PH Level of Star San

[Binkie Huckaback]

There was very little water used making the ethanol. Ethanol is an effective way of keeping your bottles vessels, hoses, tools & implements clean & safe.

If you fancy a roadtrip, you can come and audit for yourself. My empty bottles (& kegs) are sealed with a splash in each. You can dip them and test the %alc will be between 40 & 50%. As you can my 50/200 & 300 litre stainless tanks.

I have a colleague who is a trusted source, who has made a career and accrued a significant amount of air miles (remember them ) speeding up spirit bottling lines in spirit plants. It was his off the cuff comment years ago that started it.

He is reasonably local too, so I may be able to organise a meeting. My brewing records are also available for examination but they don't mention that I have been doing since 2006 - a significant field trial. They do show it has suffered no failures.

I have never had to dump a batch or a bottle.

Like I've said. There is no one way.

You've avoided the request, so maybe you could answer these questions:

1. Do you use vodka or ethanol as a sanitiser? Please don't say ethanol if you mean the ethanol vodka contains.
2. If ethanol, at what percentage? 70%? 100%? Something else?
3. Who is your colleague, and can you please cite publications his work proving vodka is an effective sanitiser has been published in.

I have no interest in your records or heresay unless they have been published in a respected journal and peer reviewed.

[MashBag]

Actively ignoring.

@Carrot The bunker is quite cosy isn't it.

[guypettigrew]

This paper makes a significant point in that alcohol controls microbiological activity during fermentation - effectively stalling fermentation at high alcohol content (14-17%). Yeasts will tolerate a higher alcohol content but rarely greater than 17%.

Does this mean 17+% alcohol kills yeasts or just sends them to sleep? Bit muddled here! If the yeast goes dormant won't it just wake up again when introduced to a nice sugary solution?

Guy

[Binkie Huckaback]

Actively ignoring.

@Carrot The bunker is quite cosy isn't it.

I think the realisation has just dawned that you can in no way back up your argument and have painted yourself into a corner.

[Binkie Huckaback]

This paper makes a significant point in that alcohol controls microbiological activity during fermentation - effectively stalling fermentation at high alcohol content (14-17%). Yeasts will tolerate a higher alcohol content but rarely greater than 17%.

Does this mean 17+% alcohol kills yeasts or just sends them to sleep? Bit muddled here! If the yeast goes dormant won't it just wake up again when introduced to a nice sugary solution?

Guy

I'd imagine pasteurisation keeps it safe in an unopened bottle, but once opened the alcohol slows down any growth and the advice on the label to refrigerate once open slows the growth further.

If it the level of alcohol kept liqueurs such as Advocaat (for which I have recipe for a great Christmas cocktail if you're interested) drinkable forever, there would be no need for a use by date and/or refrigeration. Bailey's is a little different though, as they apparently use a patented process to keep it fresh between 0°c and 25°c for two years. I doubt very much whether the patent application mentioned 'vodka'.

[MashBag]

Actively ignoring.

@Carrot The bunker is quite cosy isn't it.

I think the realisation has just dawned that you can in no way back up your argument and have painted yourself into a corner.

So predictable. Thank you

[MashBag]

This paper makes a significant point in that alcohol controls microbiological activity during fermentation - effectively stalling fermentation at high alcohol content (14-17%). Yeasts will tolerate a higher alcohol content but rarely greater than 17%.

Does this mean 17+% alcohol kills yeasts or just sends them to sleep? Bit muddled here! If the yeast goes dormant won't it just wake up again when introduced to a nice sugary solution?

Guy

Spot on it is suppression.

[Binkie Huckaback]

Actively ignoring.

@Carrot The bunker is quite cosy isn't it.

I think the realisation has just dawned that you can in no way back up your argument and have painted yourself into a corner.

So predictable. Thank you

Well due to your refusal to answer any questions or provide any credible evidence, it's the only conclusion to draw, isn't it?

[Binkie Huckaback]

This paper makes a significant point in that alcohol controls microbiological activity during fermentation - effectively stalling fermentation at high alcohol content (14-17%). Yeasts will tolerate a higher alcohol content but rarely greater than 17%.

Does this mean 17+% alcohol kills yeasts or just sends them to sleep? Bit muddled here! If the yeast goes dormant won't it just wake up again when introduced to a nice sugary solution?

Guy

Spot on it is suppression.

Exactly! Alcohol at low levels (invluding vodka) will SUPPRESS yeast growth, not kill it. If MashBag wants simply to suppress anything nasty, that's fine, but I think I and many others will be happier killing it all with sanitiser.

[Binkie Huckaback]

Ome final question MashBag; what did yoh colleague actually tell you? That he was using vodka as a sanitiser in the bottling plant of a vodka distillery? If so, did you not ask him why, when vodka is such a great sanitiser? Surely he'd be slowing the line down by bothering to 'sanitise'.

[Carnot]

Time to don the tin hat and peer above trench.

