plastic Spiels

[brikel]

I want to clean my plastic spiels that I used this year and save them for next year. Is this common practice? I know they are cheap but wanted to know what the rest of you that use them do with yours.

[happy thoughts]

It's better to replace them yearly as they can't be cleaned or sanitized well enough to remove all traces of bacteria. That can reduce next year's sap production.

[Biz]

Is the same true for the plastic spouts used for buckets? Hopefully not. Different type of plastic maybe. I got the blue ones with hooks, 5/16".

[Cabin]

I want to clean my plastic spiels that I used this year and save them for next year. Is this common practice? I know they are cheap but wanted to know what the rest of you that use them do with yours.

I boil mine at the end of the season then before tapping I soak them in alcohol and reboil them.

[happy thoughts]

I boil mine at the end of the season then before tapping I soak them in alcohol and reboil them.

Boiling may help a little assuming the plastic is rated for boiling temps but it won't sterilize them. Bacterial spores are very heat resistant and require killing temps much higher than boiling water. The problem is the organic biofilm that forms inside the spiles because of microbial activity. This film is difficult to remove and where the spores may hide. Even alcohol does not do a good job of reaching them there.

[SDdave]

Boiling may help a little assuming the plastic is rated for boiling temps but it won't sterilize them. Bacterial spores are very heat resistant and require killing temps much higher than boiling water. The problem is the organic biofilm that forms inside the spiles because of microbial activity. This film is difficult to remove and where the spores may hide. Even alcohol does not do a good job of reaching them there.

Well ain't that about a b&^%(! I was hoping to do the same. I guess seasonal spouts are the way to go.

SDdave

[Cabin]

Boiling may help a little assuming the plastic is rated for boiling temps but it won't sterilize them. Bacterial spores are very heat resistant and require killing temps much higher than boiling water. The problem is the organic biofilm that forms inside the spiles because of microbial activity. This film is difficult to remove and where the spores may hide. Even alcohol does not do a good job of reaching them there.

Wonder what putting them in the microwave would do????

;-)

[happy thoughts]

Wonder what putting them in the microwave would do????

;-)

LOL That's funny :)

I can understand why people want to reuse taps because landfills are already filled with plastic. We all make the choices that work best for us. What you're already doing is certainly better than just a quick washing and rinse if you want to reuse them. But if you wanted to improve the process I'd make sure to scrub the outsides with a soft nylon scrubby and use a small brush or pipe cleaners for the inside to help dislodge the biofilm.

[NTBugtraq]

I know there are some people that are very afraid of things we grew up playing in, but...if there is any microbial bacteria, it will grow to a noticeable point in weeks, not months. All studies I have read that talk about the microbial bacteria talk about it forming in the tap hole, not on the tap. Fact is, nothing will grow on plastic, it can only grow on the sap on the plastic. Wash that plastic, and you can't get bacteria to grow on it. There are people who wash their hands (or sanitize) many times a day...yet no proof they live longer than those who don't.

All studies I read talk about bacteria closing taps sooner...e.g. 3 months after being tapped they're releasing less sap than those tapped 1 month before. None of those studies suggest you are introducing anything bad into your tap because of that microbial bacteria.

IOWs, you can't make one argument against a different one. We're not talking about taps not running long enough, someone is suggesting that a piece of plastic will retain bacteria for 9+ months...sorry, I say BS.

Those taps will survive a dishwasher in a sanitize cycle (on your upper shelf). Nothing is going to live on them, but hey, leave them on an open tray for a month, and if they move on their own, throw them away. FWIW, they won't...so they're fine.

BTW, they're made out of plastic to be re-used, not to be dumped in a recycling bin.

Cheers,
Russ

[happy thoughts]

Fact is, nothing will grow on plastic, it can only grow on the sap on the plastic. Wash that plastic, and you can't get bacteria to grow on it.

Russ I have to disagree in principal because you haven't considered the role of biofilms produced by bacteria that can adhere to plastic like glue. They are hard to remove and are a haven for bacterial spores that no sanicycle can kill or conquer.

