Ask The Brewmasters

Hoping someone with a better memory than me who can point me in the right direct.  I have a vague recollection of reading a paper by or co-authored by Michael Barney during his years at Miller.  The paper was about the potential for pathogens in atypical beer products.  If my memory is correct, these beers did contain alcohol and some may have contained fruit.  I have looked for this paper multiple times over a couple of years and always come up with nothing.

The reason for the question has to do with an obvious omission from the trial conduced by the group at Cornell in their paper oddly titled "Survival of Foodborne Pathogens in Low and Nonalcoholic Craft Beer" where commercially sourced cans of Genesse were adjusted for the study before being inoculated with pathogens. If memory serves me correctly, the paper I am seeking would add to the current discussion about the potential for pathogens in beer.

One thing that has been bugging me is the title of the paper from the group at Cornell.  Aside from the title, the word craft only appears three times in the publication.  And in all cases, craft is generically used without reference to describe a segment of the industry not addressed by the research or the citations in the publication.  That just seems odd, but I digress.

What seems to have been left out of the study was a control beer. It's sort of implied that the pathogens would not have faired well in beer with more than 2.5% ABV, but that's a stretch in the absence of supporting data. In fact, the introduction contains some interesting background that has more or less been ignored by most because headlines are more often read than papers. The authors wrote "It has also been shown pathogens can survive in alcoholic beverages; Bacillus cereus and E. coli O157:H7 have been shown to survive in beer and refined rice wine (Kim et al., 2014). Bacillus cereus spores were also detected in finished beer when held at warm temperatures (4–60°C) for more than 4 h. E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium cannot grow in mid-strength to full-strength beers. However, they can survive for more than 30 days when held at 4°C (Menz et al., 2011). E. coli spp. and coliforms have been isolated in draught beer, and other beer containers (Schindler and Metz, 1990). There have been reports of botulism associated with drinking the fermented alcoholic beverage Pruno made from potatoes (Briggs et al., 2013)." What would our industry do if this trial was repeated with something like the best selling light beer in the US and the results showed that aerobically held samples of X Light inoculated with fecal microflora were found to contain viable cells for several weeks?

If any one out there remembers the paper from Michael Barney and others, please help a nerd out!

Have a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Hi Ashton,

Have you seen this article?

https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/74590/1/Bartlett%20Connor%2020402412%20Corrections%201.pdf

Dana

Hoping someone with a better memory than me who can point me in the right direct.  I have a vague recollection of reading a paper by or co-authored by Michael Barney during his years at Miller.  The paper was about the potential for pathogens in atypical beer products.  If my memory is correct, these beers did contain alcohol and some may have contained fruit.  I have looked for this paper multiple times over a couple of years and always come up with nothing.

The reason for the question has to do with an obvious omission from the trial conduced by the group at Cornell in their paper oddly titled "Survival of Foodborne Pathogens in Low and Nonalcoholic Craft Beer" where commercially sourced cans of Genesse were adjusted for the study before being inoculated with pathogens. If memory serves me correctly, the paper I am seeking would add to the current discussion about the potential for pathogens in beer.

One thing that has been bugging me is the title of the paper from the group at Cornell.  Aside from the title, the word craft only appears three times in the publication.  And in all cases, craft is generically used without reference to describe a segment of the industry not addressed by the research or the citations in the publication.  That just seems odd, but I digress.

What seems to have been left out of the study was a control beer. It's sort of implied that the pathogens would not have faired well in beer with more than 2.5% ABV, but that's a stretch in the absence of supporting data. In fact, the introduction contains some interesting background that has more or less been ignored by most because headlines are more often read than papers. The authors wrote "It has also been shown pathogens can survive in alcoholic beverages; Bacillus cereus and E. coli O157:H7 have been shown to survive in beer and refined rice wine (Kim et al., 2014). Bacillus cereus spores were also detected in finished beer when held at warm temperatures (4–60°C) for more than 4 h. E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium cannot grow in mid-strength to full-strength beers. However, they can survive for more than 30 days when held at 4°C (Menz et al., 2011). E. coli spp. and coliforms have been isolated in draught beer, and other beer containers (Schindler and Metz, 1990). There have been reports of botulism associated with drinking the fermented alcoholic beverage Pruno made from potatoes (Briggs et al., 2013)." What would our industry do if this trial was repeated with something like the best selling light beer in the US and the results showed that aerobically held samples of X Light inoculated with fecal microflora were found to contain viable cells for several weeks?

If any one out there remembers the paper from Michael Barney and others, please help a nerd out!

