Wild Yeasts in Draught Beer I. An Exploratory Survey

Hemmons, Lois M.

doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1954.tb02754.x

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…S. diastaticus ) which have been reported to be ‘prolific beer spoilage microorganisms’ responsible for trade returns of draught beer . However, the addition of cycloheximide does allow the growth of non‐ Saccharomyces contaminants such as Brettanomyces , Pichia , Candida and Hansenula , which have been reported in draught beer .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…S. diastaticus) which have been reported to be 'prolific beer spoilage microorganisms' responsible for trade returns of draught beer (21). However, the addition of cycloheximide does allow the growth of non-Saccharomyces contaminants (20) such as Brettanomyces, Pichia, Candida and Hansenula, which have been reported in draught beer (22)(23)(24). Analysis of cask beers, wheat and unfiltered beers from four public houses with and without the addition of cycloheximide (4 mg/L) suggested that the inclusion of the inhibitor resulted in marginally more spoilage but this was dependent on the public house.…”

Section: Suppressing the Growth Of Brewing Yeastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Draught beer hygiene: a forcing test to assess quality

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quality of draught beer is important to consumers but can be inconsistent, ranging from excellent through to unacceptable. The few, dated studies of draught beer quality have focused on the number of microorganisms that are present in the product. Work reported here suggests that this approach has its limitations and fails to relate to beer quality post‐dispense. An alternative approach using the long‐established ‘forcing’ method provides a better but still retrospective assessment of draught beer quality. Samples post dispense are ‘forced’ by static incubation at 30°C for four days and beer quality is ranked by the measurement of absorbance at 660 nm. The increase in absorbance reflects the growth of beer spoilage microorganisms present in the beer at dispense. Four quality bands are proposed, where quality is described as excellent (absorbance increase of <0.3), acceptable (0.3–0.6), poor (0.6–0.9) and unacceptable (>0.9). The method is straightforward, requires no special skills and enables, for the first time, the robust quantification of draught beer quality. It is anticipated that the method will have widespread application in the measurement and improvement of the quality of draught beer. Copyright © 2017 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Suppressing the Growth Of Brewing Yeastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Draught beer hygiene: a forcing test to assess quality

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although keg beers are ‘commercially sterile’, a typical microbiological specification (<1 cell/L) will—over time—contribute low levels of organisms to the draught beer microflora. However, a more immediate contribution to account microflora is from cask beer (Hemmons, 1954; Wiles, 1950), which contains brewing yeast (>10 3 cells/L). Indeed, S. cerevisiae was identified in four samples of cask beer (Table 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pichia species—notably Pichia membranifaciens— have long been reported in draught beer (Wiles, 1950; Hemmons, 1954; Hough et al, 1976; Harper, 1981: Casson, 1985). In this work (Table 2), P. membranifaciens was found in all four beer styles with P. manshurica only in lager (four colonies) and P. fermentans in stout (one colony).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the dominant market share in the 20th century, there have been only sporadic publications on the microbiology of draught beer (reviewed in Quain, 2015). Early studies focussed on the identification of yeasts recovered from spoilt draught cask beer (Wiles, 1950) or samples from public houses (Hemmons, 1954). Subsequent studies from the University of Birmingham (Casson, 1985; Harper, 1981; Harper et al, 1980; Hough et al, 1976) extended to the microflora of keg beer and the role of line cleaning in managing beer microbiology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification of spoilage microflora in draught beer using culture-dependent methods

Jevons

Quain

2022

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To determine whether the culture-dependent spoilage microflora found in draught beer are influenced by beer style.Methods and Results: Four beer styles-lager, ale, stout and cask ale -were sampled twice from five different public houses (accounts) in four different locations.The microbiological quality of the dispensed beers was determined by a culturedependent method ('forcing'), measuring the increase in turbidity after incubation at 30°C. The quality of draught beer varied from 'excellent' to 'poor' with cask beer samples having a higher Quality Index (90%) with keg ale the lowest (67.5%). With PCR amplified DNA (ITS1, ITS4, 16S rRNA primers) and blast identification of microflora, 386 colonies from agar plates were identified with 28 different microorganisms from five genera of yeast and six of bacteria. Seven micro-organisms were found in all beer styles with Brettanomyces bruxellensis, B. anomalus and Acetobacter fabarum representing 53% of the identified micro-organisms. A subsequent, limited study using PALL multiplex PCR GeneDisc technology on forced samples (without selection on plates) suggests that draught beer microflora is qualitatively broader. It is noteworthy that the microflora of spoilt draught beer resembles that involved in the production of Belgian Lambic sour beers.Conclusions: Draught beer was of variable quality. Culture-dependent analysis suggests that species of Brettanomyces and Acetobacter are core microflora with some micro-organisms being associated with beer style. Significance and Impact of the Study:The microbiological quality of draught beer is important both commercially and to the consumer. Here, we report the core and diverse microflora found in different styles of draught beer using culture-dependent methods. K E Y W O R D S beer spoilage, beer styles, draught beer, identification, microflora | 3729 MICROFLORA OF DRAUGHT BEER How to cite this article: Jevons, A.L. & Quain, D.E. (2022) Identification of spoilage microflora in draught beer using culture-dependent methods.

show abstract

Brewing Yeast and Fermentation

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild Yeasts in Draught Beer I. An Exploratory Survey

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Draught beer hygiene: a forcing test to assess quality

Draught beer hygiene: a forcing test to assess quality

Identification of spoilage microflora in draught beer using culture-dependent methods

Brewing Yeast and Fermentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About