[NTBugtraq]

I knew you'd disagree, so let's just agree to disagree...or produce 3 studies that say anything you're talking about is meaningful in maple syrup production. You're insisting biofilms mean anything is, well, just you. Nobody has ever died from consuming maple syrup that I have heard of.

And why aren't you on the side of this ancient form of food production is a good thing, long before anyone knew about bacteria...is it plastic that made bacteria form?...lolz, of course not...if people wanted things clean, they pee'd on them.

Oh, and this biofilm you talk about, it lies dormant under what conditions? You say it resists a sanicycle, and presumably 9 months exposed to air and no food...so what does the bacteria do when it is then re-introduced to sap, in the cold?

Cheers,
Russ

[adk1]

Recycle the plastic spiles

[NTBugtraq]

Ok, so there's a bacteria that can live through a sani-cycle, then 9+ months of life in the air, and then transmit itself into cold sap and doesn't die when it's boiled to 219-220F...and you know this from what study? You know this based on what proof? Sorry, but can't anyone state a fact rather than a "feeling"?

Cheers,
Russ

[adk1]

It's not the boiling part it's more of drilling a fresh hole, hopefully with a sanitized bit and then sticking an old spiel into the fresh hole thereby introducing bacteria right away which will hasten the hole "drying out"

[Run Forest Run!]

Brikel, perhaps a thread that I began earlier this year will help you to make an educated decision as to what will work best for you as it pertains to your individual pursuit of golden goodness. Some of the replies to your question seem to have lost focus.

Hope this helps you. :)

http://mapletrader.com/community/showthread.php?22055-Spiles-and-bacteria

P.S. Don't forget to be posting some pictures of your results!

[Super Sapper]

Russ

The issue with reusing taps is not a health issue but sap production issue. Proctor has done studies on using old taps that were cleaned in various ways and they show significant decrease in sap production over new taps. The reduction is not in the begining of the season but during the later parts as the holes close up sooner.

[chad]

so what you're saying is we all need new taps every year because they hold bacteria, if that's the case and we are going with that logic then does that mean we need new pans cause of the biofilm is resistant to everything including boiling temps, alchohol, and even 10 months out in the open air if that's the case no one would have any good years, syrup nothing unless we bought new every year

[DaveB]

This thread is interesting to me in that I re-use about 20 of the blue plastic spiles every year. I understand the debate about sterility and "introducing" bacteria to the tap hole but I have not found a significant difference in sap production. In fact, I had one of my best sap production weeks from these same spouts last week, four weeks after I first tapped. I typically boil the taps for about 20 minutes and then put them in a clean bag before using them.

The fact of the matter is that bacteria is every where and I know studies show that a brand new tap will run more than a re-used one but I have not seen any numbers that indicate how significant that difference is. In my experience it's a matter a semantics as the buckets that I use all seem to produce good sap right up until the end of the season. If I'm missing a few pints of sap, so be it.

[DrTimPerkins]

does that mean we need new pans cause of the biofilm is resistant to everything....

Yes, that is exactly the case. You should all buy new pans, a new RO, and all new tubing and spouts each year. Be sure to tell the dealers that Dr. Tim sent you. :D

OK....now that I have your attention. There is obviously some level of absurdity in extending the logic beyond the bounds that it was determined within. Nobody is talking about biofilms in evaporator pans (well...at least until you have ropey syrup). To return to the topic at hand, cleaning spouts will improve their performance (to varying degrees) in terms of sap yield, however it doesn't appear that there is a cleaning regime that will return them to the performance level (again, in terms of sap yield) of brand-new plastic in a cost effective manner. Yes, perhaps you could clean them, scrub them with a toothbrush, bore them out with a 0.22-cal bore brush, soak in alcohol, boil them, and then microwave them....but by the time you do that you could have bought 5 new plastic spouts. There are several reasons involved, but essentially many of these microbes do two things.....they form biofilms which are almost impossible to dislodge and many of them form spores that resist most efforts to kill them.