Boy oh boy McM has got a head of steam today and is going for it big time. Getting very personal. I never made any claims with respect to the scientific publication that I refrered to. It was merely one of many papers on the subject and made some rather valid observations, which in the main were nothing new. The stalling of yeast activity at high alcohol concentrations during fermentation is hardly new. Mashbag described it better than I as suppression- thank you. I think suppression of activity is probably a better definition. The paper also confirmed that 70% ethanol appears to be the optimum concentration as a sanitiser. Again this is nothing new and is repeated in many publications and sources that are easy to find. Ethanol is also used in preparations and some foodstuffs as a preservative. As a further example I have never witnessed any infection in a fortified drink like sherry (ghastly stuff). It is reasonable to assume therefore that ethanol does have some preservation properties, that probably improve with increased ethanol concentration , when above 18% ethanol. I make no claims on this effect, relying purely on observatons that are difficult to refute.

In a a sealed container the air space will contain ethanol vapours, which will be temperature dependent - there will be a partial pressure that is dependent on concentration and temperature . Over time the loss of these vapours might lead to the product spoling due to the loss of ethanol.

Now moving along. In my current role I read a lot. I read many scientific papers that are pure bunkum and I read studies from purveyors of such material that are worth less than the paper that they a written upon. I am also rather good at finding flaws in the arguments of so called management consultants. I am still working after 43 years in the business because first and foremost I like to keep my mind alive and secondly because my employer, more later, is more than happy to retain my services.

I am not afraid of disclosing my qualifications or my employment. I am a chemist and I have the certificates to prove it and I learned my undergraduate chemistry at King's College London. For some time I have been working for a large chemical company, where I am employed as a feedstock specialist due to my knowledge of the oil production, refining and petrochemical businesses. Even you McM will have used a product today that will contain something that my employer has made. Does that not make you feel sick- tee hee.

I know rather more than you will ever know on polymers (plastics), elastomers and petrochemicals, and that our society would grind to a shuddering halt if they were not available, including mass starvation . That is not being smug - it is the reality. You are only able to post your bile on this forum because of the petrochemical industry. Sure we have work to do but my friends and colleagues in the business are definitely not evil. The true evil companies on this planet, in my opinion, are those with acronym AFGM.

So the challenge now is for you to disclose what your qualifications are, if you have any- as I have done. Or are you , as I suspect a non graduate lab technician that knows a more than a fair amount about microbiology (and yeasts) from years of lab work. You very much come across as the latter with huge chip on your shoulder.

Toodle pip- I will retire to my bunker, and yes Mash bag it is cosy and there is still some space left.

[McMullan]

Clearly, you’re central to the existence of something very very important, @Carrot chemist Perhaps even the fabric of the universe itself. At least in your little narcissistic mind, aye? So what you’re trying to palm off here then is that without you and the profiteering industry you toe the line for, we’d all die? Really? I’m almost dying from laughter here. You made me spill my morning tea So how come most of my ancestors (and everyone else’s) clearly managed just fine without you and your chemicals? According to your biased beliefs none of us should be alive! I hope you can see how you exposed yourself there. A common flaw with your kind.

I know rather more than you will ever know on polymers (plastics), elastomers and petrochemicals, and that our society would grind to a shuddering halt if they were not available, including mass starvation. That is not being smug - it is the reality.

I think most people probably know a lot more than me about petrochemicals. As a biologist I’ve always been more interested in protecting living things, not killing them. Except for unwanted bugs in my FVs, of course. As for the rest, I don’t think so, @Carrot chemist. How melodramatic! Society would just move on with or without alternatives, regardless of your delusional self importance. You don’t even know how the real world actually works. At least I hope so. Otherwise you’d be a psychopath willing to sacrifice life, including humanity, profiteering at any cost. And to imagine some worry about the Taliban. Your lot have prescribed infinitely more harm to humanity. Deeply ironic to think major crop failures are becoming increasingly more likely due to climate heating and your biocides promoting a kind of genocide against pollinators. Both crimes against humanity. Ecocide. Both promoted by the industry you toe the line for. And here you are insisting your kind are preventing starvation? Seriously? Who do you think you’re kidding? Just like there’s no energy crisis there’s no food crisis. Just crises in distribution promoted by those profiteering from manipulating supply and demand.

It’s not important what qualifications I have, certainly not to me. I’m not that insecure, to be honest. But let’s not forget that it was your questionable advice (as a chemist) and apparent lack of awareness of its potential ecological impacts that made me hazard a guess what kind of industry you might toe a line for. I wasn’t too far from the truth, was I? I knew there had to be a simple explanation for your careless world view. Old school arrogance, oblivious to its consequences, wallowing in denial and self. All very predictable, in reality. The personality and it’s miserable world view, that is. Don’t ever imagine you could ever teach me anything of any value. I have no use for your kind

[MashBag]

Penultimate sentence speaks volumes.

[f00b4r]

You all need to keep this on topic. Further deliberate provocations and/or personal attacks will result in either further temporary or permanent bans, there are a few of you very close to it.

[McMullan]

[youtube]ouNrpm0zRWg[/youtube]