Have a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Hoping someone with a better memory than me who can point me in the right direct.  I have a vague recollection of reading a paper by or co-authored by Michael Barney during his years at Miller.  The paper was about the potential for pathogens in atypical beer products.  If my memory is correct, these beers did contain alcohol and some may have contained fruit.  I have looked for this paper multiple times over a couple of years and always come up with nothing.

The reason for the question has to do with an obvious omission from the trial conduced by the group at Cornell in their paper oddly titled "Survival of Foodborne Pathogens in Low and Nonalcoholic Craft Beer" where commercially sourced cans of Genesse were adjusted for the study before being inoculated with pathogens. If memory serves me correctly, the paper I am seeking would add to the current discussion about the potential for pathogens in beer.

One thing that has been bugging me is the title of the paper from the group at Cornell.  Aside from the title, the word craft only appears three times in the publication.  And in all cases, craft is generically used without reference to describe a segment of the industry not addressed by the research or the citations in the publication.  That just seems odd, but I digress.

What seems to have been left out of the study was a control beer. It's sort of implied that the pathogens would not have faired well in beer with more than 2.5% ABV, but that's a stretch in the absence of supporting data. In fact, the introduction contains some interesting background that has more or less been ignored by most because headlines are more often read than papers. The authors wrote "It has also been shown pathogens can survive in alcoholic beverages; Bacillus cereus and E. coli O157:H7 have been shown to survive in beer and refined rice wine (Kim et al., 2014). Bacillus cereus spores were also detected in finished beer when held at warm temperatures (4–60°C) for more than 4 h. E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium cannot grow in mid-strength to full-strength beers. However, they can survive for more than 30 days when held at 4°C (Menz et al., 2011). E. coli spp. and coliforms have been isolated in draught beer, and other beer containers (Schindler and Metz, 1990). There have been reports of botulism associated with drinking the fermented alcoholic beverage Pruno made from potatoes (Briggs et al., 2013)." What would our industry do if this trial was repeated with something like the best selling light beer in the US and the results showed that aerobically held samples of X Light inoculated with fecal microflora were found to contain viable cells for several weeks?

If any one out there remembers the paper from Michael Barney and others, please help a nerd out!

Have a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Hi Ashton-

I searched the internet and I couldn't find the paper you were referencing originally. I am interested in reading it if you find it! 

Thanks for the other paper, Dana.

Cheers,

Wade

Hoping someone with a better memory than me who can point me in the right direct.  I have a vague recollection of reading a paper by or co-authored by Michael Barney during his years at Miller.  The paper was about the potential for pathogens in atypical beer products.  If my memory is correct, these beers did contain alcohol and some may have contained fruit.  I have looked for this paper multiple times over a couple of years and always come up with nothing.

The reason for the question has to do with an obvious omission from the trial conduced by the group at Cornell in their paper oddly titled "Survival of Foodborne Pathogens in Low and Nonalcoholic Craft Beer" where commercially sourced cans of Genesse were adjusted for the study before being inoculated with pathogens. If memory serves me correctly, the paper I am seeking would add to the current discussion about the potential for pathogens in beer.

One thing that has been bugging me is the title of the paper from the group at Cornell.  Aside from the title, the word craft only appears three times in the publication.  And in all cases, craft is generically used without reference to describe a segment of the industry not addressed by the research or the citations in the publication.  That just seems odd, but I digress.

What seems to have been left out of the study was a control beer. It's sort of implied that the pathogens would not have faired well in beer with more than 2.5% ABV, but that's a stretch in the absence of supporting data. In fact, the introduction contains some interesting background that has more or less been ignored by most because headlines are more often read than papers. The authors wrote "It has also been shown pathogens can survive in alcoholic beverages; Bacillus cereus and E. coli O157:H7 have been shown to survive in beer and refined rice wine (Kim et al., 2014). Bacillus cereus spores were also detected in finished beer when held at warm temperatures (4–60°C) for more than 4 h. E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium cannot grow in mid-strength to full-strength beers. However, they can survive for more than 30 days when held at 4°C (Menz et al., 2011). E. coli spp. and coliforms have been isolated in draught beer, and other beer containers (Schindler and Metz, 1990). There have been reports of botulism associated with drinking the fermented alcoholic beverage Pruno made from potatoes (Briggs et al., 2013)." What would our industry do if this trial was repeated with something like the best selling light beer in the US and the results showed that aerobically held samples of X Light inoculated with fecal microflora were found to contain viable cells for several weeks?

If any one out there remembers the paper from Michael Barney and others, please help a nerd out!

Have a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Hi Ashton-

I searched the internet and I couldn't find the paper you were referencing originally. I am interested in reading it if you find it! 

Thanks for the other paper, Dana.

