Could Primary Spigot Contaminate When Racking

[LoudounBrew]

I have a 6-G Better Bottle with the spigot. I've bee using it as a primary. (I brew 4-G batches.) The spigot is convenient for taking gravity readings - and just tasting how things are coming along.

But it dawned on me that I haven't been cleaning the spigot after each sampling. That's fine since I'm only checking gravity or taking a quick sip and the Better Bottle spigot is designed to only allow outflow. But what happens when I open the spigot to rack to my bottling bucket. Won't there be old, dried up beer in spigot filled with bacteria. Would using a Q-tip with some cleaner or Star-San mixture clean things up enough. I'd be worried that I'd still be missing some little bits here and there. It seems like you'd need to soak the nozzle to be sure that you've loosened up everything. Even then, wouldn't you need to flush it out a little to be sure that everything was expelled?

Any thoughts or suggestions?

 

[Suthrncomfrt1884]

Personally, I don't trust anything with a spigot as a fermentor. I've had three batches contaminated because of this.,..

 

[buzzkill]

i wouldnt do it but thats just me. wrap the spigot in cling wrap after dipping in sanitizer?

 

[rstewy2]

Now you're scaring me. just racked a mocha porter into my bottling bucket for a secondary because the lid for my regular bucket refused to be clean. Sad thing is, I didn't even think of taking samples from the spigot. I feel pretty stupid, as I forgot to take a reading when I transferred and have been putting it off.

 

[LoudounBrew]

So what's the point of a spigot on a primary. I mean, it's pretty convenient for taking gravity reading, but if that means that you can't use it for racking, I'm not sure that it's worth the price - especially with Better Bottle. So I either take gravity readings with a thief and then use the spigot for racking, or I take gravity readings with the spigot and use a siphon to rack.

Seems like I'm losing out on the deal. I like Better Bottles, but maybe I'll stick with ones without a spigot.

 

[Premnasbiaculeatus]

I've got the same better bottle. I fill the whole carboy with starsan solution after every batch and let it drain out all the way through the spigot.

 

[LoudounBrew]

I've got the same better bottle. I fill the whole carboy with starsan solution after every batch and let it drain out all the way through the spigot.

Thanks. I'll definitely do that. But the question is whether I could/should use the spigot to rack to my bottling bucket given that I've taken a few samples from the batch. I'm sure that there's some dried beer in the nozzle, and I'm concerned that I can't get that cleaned out enough while the beer is still in the carboy and that if I let the beer flow through that spigot, I'll contaminate the beer as it flows through the spigot and into the bottling bucket.

It's not a big deal. I siphon all the time. But next time, I think that I'll take any samples with a thief to save the spigot for racking.

But it just dawned on me that I can't use the spigot for both taking samples and racking, which, obviously, makes the spigot half as useful.

Although, what if I submerged the nozzle in a Star-San solution for an hour or so and opened the flow valve for a quick rinse out - I'm talking a couple of ounces. Would that loosen everything up and then flush it out. Then, I'd attach the hose and rack to the bottling bucket.

On the other, it might just be easier to siphon.

 

[Raenon]

On the other, it might just be easier to siphon.

If you didn't have a siphon (lost, broke... or just a newbie) I'd say try to clean the spigot best you could.
But you're not trying to make do with a limited resource/equipment. Use the siphon and sleep better knowing you did the best for your beer that you spent all this time waiting on.

 

[Premnasbiaculeatus]

Thanks. I'll definitely do that. But the question is whether I could/should use the spigot to rack to my bottling bucket given that I've taken a few samples from the batch. I'm sure that there's some dried beer in the nozzle, and I'm concerned that I can't get that cleaned out enough while the beer is still in the carboy and that if I let the beer flow through that spigot, I'll contaminate the beer as it flows through the spigot and into the bottling bucket.

It's not a big deal. I siphon all the time. But next time, I think that I'll take any samples with a thief to save the spigot for racking.

But it just dawned on me that I can't use the spigot for both taking samples and racking, which, obviously, makes the spigot half as useful.

Although, what if I submerged the nozzle in a Star-San solution for an hour or so and opened the flow valve for a quick rinse out - I'm talking a couple of ounces. Would that loosen everything up and then flush it out. Then, I'd attach the hose and rack to the bottling bucket.

On the other, it might just be easier to siphon.

I see your dilema, like you wrote, it seems like the best solution would be to rack with a siphon, and sample with the spigot or vice versa (theif instead of siphon).

However, in my limited experience I haven't been the most sanitary brewer and have never had a major issue with a whole batch getting contaminated. I think one of the reasons that beer has historically been drunk instead of water in colonial villages and ocean voyages and such is that it resists contamination fairly well. Partially because the yeast inhibit the activity of other anaerobes that could cause spoilage. Most of the bacterias that have a tendency to really ruin beer are aerobes and spoilage tends to correspond to some level of oxidation of the beer itself. If your racking into secondary and not bottling you could try blowing CO2 into the headspace of your carboy to minize exposure to oxygen and /or discard your first pour to give the spigot a rinse.

