Ask The Brewmasters

Hi all,

Over the last year and a half, we have experienced a significant uptick in gushing cans weeks after filling.  I'll outline as much information as I can to avoid guiding folks down the wrong track, as well as some of our avenues of exploration.

We've struggled significantly on replicating the issue in the lab.  We get consumer complaints but are unable to pull library product and experience the same issues.  After speaking with a few collogues at other breweries, I was pointed toward a publication about "Winter Gushing" which outlines an idea that beer stored at room temperature for 1-3 months, chilled, then immediately opened has a higher potential to gush, especially when the beer is stored horizontally.  Much of the article attributes this to the enzyme papain.  Unfortunately, we have not been able to produce gushing cans after replicating the storage conditions outlined in the article.  At this point, any theory is a good theory and we'd be very appreciative of the help figuring this out.

Presentation:

1. So far, this has only been found in our dry hopped brands.
2. When opened, the can foams over.  Not explosive, but steady.
3. The can continues to foam longer than expected, multiple seconds.
4. Once foaming stops, about half of the beer remains in the can.

Raw Materials:

1. There are little to no commonalities between affected brands.
2. Some are pale malt based brands, some are pilsen malt based brands.
3. There are no shared hop varietals or lots between all affected brands.
4. Brewbrite is used for our dry hopped brands only.  About a year and a half ago, our supplier transitioned us from a powdered brewbrite to a granular brewbrite.  We will be investigating usage rates for a second time as part of the effort to solve this issue.

Microbiology:

1. First thought was of course diastaticus.  However, we were able to produce a gushing can in the lab one time, and it came back clean on our PCR screens.
2. If we're able to produce another gushing can in the lab, we will be plating on general media to investigate any non-spoilage organisms that may be present and not targeted by PCR.

Packaging Conditions:

1. Cans run on a KHS filler max speed 315 cpm.
2. Ionized air purges cans prior to filling.
3. Counterpressure gas is CO2.
4. Underlid gassing is nitrogen from our nitrogen generator.
5. 12oz standard 202 cans (Ball).

Other Brainstormed Avenues of Investigation:

1. Calcium oxalate.
2. Hop creep.

Thank you all in advance for any input you may have on this.  Looking forward to hearing some theories!

Hi,

 Given it's dry hopped beers, check for hop creep. If you can look for increased ethanol, increased CO2, and/or lower residual sugars, that's where I would start.

 Just to be sure, open a few cans, carefully decant most of the liquid, if you can, filter that portion and check filter under a microscope. In the can, check for sediment, and inspect the can liner for any damage. If there is sediment, examine under a microscope for a possible ID; crystalline, micro, or skins from collapsed bubbles. 

Best of luck solving this. 

Cheers,

Kevin

Hi all,

Over the last year and a half, we have experienced a significant uptick in gushing cans weeks after filling.  I'll outline as much information as I can to avoid guiding folks down the wrong track, as well as some of our avenues of exploration.

We've struggled significantly on replicating the issue in the lab.  We get consumer complaints but are unable to pull library product and experience the same issues.  After speaking with a few collogues at other breweries, I was pointed toward a publication about "Winter Gushing" which outlines an idea that beer stored at room temperature for 1-3 months, chilled, then immediately opened has a higher potential to gush, especially when the beer is stored horizontally.  Much of the article attributes this to the enzyme papain.  Unfortunately, we have not been able to produce gushing cans after replicating the storage conditions outlined in the article.  At this point, any theory is a good theory and we'd be very appreciative of the help figuring this out.

Presentation:

1. So far, this has only been found in our dry hopped brands.
2. When opened, the can foams over.  Not explosive, but steady.
3. The can continues to foam longer than expected, multiple seconds.
4. Once foaming stops, about half of the beer remains in the can.

Raw Materials:

1. There are little to no commonalities between affected brands.
2. Some are pale malt based brands, some are pilsen malt based brands.
3. There are no shared hop varietals or lots between all affected brands.
4. Brewbrite is used for our dry hopped brands only.  About a year and a half ago, our supplier transitioned us from a powdered brewbrite to a granular brewbrite.  We will be investigating usage rates for a second time as part of the effort to solve this issue.