Cheers,

Wade

Hoping someone with a better memory than me who can point me in the right direct.  I have a vague recollection of reading a paper by or co-authored by Michael Barney during his years at Miller.  The paper was about the potential for pathogens in atypical beer products.  If my memory is correct, these beers did contain alcohol and some may have contained fruit.  I have looked for this paper multiple times over a couple of years and always come up with nothing.

The reason for the question has to do with an obvious omission from the trial conduced by the group at Cornell in their paper oddly titled "Survival of Foodborne Pathogens in Low and Nonalcoholic Craft Beer" where commercially sourced cans of Genesse were adjusted for the study before being inoculated with pathogens. If memory serves me correctly, the paper I am seeking would add to the current discussion about the potential for pathogens in beer.

One thing that has been bugging me is the title of the paper from the group at Cornell.  Aside from the title, the word craft only appears three times in the publication.  And in all cases, craft is generically used without reference to describe a segment of the industry not addressed by the research or the citations in the publication.  That just seems odd, but I digress.

What seems to have been left out of the study was a control beer. It's sort of implied that the pathogens would not have faired well in beer with more than 2.5% ABV, but that's a stretch in the absence of supporting data. In fact, the introduction contains some interesting background that has more or less been ignored by most because headlines are more often read than papers. The authors wrote "It has also been shown pathogens can survive in alcoholic beverages; Bacillus cereus and E. coli O157:H7 have been shown to survive in beer and refined rice wine (Kim et al., 2014). Bacillus cereus spores were also detected in finished beer when held at warm temperatures (4–60°C) for more than 4 h. E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium cannot grow in mid-strength to full-strength beers. However, they can survive for more than 30 days when held at 4°C (Menz et al., 2011). E. coli spp. and coliforms have been isolated in draught beer, and other beer containers (Schindler and Metz, 1990). There have been reports of botulism associated with drinking the fermented alcoholic beverage Pruno made from potatoes (Briggs et al., 2013)." What would our industry do if this trial was repeated with something like the best selling light beer in the US and the results showed that aerobically held samples of X Light inoculated with fecal microflora were found to contain viable cells for several weeks?

If any one out there remembers the paper from Michael Barney and others, please help a nerd out!

Have a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Hi Ashton-

I searched the internet and I couldn't find the paper you were referencing originally. I am interested in reading it if you find it! 

Thanks for the other paper, Dana.

Cheers,

Wade

Hoping someone with a better memory than me who can point me in the right direct.  I have a vague recollection of reading a paper by or co-authored by Michael Barney during his years at Miller.  The paper was about the potential for pathogens in atypical beer products.  If my memory is correct, these beers did contain alcohol and some may have contained fruit.  I have looked for this paper multiple times over a couple of years and always come up with nothing.

The reason for the question has to do with an obvious omission from the trial conduced by the group at Cornell in their paper oddly titled "Survival of Foodborne Pathogens in Low and Nonalcoholic Craft Beer" where commercially sourced cans of Genesse were adjusted for the study before being inoculated with pathogens. If memory serves me correctly, the paper I am seeking would add to the current discussion about the potential for pathogens in beer.

One thing that has been bugging me is the title of the paper from the group at Cornell.  Aside from the title, the word craft only appears three times in the publication.  And in all cases, craft is generically used without reference to describe a segment of the industry not addressed by the research or the citations in the publication.  That just seems odd, but I digress.

What seems to have been left out of the study was a control beer. It's sort of implied that the pathogens would not have faired well in beer with more than 2.5% ABV, but that's a stretch in the absence of supporting data. In fact, the introduction contains some interesting background that has more or less been ignored by most because headlines are more often read than papers. The authors wrote "It has also been shown pathogens can survive in alcoholic beverages; Bacillus cereus and E. coli O157:H7 have been shown to survive in beer and refined rice wine (Kim et al., 2014). Bacillus cereus spores were also detected in finished beer when held at warm temperatures (4–60°C) for more than 4 h. E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium cannot grow in mid-strength to full-strength beers. However, they can survive for more than 30 days when held at 4°C (Menz et al., 2011). E. coli spp. and coliforms have been isolated in draught beer, and other beer containers (Schindler and Metz, 1990). There have been reports of botulism associated with drinking the fermented alcoholic beverage Pruno made from potatoes (Briggs et al., 2013)." What would our industry do if this trial was repeated with something like the best selling light beer in the US and the results showed that aerobically held samples of X Light inoculated with fecal microflora were found to contain viable cells for several weeks?

If any one out there remembers the paper from Michael Barney and others, please help a nerd out!