If you're really paranoid about it you could get a pint sized dixie cup filled with starsan and a peice of wire to hang it off the spigot like a horse's feed bag that way the spigot would always be submerged in sanitizer.

Have you had any batches get ruined by this so far?

 

[bobjohnson]

Someone with a conical that obviously has a valve on it will hopefully chime in. Its different, but kind of the same. Me, myself have always been a glass carboy and siphon guy, but I know alot of folks use valves with sucess.

 

[LoudounBrew]

I see your dilema, like you wrote, it seems like the best solution would be to rack with a siphon, and sample with the spigot or vice versa (theif instead of siphon).

However, in my limited experience I haven't been the most sanitary brewer and have never had a major issue with a whole batch getting contaminated. I think one of the reasons that beer has historically been drunk instead of water in colonial villages and ocean voyages and such is that it resists contamination fairly well. Partially because the yeast inhibit the activity of other anaerobes that could cause spoilage. Most of the bacterias that have a tendency to really ruin beer are aerobes and spoilage tends to correspond to some level of oxidation of the beer itself. If your racking into secondary and not bottling you could try blowing CO2 into the headspace of your carboy to minize exposure to oxygen and /or discard your first pour to give the spigot a rinse.

If you're really paranoid about it you could get a pint sized dixie cup filled with starsan and a peice of wire to hang it off the spigot like a horse's feed bag that way the spigot would always be submerged in sanitizer.

Have you had any batches get ruined by this so far?

This is my first time using a Better Bottle with spigot, so I have no experience either way.

The thing about the Better Bottle spigot is that it's a one direction flow-out, so no air being sucked into the nozzle. The beer that came out should be sanitized. So if a bit of sanitized beer sticks to the inner part of the nozzle, that wouldn't in and of itself contaminate the rest of the beer as it flowed out. Of course, those bits of dried beer might be a good landing spot for nasties.

Sorry, not trying to make things complicated, just trying to make the call in my head, so I can set up a routine.

I actually e-mailed Better Bottle with this question, so I'll be interest to see if they respond and, if so, what they say.

 

[jessup]

You're asking for trouble with the spigot! Its hard to decon since its plastic & bound to have scratches that may harbor bacteria. Hard to decon! Plus you'll eventually be draining trub and/or yeast in greater amounts than u want. Conicals will likely have SS or brass which will be easier to decon. IMO u should lose the BB as a primary & use as your bottling bucket. Just an opinion but you'll regret it after infection. At least if used as a secondary there less chance for infection since its got alcohol content for preservative qualities.

 

[Suthrncomfrt1884]

I've never used better bottles, because they seem inconvenient....but here's my guess.

Just like buckets, I believe they sell BB's with spigots ONLY for bottling. These aren't meant to be used as a sampling valve. As soon as you sample from them, you've contaminated the valve. You may not have contaminated what's still inside, but if you go to use that valve a second time to bottle, then you could contaminate your bottles.

While the chances of this are slim, they do happen. Those valves are extremely hard to clean properly. I soak all of my equipment in PBW for 24-48 hours after it's been used. Then I sanitize it before use. With my bucket fermentors...I contaminated 3 batches in a row using my "bottling" bucket as a fermentor. It wasn't until the 3rd batch that I even noticed an infection in my beers (I have a solid pipeline so don't try them right away). After tearing everything apart, I narrowed it down to a tiny crevise inside the spigot that had old beer in it.

Stick to using a siphon to transfer from one vessel to the other. If you want to sample off your spigot, fine. Just make sure you use another vessel for bottling.

This is why I don't sample. I let me beer sit for a month and then bottle or keg depending on the beer. The only beers I sample are beers I'm adding things too, and then it's a one time thing from the top of my fermentor.

 

[Suthrncomfrt1884]

Oh...and as for conicals.. Most of the time, samples of yeast/beer are taken from the bottom valve. When the beer is taken out of the conical, it's done using the valve that's slightly higher.

 

[HopSong]

Every time I take a gravity sample thru the spigot, I spray star -San into it to both sanatoze and rinse.

 

[LoudounBrew]

Hey,

Just wanted to say thanks to everybody. That's what makes Homebrewtalk so awesome. I'll just go with siphoning this batch into my bottling bucket. It's not a big deal.

But from now on, I'll only use the spigot for racking to the bottling bucket and leave taking samples to a thief. To be honest, I don't usually take samples that often since I leave the beer in fermenter for 3 to 4 weeks and then take a reading when I rack to the bottling bucket. I mean, if it's not done by that point, it ain't ever going to be done.

I was just curious on this batch because the growth phase in fermentation was fairly quick and the krausen wasn't much to write home about, so I wanted to see how things were working out. As it turned out, my gravity reading after four or five days was 1.014 (OG was 1.056), which was awfully close to right on the mark. After ten days, it was 1.012. This was a good lesson for me; different beers really do ferment in different ways, so let the process play out and be patient.

Thanks again.