

[cimirie]

BTW, don’t rely on sites like wikipedia and about.com for your research… the info on them can be wrong and they have disclaimers for it!

Actually, a new extensive British study was recently released. It's findings were that Wikipedia articles were as accurate (if not more so) than Encyclopedia Brittanica. I know Brittanica isn't exactly a replacement for exhaustive texts, but for years it's accuracy is rarely - if ever - challenged. Wikipedia as become a legit source for pretty much anything these days.

 

[Tall_Yotie]

I have to say, when I first read this thread I had two thoughts-

1) Yeah, probably infected if it smells THAT bad
2) Everyone is going to say it is still good and to let it keep going

Seems to have been right! On this forum, as so many people post that they screwed up their beer when they really didn't that it is the quick reply to say that it is still good rather than botched. With a smell that bad though, I would reconsider. Sulfur? That is fine. Full case of rotting eggs and a fish with it? Nope.

Most important thing, to the original poster, is that you know what your issue was. I figure with a good sanitizer you will be fine for the next round!

Happy brewing!

 

[Indyking]

Actually, a new extensive British study was recently released. It's findings were that Wikipedia articles were as accurate (if not more so) than Encyclopedia Brittanica. I know Brittanica isn't exactly a replacement for exhaustive texts, but for years it's accuracy is rarely - if ever - challenged. Wikipedia as become a legit source for pretty much anything these days.

I do use wikipedia every once in a while. I'm just telling the facts. Basically anyone can write on wikipedia, provided references are given. Have you ever tracked down some of the references? They can be anything from nice published manuscripts in very reputable sources to notes in some unknown website. I think most of the refrences are not peer reviewed. Not that wikipedia try to fool us because the appropriate disclaimers are provided.

I'm not sure what the source of the study you're talking about was, but instead of relying on that, I prefer to just understand how it works and make my own judgment. Heck, there are books out there challenging how harmful smoking really is for human health!

 

[GoldMiner]

Taste it.

If it tastes bad , spit it out, use Listerine, then dump it.

Nobody said you had to drink it.

 

[cimirie]

disclaimers are provided.

I'm not sure what the source of the study you're talking about was, but instead of relying on that, I prefer to just understand how it works and make my own judgment. Heck, there are books out there challenging how harmful smoking really is for human health!

If you're interested, the article comes from the British journal, "Nature.". Nature is one the premiere research journals in the world. Contrary to the name, it's not really a nature journal. It's really a full service research journal.

And you're right that research often produces viewpoints that opposes the common viewpoint. My point was simply that universally, using Wikipedia as a reliable source for information is being accepted - even in the traditional very stringent academic communities. Discounting it simply because it comes from Wikipedia is just not any longer the smart choice. But as you said, check the citations.

 

[Andy_LV]

1. take a good swig of liquid courage.

2. taste it, spit it out, rinse with vodka for disinfection, then spit it out, then some more vodka, swirl and then swallow! repeat as needed until desired effect acquired.

but yea, just 3-4 days is WAY too soon for any bacteria to take a good hold in there - if might have smelled sour'ish, but nothing like that. It does look like lager yeast fermenting at high temps.

maybe you got lager yeast that ferments on bottom and produces almost no foam? and the rotten eggy smell might explain it if you have fermented at "ale" temps...

oh well.. I would still have tasted it.

 

[phatuna]

Emailed Austin Homebrew Supply about the issue I had. I'm thinking my yeast arrived dead (even with a cold pack), and they agreed. They are sending out a replacement free of charge.

That is an AWESOME business move, and I will continue to support their company. This ****ty situation just turned out great.

Jbrook, this was very nice of Austin. As mentioned before and I just want to make sure that this point gets across, your problems with this batch are 2fold:

1) sterilizing, I think you understand this
2) Liquid yeast should always be "started" prior to fermenting your wort.

Starting your yeast grows the cell count, the vial that you received from white labs or whatever has too low of a cell count to properly start fermenting quickly. check this to see how BIG of a starter you need for your gravity: http://www.mrmalty.com/calc/calc.html

search around the forums for yeast starter to figure out how to properly make them.

You also could rely on dry yeast so you don't have to go through this starting process..

 

[malkore]

I agree 100% with your 2nd paragraph, but not with the first one, sorry. The OP has essentially a bacterial culture in this bucket. Pathogenic bacteria like E coli, Salmonella, or others could potentially have grown there and they will give you a heck of gastroenteritis despite of your stomach acids. Food poisoning form bacterial infections affects hundreds of people every day! We don’t want homebrews to end up on the CDC statistics, do we?

Say it with me: there are no pathogens that exist in beer. Not E coli, not salmonella, not even botulism.

Taste it! Come on! I've drank Star-san in the name of science. I turned out fine!
:fro:

 

[phatuna]

I've drank Star-san in the name of science. I turned out fine!
:fro:

Are you sure about that?

 

[ChshreCat]

My point was simply that universally, using Wikipedia as a reliable source for information is being accepted - even in the traditional very stringent academic communities.

