From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: esters, banana
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:22:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug13.202222.5352
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:

>tinsethg@ucs.orst.edu (Glenn Tinseth) writes:
>: >HOW MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE HAVE HAD EXPERIENCED THAT TURNED OUT TO BE
>: >CONTAMINATED WYEAST?
>: 
>: Er, Jack, how do you suppose the unwashed masses of homebrewing, myself
>: included, are going to pin down the source of a brewing infection. I can just
>: hear it: "Yeah I used that stuff once, and that beer was *really* bad." Is
>: this the yeast's fault? Just how do you collect data, Jack? By consensus? A
>: vote in committee? Stay out of my lab, thank you. Also this study, as Jeff
>: said, has already been done in the _zymurgy_ special yeast issue. If you
>: haven't already done so please read this study.
> 
>I believe I was responding to the contention that Wyeast has never had a

>Neither the study by Zymurgy nor your not being able to nail down the cause
>eliminates the yeast as a possibility.

>If one can be so sure the cause was not the yeast, I presume he could also
>know that it was, if indeed it was.

>js

I know I shouldn't involve myself in this discussion, but... faint heart
never won fine homebrew, I allus say.

Imprimis: no one ever contended that "Wyeast has never had a
contaminated batch" -- but I in fact responded to your comment that
"contrary to public opinion contaminated Wyeast supplies are not
uncommon".  These, as anyone can see, are very different statements.  I
asked you to please supply some data to substantiate your statement.  

Secundus: As Glenn Tinseth is pointing out, it's in fact very difficult
to isolate the point of contamination, and blaming it on your yeast
supply is the easy way out.  It won't resolve the problem if it isn't
the real source of contamination.  One of the Brewers' Publication
volumes has an excellent article by George Fix outlining a system of
narrowing down the search in your brewery to determine the actuall
source of a contamination problem.

But, in fact, the only way to know for sure that the yeast supply _is_
the problem is to find contamination in the original supply while
assuring that the very process of examination hasn't contaminated it.

Very few homebrewers are in a position to do this.

Over the last few years, the homebrewing community has put a lot of
stress on adequate sanitation -- it's accepted as the basic skill needed
to assure decent beer.  Therefore, when someone screws up, the tendency
is to feel so stupid about it that one flails around looking for someone
else to blame.  But the odds are that -- in most cases involving a
reliable source of yeast -- the blame sits squarely on the homebrewer,
and it's in the homebrewer's best interest to find out where the real
source of contamination is -- the chink in the armor.

I am pleased about one thing in this discussion, Jack.  When we first
started out, back last fall, arguing about the relative virtues of
yeast, you were adamant that liquid yeast was no better than dry.  Nice
to know you've come around. :-)

--Jeff Frane


-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) 
"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                    --Thomas Jefferson