Have a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Hoping someone with a better memory than me who can point me in the right direct.  I have a vague recollection of reading a paper by or co-authored by Michael Barney during his years at Miller.  The paper was about the potential for pathogens in atypical beer products.  If my memory is correct, these beers did contain alcohol and some may have contained fruit.  I have looked for this paper multiple times over a couple of years and always come up with nothing.

The reason for the question has to do with an obvious omission from the trial conduced by the group at Cornell in their paper oddly titled "Survival of Foodborne Pathogens in Low and Nonalcoholic Craft Beer" where commercially sourced cans of Genesse were adjusted for the study before being inoculated with pathogens. If memory serves me correctly, the paper I am seeking would add to the current discussion about the potential for pathogens in beer.

One thing that has been bugging me is the title of the paper from the group at Cornell.  Aside from the title, the word craft only appears three times in the publication.  And in all cases, craft is generically used without reference to describe a segment of the industry not addressed by the research or the citations in the publication.  That just seems odd, but I digress.

What seems to have been left out of the study was a control beer. It's sort of implied that the pathogens would not have faired well in beer with more than 2.5% ABV, but that's a stretch in the absence of supporting data. In fact, the introduction contains some interesting background that has more or less been ignored by most because headlines are more often read than papers. The authors wrote "It has also been shown pathogens can survive in alcoholic beverages; Bacillus cereus and E. coli O157:H7 have been shown to survive in beer and refined rice wine (Kim et al., 2014). Bacillus cereus spores were also detected in finished beer when held at warm temperatures (4–60°C) for more than 4 h. E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium cannot grow in mid-strength to full-strength beers. However, they can survive for more than 30 days when held at 4°C (Menz et al., 2011). E. coli spp. and coliforms have been isolated in draught beer, and other beer containers (Schindler and Metz, 1990). There have been reports of botulism associated with drinking the fermented alcoholic beverage Pruno made from potatoes (Briggs et al., 2013)." What would our industry do if this trial was repeated with something like the best selling light beer in the US and the results showed that aerobically held samples of X Light inoculated with fecal microflora were found to contain viable cells for several weeks?

If any one out there remembers the paper from Michael Barney and others, please help a nerd out!

Have a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Hi Ashton,

This is what I have been able to find.  Maybe this is what you had in mind.

Friedman, D.E., Patten, K.A., Rose, J.B. and Barney, M.C. (1997) 'The potential for cryptosporidium parvum oocyst survival in beverages associated with contaminated tap water', Journal of Food Safety, 17(2), pp 125-132.  Available at:  doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.1997.tb00181.x

Andrew 

Hoping someone with a better memory than me who can point me in the right direct.  I have a vague recollection of reading a paper by or co-authored by Michael Barney during his years at Miller.  The paper was about the potential for pathogens in atypical beer products.  If my memory is correct, these beers did contain alcohol and some may have contained fruit.  I have looked for this paper multiple times over a couple of years and always come up with nothing.

The reason for the question has to do with an obvious omission from the trial conduced by the group at Cornell in their paper oddly titled "Survival of Foodborne Pathogens in Low and Nonalcoholic Craft Beer" where commercially sourced cans of Genesse were adjusted for the study before being inoculated with pathogens. If memory serves me correctly, the paper I am seeking would add to the current discussion about the potential for pathogens in beer.

One thing that has been bugging me is the title of the paper from the group at Cornell.  Aside from the title, the word craft only appears three times in the publication.  And in all cases, craft is generically used without reference to describe a segment of the industry not addressed by the research or the citations in the publication.  That just seems odd, but I digress.

What seems to have been left out of the study was a control beer. It's sort of implied that the pathogens would not have faired well in beer with more than 2.5% ABV, but that's a stretch in the absence of supporting data. In fact, the introduction contains some interesting background that has more or less been ignored by most because headlines are more often read than papers. The authors wrote "It has also been shown pathogens can survive in alcoholic beverages; Bacillus cereus and E. coli O157:H7 have been shown to survive in beer and refined rice wine (Kim et al., 2014). Bacillus cereus spores were also detected in finished beer when held at warm temperatures (4–60°C) for more than 4 h. E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium cannot grow in mid-strength to full-strength beers. However, they can survive for more than 30 days when held at 4°C (Menz et al., 2011). E. coli spp. and coliforms have been isolated in draught beer, and other beer containers (Schindler and Metz, 1990). There have been reports of botulism associated with drinking the fermented alcoholic beverage Pruno made from potatoes (Briggs et al., 2013)." What would our industry do if this trial was repeated with something like the best selling light beer in the US and the results showed that aerobically held samples of X Light inoculated with fecal microflora were found to contain viable cells for several weeks?

If any one out there remembers the paper from Michael Barney and others, please help a nerd out!

Have a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!