Microbiology:

1. First thought was of course diastaticus.  However, we were able to produce a gushing can in the lab one time, and it came back clean on our PCR screens.
2. If we're able to produce another gushing can in the lab, we will be plating on general media to investigate any non-spoilage organisms that may be present and not targeted by PCR.

Packaging Conditions:

1. Cans run on a KHS filler max speed 315 cpm.
2. Ionized air purges cans prior to filling.
3. Counterpressure gas is CO2.
4. Underlid gassing is nitrogen from our nitrogen generator.
5. 12oz standard 202 cans (Ball).

Other Brainstormed Avenues of Investigation:

1. Calcium oxalate.
2. Hop creep.

Thank you all in advance for any input you may have on this.  Looking forward to hearing some theories!

Given you mention this is exclusive to dry-hopped beers, I agree with Kevin that checking for hop creep would be a great first step and is fairly straight forward. An increase in can CO2, decrease in apparent extract, or increase in VDK would be easy indicators that hop creep has occurred. If that is in fact the issue, there are a number of good resources related to managing hop creep. If you want specific guidance, I'd be happy to share our takeaways from chasing this down. 

If that is not the issue, another thing would be to assess if you've had a change in haze or haze formation in package. I mention this as we had some gushing issues (albeit less aggressive than you mentioned) in a few brands that we could only trend with a decrease in package haze stability. The beer went through a period of significant chill haze issues that we finally tracked back to poor hotside trub formation and thus carryover into fermentation. We spent some time working on finings optimization as well as hop additions and were able to improve clarity and shortly after the gushing went away.  

We are running a very similar canning operation to you, including using generated N2 on our seamer. I'd be interested to know if that leads you down any interesting rabbit holes. I'd also be interested in connecting to share best practices with running N2. If you're able, message me to connect further. 

Cheers,
Campbell

Hi,

 Given it's dry hopped beers, check for hop creep. If you can look for increased ethanol, increased CO2, and/or lower residual sugars, that's where I would start.

 Just to be sure, open a few cans, carefully decant most of the liquid, if you can, filter that portion and check filter under a microscope. In the can, check for sediment, and inspect the can liner for any damage. If there is sediment, examine under a microscope for a possible ID; crystalline, micro, or skins from collapsed bubbles. 

Best of luck solving this. 

Cheers,

Kevin

Hi all,

Over the last year and a half, we have experienced a significant uptick in gushing cans weeks after filling.  I'll outline as much information as I can to avoid guiding folks down the wrong track, as well as some of our avenues of exploration.

We've struggled significantly on replicating the issue in the lab.  We get consumer complaints but are unable to pull library product and experience the same issues.  After speaking with a few collogues at other breweries, I was pointed toward a publication about "Winter Gushing" which outlines an idea that beer stored at room temperature for 1-3 months, chilled, then immediately opened has a higher potential to gush, especially when the beer is stored horizontally.  Much of the article attributes this to the enzyme papain.  Unfortunately, we have not been able to produce gushing cans after replicating the storage conditions outlined in the article.  At this point, any theory is a good theory and we'd be very appreciative of the help figuring this out.

Presentation:

1. So far, this has only been found in our dry hopped brands.
2. When opened, the can foams over.  Not explosive, but steady.
3. The can continues to foam longer than expected, multiple seconds.
4. Once foaming stops, about half of the beer remains in the can.

Raw Materials:

1. There are little to no commonalities between affected brands.
2. Some are pale malt based brands, some are pilsen malt based brands.
3. There are no shared hop varietals or lots between all affected brands.
4. Brewbrite is used for our dry hopped brands only.  About a year and a half ago, our supplier transitioned us from a powdered brewbrite to a granular brewbrite.  We will be investigating usage rates for a second time as part of the effort to solve this issue.

Microbiology:

1. First thought was of course diastaticus.  However, we were able to produce a gushing can in the lab one time, and it came back clean on our PCR screens.
2. If we're able to produce another gushing can in the lab, we will be plating on general media to investigate any non-spoilage organisms that may be present and not targeted by PCR.