Sorry, I have to call BS on that one. I work at a community college and the students are taught right from the start that Wikipedia is not a valid source, don't use it. And this is a community college. You do it at a university and you'll get laughed out of class.

 

[JLem]

Say it with me: there are no pathogens that exist in beer. Not E coli, not salmonella, not even botulism.

but if it didn't ferment, it's not beer

 

[cimirie]

Sorry, I have to call BS on that one. I work at a community college and the students are taught right from the start that Wikipedia is not a valid source, don't use it. And this is a community college. You do it at a university and you'll get laughed out of class.

Two years ago, I would have said yes. I was taught that the scary internet was never an allowable source. But, with the growing popularity and extensive information to be learned on the net, most places of higher learning (and lower learning for that matter) are ever-so-slowly changing their views. I have two friends that are professors at large universities. In both locations, using Wikipedia as a source on a paper is fine - just not as the only source (which is actually a rule of thumb even when using traditional media).

As has been previously stated, just because a thought is printed in a traditional media device (ie book), doesn't neccessarily mean that the information is valid (ie smoking is actually good for you). Any kooky idea can get printed. So the emphasis on books good, internet bad isn't quite as rigid as it once was.

Your BS call was premature.

 

[Centexbear]

Two years ago, I would have said yes. I was taught that the scary internet was never an allowable source. But, with the growing popularity and extensive information to be learned on the net, most places of higher learning (and lower learning for that matter) are ever-so-slowly changing their views. I have two friends that are professors at large universities. In both locations, using Wikipedia as a source on a paper is fine - just not as the only source (which is actually a rule of thumb even when using traditional media).

As has been previously stated, just because a thought is printed in a traditional media device (ie book), doesn't neccessarily mean that the information is valid (ie smoking is actually good for you). Any kooky idea can get printed. So the emphasis on books good, internet bad isn't quite as rigid as it once was.

Your BS call was premature.

Higher learning? LOL

Academicians and research scientists aren't heading to Wikipedia for answers to unlock the world's mysteries.

Come on...

 

[Indyking]

Two years ago, I would have said yes. I was taught that the scary internet was never an allowable source. But, with the growing popularity and extensive information to be learned on the net, most places of higher learning (and lower learning for that matter) are ever-so-slowly changing their views. I have two friends that are professors at large universities. In both locations, using Wikipedia as a source on a paper is fine - just not as the only source (which is actually a rule of thumb even when using traditional media).

As has been previously stated, just because a thought is printed in a traditional media device (ie book), doesn't neccessarily mean that the information is valid (ie smoking is actually good for you). Any kooky idea can get printed. So the emphasis on books good, internet bad isn't quite as rigid as it once was.

Your BS call was premature.

Trusting on wikipedia as reliable source of information is ridiculous. I was just discussing this subject with my wife and she said that in her way to work the other day, the host of the radio morning show was complaining about wrong information about his show on wikipedia. Because of that, the host asked for listeners with similar experiences to call and turned out that a whole bunch of people called to report mistakes. Come on cimirie, what world do you live on?

 

[Indyking]

Say it with me: there are no pathogens that exist in beer. Not E coli, not salmonella, not even botulism.

Taste it! Come on! I've drank Star-san in the name of science. I turned out fine!
:fro:

Say it with me: what you posted above is pure, unmistakable, big deal BS!

My wife and I worked with Salmonella for years and I guarantee you it can grow in just about anything. Looked at reported cases of food poisoning by Salmonella in the CBC website and you will be amazed on sources of contamination!

E. coli is a bit different but it could also grow in wort. Clostridium botulinum, no!

 

[JebCkr]

Just to reiterate what everyone was saying...the smell may have been fermentation. I've had wheat beers that smelled like a big fart when fermenting.

Sorry, I have to call BS on that one. I work at a community college and the students are taught right from the start that Wikipedia is not a valid source, don't use it. And this is a community college. You do it at a university and you'll get laughed out of class.

Allthough no professor will accept wiki as a citation, it can be used to find other credible sources. As people write the articles they often times cite their info. Scroll down and find what looks like credible citations. I've actually had more than one professor recommend we do this.

 

[cimirie]

Allthough no professor will accept wiki as a citation, it can be used to find other credible sources.

All I'm saying is that some professors at major universities ARE accepting wiki citations in papers. Perhaps not the majority, but the acceptance is growing.

Come on cimirie, what world do you live on?

I don't care if you don't believe me. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make it any less true. Many university professors are accepting wiki citations. It's a discussion I had with my very good friend not too long ago who is a professor. Many "established" professors don't like the idea, but it IS becoming an acceptable practice in many (admittedly undergraduate) programs.

Academicians and research scientists aren't heading to Wikipedia for answers to unlock the world's mysteries.

Come on...

This I will 100% agree with. But college freshman aren't trying to unlock the world's mysteries either. They are simply absorbing other's info. Wikipedia is great for that.