Pans and other SS things.....metals are not porous (plastic is). The sap doesn't sit around for long before being boiled and thus doesn't form microfilms. Boiling goes on for hours. Pan acid (if used) is left if the pans for a long time period (as opposed to cleaners sucked into tubing which has a contact time of less than a second). Even so....leave that partially boiled syrup sitting around long enough and you'll get nasty stuff growing in it.

So....bottom line is....if you don't want to buy new spouts.....then don't. Go ahead and clean your spouts in whatever way you like (as long as it is legal). It's really pretty simple. But what the folks here have been trying to say is that you will not get as good a sap yield as you could if you got new spouts. Either way....it's your decision.

[Cabin]

Yes, that is exactly the case. You should all buy new pans, a new RO, and all new tubing and spouts each year. Be sure to tell the dealers that Dr. Tim sent you. :D

OK....now that I have your attention. There is obviously some level of absurdity in extending the logic beyond the bounds that it was determined within. Nobody is talking about biofilms in evaporator pans (well...at least until you have ropey syrup). To return to the topic at hand, cleaning spouts will improve their performance (to varying degrees) in terms of sap yield, however it doesn't appear that there is a cleaning regime that will return them to the performance level (again, in terms of sap yield) of brand-new plastic in a cost effective manner. Yes, perhaps you could clean them, scrub them with a toothbrush, bore them out with a 0.22-cal bore brush, soak in alcohol, boil them, and then microwave them....but by the time you do that you could have bought 5 new plastic spouts. There are several reasons involved, but essentially many of these microbes do two things.....they form biofilms which are almost impossible to dislodge and many of them form spores that resist most efforts to kill them.

Pans and other SS things.....metals are not porous (plastic is). The sap doesn't sit around for long before being boiled and thus doesn't form microfilms. Boiling goes on for hours. Pan acid (if used) is left if the pans for a long time period (as opposed to cleaners sucked into tubing which has a contact time of less than a second). Even so....leave that partially boiled syrup sitting around long enough and you'll get nasty stuff growing in it.

So....bottom line is....if you don't want to buy new spouts.....then don't. Go ahead and clean your spouts in whatever way you like (as long as it is legal). It's really pretty simple. But what the folks here have been trying to say is that you will not get as good a sap yield as you could if you got new spouts. Either way....it's your decision.

Guess it depends on how you look at it. Cleaning the spouts just extends the tapping season like reloading ammo extends the hunting season. A bore snake works better than the brush. :lol: For one I do not see a problem with the trees starting to close(heal) faster, but then I am in it for time in the woods more than anything else.

[markct]

In my opinion the decrease in sap yield depends on scale of production also. Say you lose 10 percent yield with washing and reusing taps instead of new, if you have 10 taps you can add one more and gain back that much lost sap roughly for little investment. Now for the guy with 1000 taps adding another 100 taps has a good bit of cost in material and labor so its worth it to spend the bit more on new taps

[DaveB]

But what the folks here have been trying to say is that you will not get as good a sap yield as you could if you got new spouts. Either way....it's your decision.

I can appreciate that but I have yet to see some numbers both in research and in my experience that quantify this. Can you quantify the difference between a brand new spout and one that was cleaned, say with boiling for 20 minutes? The only reason that I re-use plastic spouts is that is the same thing that I did with the metal ones and I'll admit that after the first season I wondered if they were re-usable but after having not seen an appreciable drop-off in sap at the end of my season, I have no reason to think that I'm not missing much. They also represent a small portion of my taps and I'll continue to use buckets there for ascetics.

[NTBugtraq]

Well, firstly, let me apologize. I'm sorry for taking such a stringent (and frankly bullying) position earlier. I was wrong, and I will try not to let it happen again.

I have since read much of Dr. Perkins available research papers, as well as others, and understand the issue the OP was talking about. The studies show there is a significant increase in sap production when new check valve spiles and drop-lines are used.