Packaging Conditions:

1. Cans run on a KHS filler max speed 315 cpm.
2. Ionized air purges cans prior to filling.
3. Counterpressure gas is CO2.
4. Underlid gassing is nitrogen from our nitrogen generator.
5. 12oz standard 202 cans (Ball).

Other Brainstormed Avenues of Investigation:

1. Calcium oxalate.
2. Hop creep.

Thank you all in advance for any input you may have on this.  Looking forward to hearing some theories!

Hi all,

Over the last year and a half, we have experienced a significant uptick in gushing cans weeks after filling.  I'll outline as much information as I can to avoid guiding folks down the wrong track, as well as some of our avenues of exploration.

We've struggled significantly on replicating the issue in the lab.  We get consumer complaints but are unable to pull library product and experience the same issues.  After speaking with a few collogues at other breweries, I was pointed toward a publication about "Winter Gushing" which outlines an idea that beer stored at room temperature for 1-3 months, chilled, then immediately opened has a higher potential to gush, especially when the beer is stored horizontally.  Much of the article attributes this to the enzyme papain.  Unfortunately, we have not been able to produce gushing cans after replicating the storage conditions outlined in the article.  At this point, any theory is a good theory and we'd be very appreciative of the help figuring this out.

Presentation:

1. So far, this has only been found in our dry hopped brands.
2. When opened, the can foams over.  Not explosive, but steady.
3. The can continues to foam longer than expected, multiple seconds.
4. Once foaming stops, about half of the beer remains in the can.

Raw Materials:

1. There are little to no commonalities between affected brands.
2. Some are pale malt based brands, some are pilsen malt based brands.
3. There are no shared hop varietals or lots between all affected brands.
4. Brewbrite is used for our dry hopped brands only.  About a year and a half ago, our supplier transitioned us from a powdered brewbrite to a granular brewbrite.  We will be investigating usage rates for a second time as part of the effort to solve this issue.

Microbiology:

1. First thought was of course diastaticus.  However, we were able to produce a gushing can in the lab one time, and it came back clean on our PCR screens.
2. If we're able to produce another gushing can in the lab, we will be plating on general media to investigate any non-spoilage organisms that may be present and not targeted by PCR.

Packaging Conditions:

1. Cans run on a KHS filler max speed 315 cpm.
2. Ionized air purges cans prior to filling.
3. Counterpressure gas is CO2.
4. Underlid gassing is nitrogen from our nitrogen generator.
5. 12oz standard 202 cans (Ball).

Other Brainstormed Avenues of Investigation:

1. Calcium oxalate.
2. Hop creep.

Thank you all in advance for any input you may have on this.  Looking forward to hearing some theories!

Hi all,

Over the last year and a half, we have experienced a significant uptick in gushing cans weeks after filling.  I'll outline as much information as I can to avoid guiding folks down the wrong track, as well as some of our avenues of exploration.

We've struggled significantly on replicating the issue in the lab.  We get consumer complaints but are unable to pull library product and experience the same issues.  After speaking with a few collogues at other breweries, I was pointed toward a publication about "Winter Gushing" which outlines an idea that beer stored at room temperature for 1-3 months, chilled, then immediately opened has a higher potential to gush, especially when the beer is stored horizontally.  Much of the article attributes this to the enzyme papain.  Unfortunately, we have not been able to produce gushing cans after replicating the storage conditions outlined in the article.  At this point, any theory is a good theory and we'd be very appreciative of the help figuring this out.

Presentation:

1. So far, this has only been found in our dry hopped brands.
2. When opened, the can foams over.  Not explosive, but steady.
3. The can continues to foam longer than expected, multiple seconds.
4. Once foaming stops, about half of the beer remains in the can.

Raw Materials:

1. There are little to no commonalities between affected brands.
2. Some are pale malt based brands, some are pilsen malt based brands.
3. There are no shared hop varietals or lots between all affected brands.
4. Brewbrite is used for our dry hopped brands only.  About a year and a half ago, our supplier transitioned us from a powdered brewbrite to a granular brewbrite.  We will be investigating usage rates for a second time as part of the effort to solve this issue.

Microbiology:

1. First thought was of course diastaticus.  However, we were able to produce a gushing can in the lab one time, and it came back clean on our PCR screens.
2. If we're able to produce another gushing can in the lab, we will be plating on general media to investigate any non-spoilage organisms that may be present and not targeted by PCR.