 

[joel4482]

Yes, patience my young grasshopper

 

[Indyking]

I don't care if you don't believe me. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make it any less true. Many university professors are accepting wiki citations. It's a discussion I had with my very good friend not too long ago who is a professor. Many "established" professors don't like the idea, but it IS becoming an acceptable practice in many (admittedly undergraduate) programs..

Whatever Mr. Wikipedia... Funny, I was just reading the reviews of a book I want to buy and look what the most useful critical review brings in the title:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R70M68GEDIDM1/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R70M68GEDIDM1

No need to say anything else plus I don't want to talk about this anymore.

Let's talk about beer!

 

[buffalobrewer]

when you do place your next order, get some extra dry yeast and put it in your refrigerator in case you get a dead yeast package in the future.

 

[XXguy]

1. take a good swig of liquid courage.

2. taste it, spit it out, rinse with vodka for disinfection, then spit it out, then some more vodka, swirl and then swallow! repeat as needed until desired effect acquired.

but yea, just 3-4 days is WAY too soon for any bacteria to take a good hold in there - if might have smelled sour'ish, but nothing like that. It does look like lager yeast fermenting at high temps.

maybe you got lager yeast that ferments on bottom and produces almost no foam? and the rotten eggy smell might explain it if you have fermented at "ale" temps...

oh well.. I would still have tasted it.

Somewhere in this thread - he posts that he used White Labs Irish Ale yeast.

I definitely agree though - there's no way some mutant bacteria caught hold & got going strong in just 3-4 days from boiled wort AND his yeast was totally dead. I'm much more willing to believe that maybe his yeast was not so fresh, slightly temp damaged, and took a while to get going.

And for all the rest - tasting doesn't mean imbibing. You can swirl something around in your mouth and spit it out if it's absolutely foul. It doesn't mean you've committed to drinking 12 ounces just because you tasted it.

I'm still not believing that it's a dump case. I think his yeast just took it's sweet time getting started.

 

[Ziggybrew]

even if it was bad, bottle it anyway! Serve when visitors or in-laws begin to get annoying.

 

[Andy_LV]

Somewhere in this thread - he posts that he used White Labs Irish Ale yeast.

I knew that, its just that whole thing looks like lager going mental in room temp.

---

BTW, is there any sediment on the bottom? if its plastic bucket, you can use flashlight to shine into it - should give you enough contrast to notice.

 

[Pommy]

I have to say, when I first read this thread I had two thoughts-

1) Yeah, probably infected if it smells THAT bad
2) Everyone is going to say it is still good and to let it keep going

Seems to have been right! On this forum, as so many people post that they screwed up their beer when they really didn't that it is the quick reply to say that it is still good rather than botched. With a smell that bad though, I would reconsider. Sulfur? That is fine. Full case of rotting eggs and a fish with it? Nope.

Most important thing, to the original poster, is that you know what your issue was. I figure with a good sanitizer you will be fine for the next round!

Happy brewing!

For me the alarm bells were ringing as soon as I heard "first batch". I have faith the brew will be fine.

PLEASE DON'T DUMP IT!

 

[Indyking]

This thread has become a sensation.

To dump it or not to dump it, that is the question.

The majority agrees the OP should keep it.

I would say, if you do, then get a good protective mask to bottle it because that wort is rotting as a case of eggs sitting outside in Texas summer for 10 days!

 

[cheezydemon3]

Thanks for getting back on track. There is enough knowledge here(despite some mis-information and drunken postings) to field this one sans wiki.

If you dumped this one, you missed out.

Even if there is infection, the yeast would still ferment the stuff, and my understanding is that what is left could not kill you.


DO NOT TASTE IT, DO NOT OPEN IT FOR ANOTHER PIC, ONLY OPEN IT TO RE-
PITCH YEAST. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IT WAS PROBABLY OK BUT YOU INFECTED IT FOLLOWING ALL OF THE ADVICE IN THIS THREAD~!

 

[MikeRoBrew1]

Had to register to reply to this OP's issue. I have done only five batches so far, but in all of my batches I have used (EDIT: one-step) cleaner only, no sanitizer. My local shop assured me this is common.

I have also left my wort for several hours after placing in a bathtub with 6" of cold water.

These issues should not be your problem, imho. When in doubt, wait it out.

 

[tasq]

Had to register to reply to this OP's issue. I have done only five batches so far, but in all of my batches I have used cleaner only, no sanitizer. My local shop assured me this is common.

Sounds to me like you're using one step or something... a cleanser alone is NOT enough.

 

[cimirie]

Had to register to reply to this OP's issue. I have done only five batches so far, but in all of my batches I have used cleaner only, no sanitizer. My local shop assured me this is common.

Man, you have dodged a big ol' bullet. I know anything is possible - I myself have used equipment I forgot to sanitize. But...

Me thinks your local shop has done you a huge disservice by assuring you that that practice is common. You don't neccessarily have to use brewing sanitizer (StarSan, iodine, etc), but proper sanitation of some sort- not just cleaning - is one of the few "rules" of homebrewing.


Obviously, you use whatever method works best for you. But if you're looking for the "common" practice, it's sanitize, sanitize, sanitize!