Packaging Conditions:

1. Cans run on a KHS filler max speed 315 cpm.
2. Ionized air purges cans prior to filling.
3. Counterpressure gas is CO2.
4. Underlid gassing is nitrogen from our nitrogen generator.
5. 12oz standard 202 cans (Ball).

Other Brainstormed Avenues of Investigation:

1. Calcium oxalate.
2. Hop creep.

Thank you all in advance for any input you may have on this.  Looking forward to hearing some theories!

Hi all,

Over the last year and a half, we have experienced a significant uptick in gushing cans weeks after filling.  I'll outline as much information as I can to avoid guiding folks down the wrong track, as well as some of our avenues of exploration.

We've struggled significantly on replicating the issue in the lab.  We get consumer complaints but are unable to pull library product and experience the same issues.  After speaking with a few collogues at other breweries, I was pointed toward a publication about "Winter Gushing" which outlines an idea that beer stored at room temperature for 1-3 months, chilled, then immediately opened has a higher potential to gush, especially when the beer is stored horizontally.  Much of the article attributes this to the enzyme papain.  Unfortunately, we have not been able to produce gushing cans after replicating the storage conditions outlined in the article.  At this point, any theory is a good theory and we'd be very appreciative of the help figuring this out.

Presentation:

1. So far, this has only been found in our dry hopped brands.
2. When opened, the can foams over.  Not explosive, but steady.
3. The can continues to foam longer than expected, multiple seconds.
4. Once foaming stops, about half of the beer remains in the can.

Raw Materials:

1. There are little to no commonalities between affected brands.
2. Some are pale malt based brands, some are pilsen malt based brands.
3. There are no shared hop varietals or lots between all affected brands.
4. Brewbrite is used for our dry hopped brands only.  About a year and a half ago, our supplier transitioned us from a powdered brewbrite to a granular brewbrite.  We will be investigating usage rates for a second time as part of the effort to solve this issue.

Microbiology:

1. First thought was of course diastaticus.  However, we were able to produce a gushing can in the lab one time, and it came back clean on our PCR screens.
2. If we're able to produce another gushing can in the lab, we will be plating on general media to investigate any non-spoilage organisms that may be present and not targeted by PCR.

Packaging Conditions:

1. Cans run on a KHS filler max speed 315 cpm.
2. Ionized air purges cans prior to filling.
3. Counterpressure gas is CO2.
4. Underlid gassing is nitrogen from our nitrogen generator.
5. 12oz standard 202 cans (Ball).

Other Brainstormed Avenues of Investigation:

1. Calcium oxalate.
2. Hop creep.

Thank you all in advance for any input you may have on this.  Looking forward to hearing some theories!

Hi all,

Over the last year and a half, we have experienced a significant uptick in gushing cans weeks after filling.  I'll outline as much information as I can to avoid guiding folks down the wrong track, as well as some of our avenues of exploration.

We've struggled significantly on replicating the issue in the lab.  We get consumer complaints but are unable to pull library product and experience the same issues.  After speaking with a few collogues at other breweries, I was pointed toward a publication about "Winter Gushing" which outlines an idea that beer stored at room temperature for 1-3 months, chilled, then immediately opened has a higher potential to gush, especially when the beer is stored horizontally.  Much of the article attributes this to the enzyme papain.  Unfortunately, we have not been able to produce gushing cans after replicating the storage conditions outlined in the article.  At this point, any theory is a good theory and we'd be very appreciative of the help figuring this out.

Presentation:

1. So far, this has only been found in our dry hopped brands.
2. When opened, the can foams over.  Not explosive, but steady.
3. The can continues to foam longer than expected, multiple seconds.
4. Once foaming stops, about half of the beer remains in the can.

Raw Materials:

1. There are little to no commonalities between affected brands.
2. Some are pale malt based brands, some are pilsen malt based brands.
3. There are no shared hop varietals or lots between all affected brands.
4. Brewbrite is used for our dry hopped brands only.  About a year and a half ago, our supplier transitioned us from a powdered brewbrite to a granular brewbrite.  We will be investigating usage rates for a second time as part of the effort to solve this issue.

Microbiology:

1. First thought was of course diastaticus.  However, we were able to produce a gushing can in the lab one time, and it came back clean on our PCR screens.
2. If we're able to produce another gushing can in the lab, we will be plating on general media to investigate any non-spoilage organisms that may be present and not targeted by PCR.

Packaging Conditions:

1. Cans run on a KHS filler max speed 315 cpm.
2. Ionized air purges cans prior to filling.
3. Counterpressure gas is CO2.
4. Underlid gassing is nitrogen from our nitrogen generator.
5. 12oz standard 202 cans (Ball).

Other Brainstormed Avenues of Investigation:

1. Calcium oxalate.
2. Hop creep.

Thank you all in advance for any input you may have on this.  Looking forward to hearing some theories!

Hi,

you received a lot of information on the chemical side.

Myself as a microbiologist, I am guessing that you could have a low concentrated contamination with Dekkera/Brettanomyces yeasts. Did you test PCR only for diastaticus or did you test for Brett, too? Brettanomyces yeasts are very common in the environment, especially on fruit and plants, could be introduced to the beer on the hops which you are using for dry hopping. Another potential source are fruit flies which are harboring a lot of Brett yeasts in their intestines and are a common contamination source, too. A Brett contamination in packaged beer is typically starting in the warmer months of spring and summer, but can take 3-6 months without any hint of irregularities in the packaged products until suddenly over pressure appears. Therefore, the complaints from customers typically appear from mid summer to late autumn.

I'd advise to test for Brettanomyces yeasts, you can even check the hops before you use it for dry hopping.

Feel free to contact me direct if you want to discuss this issue any further,

Gudrun

------------------------------
Gudrun Vogeser
Founder & Owner
PIKA Weihenstephan
Pfaffenhofen, Bavaria
+49 8441 8794830

Original Message:
Sent: 06-17-2024 19:17
From: Anonymous Member
Subject: Gushing Cans - Dry Hopped Brands Only

This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous

Hi all,

Over the last year and a half, we have experienced a significant uptick in gushing cans weeks after filling.  I'll outline as much information as I can to avoid guiding folks down the wrong track, as well as some of our avenues of exploration.

We've struggled significantly on replicating the issue in the lab.  We get consumer complaints but are unable to pull library product and experience the same issues.  After speaking with a few collogues at other breweries, I was pointed toward a publication about "Winter Gushing" which outlines an idea that beer stored at room temperature for 1-3 months, chilled, then immediately opened has a higher potential to gush, especially when the beer is stored horizontally.  Much of the article attributes this to the enzyme papain.  Unfortunately, we have not been able to produce gushing cans after replicating the storage conditions outlined in the article.  At this point, any theory is a good theory and we'd be very appreciative of the help figuring this out.

Presentation:

1. So far, this has only been found in our dry hopped brands.
2. When opened, the can foams over.  Not explosive, but steady.
3. The can continues to foam longer than expected, multiple seconds.
4. Once foaming stops, about half of the beer remains in the can.

Raw Materials:

1. There are little to no commonalities between affected brands.
2. Some are pale malt based brands, some are pilsen malt based brands.
3. There are no shared hop varietals or lots between all affected brands.
4. Brewbrite is used for our dry hopped brands only.  About a year and a half ago, our supplier transitioned us from a powdered brewbrite to a granular brewbrite.  We will be investigating usage rates for a second time as part of the effort to solve this issue.

Microbiology:

1. First thought was of course diastaticus.  However, we were able to produce a gushing can in the lab one time, and it came back clean on our PCR screens.
2. If we're able to produce another gushing can in the lab, we will be plating on general media to investigate any non-spoilage organisms that may be present and not targeted by PCR.

Packaging Conditions:

1. Cans run on a KHS filler max speed 315 cpm.
2. Ionized air purges cans prior to filling.
3. Counterpressure gas is CO2.
4. Underlid gassing is nitrogen from our nitrogen generator.
5. 12oz standard 202 cans (Ball).

Other Brainstormed Avenues of Investigation:

1. Calcium oxalate.
2. Hop creep.

Thank you all in advance for any input you may have on this.  Looking forward to hearing some theories!