I tried to use Dr. Perkins "The Economics of Replacement" (http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/Economics%20of%20Replacement%20Strategies%20v.%201 1.25.2013.xlsx) Excel spreadsheet to calculate profit effects based on different replacement scenarios.

Perhaps Dr. Perkins can explain that spreadsheet. It tells me that if I replace my regular health spiles annually, I'll get ~142% increased profits versus simply washing my spiles. If I switch to check valve spiles, my profits are increased by ~338%. Then he gives numbers based on replacing drop lines every 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years (with an annual spile replacement). For me, these numbers range from an increase of ~331% (yearly drop line replacement) to ~259% increase (replacing drop lines every 4 years). The part that has me confused is, am I supposed to combine the spile replacement increase with the drop line replacement increase? The spreadsheet appears to tell me that only replacing the spiles with check valve spiles annually, and doing nothing with drop lines, appears to create the greatest profit increase??

Anyway, the bottom line for me is that annual replacement of spiles seems obvious, but drop lines could be left for multiple years before having a significant impact on profits...

BTW, Dr. Perkins/UVM publications can be found at The University of Vermont's Proctor Maple Research Center's Publications page. (http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/?Page=publications.html) There are also many useful papers at Cornell Sugar Maple Research & Extension Program. (http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/pubs/index.htm)

Cheers,
Russ

[DaveB]

I totally get the spout replacement argument and I replace my tubing spouts but I'm still wondering what the difference is with the blue plastic bucket spiles that are cleaned and re-used. I thought the topic was the spiles (used for buckets) and not spouts (used for tubing) but maybe I'm confused!

[happy thoughts]

Well, firstly, let me apologize.....

Russ, It takes a big person to publicly admit they were wrong so you've gained a lot of respect from me. If by apologizing to the OP you mean me, then your apology is humbly accepted. After reading about your rig troubles I can understand where some of your anger came from. Sorry about that and hope you get your problem cleaned up.

On the subject of biofilms, you might find this article on food contact surfaces interesting. It's focus is food borne human pathogens which is not what we're really concerned about in taps but it helps explain why used taps are never as good as new, and why sanitation methods are for the most part ineffective..

http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/december-2002january-2003/biofilms-forming-a-defense-strategy-for-the-food-plant/

In brief, a moist environment and a steady nutrient source is all bacteria need to set up colonies that strongly attach themselves like barnacles to contact surfaces. Taps and tubing fit that bill nicely. It also explains why new taps which have never been exposed to moisture or nutrients work best for sap production.

Biofilms are multi layered and bacteria live throughout the entire mass. The problem when attempting to sanitize is that most methods do not penetrate or remove the biofilm easily or completely. Incomplete sanitation may make the problem worse by encouraging the remaining bacteria to reproduce even more robustly. At best, any remaining biofilm provides a ready surface for new colonization saving vegetative bacteria the work of building a new structure to set up housekeeping.

Hope you find this helpful. Best of luck with your rig and hope you have a most productive season. :)

Cheers,
Christine

[NTBugtraq]

Christine, yes, it was you more specifically I was apologizing too, so thanks for accepting that. Apologies also to the OP, as I disrupted their conversation.

My rig issues are behind me today, thankfully.

One question I have not been able to answer from all I have read. With the check valve spout being such a big impact on sap flow, it suggests that the back flow (sap being drawn back into the tree) is the bigger problem. Does that then mean that if there is no back flow, there is no bacteria? I have, so far, assumed there is bacteria regardless whether there is back flow or not. If that isn't true, then DaveB's point in the previous post may be very true...namely, if you're simply using spiles into buckets you have no chance of back flow...so therefore can't have a bacteria problem??

Cheers,
Russ

[happy thoughts]

One question I have not been able to answer from all I have read. With the check valve spout being such a big impact on sap flow, it suggests that the back flow (sap being drawn back into the tree) is the bigger problem. Does that then mean that if there is no back flow, there is no bacteria? I have, so far, assumed there is bacteria regardless whether there is back flow or not. If that isn't true, then DaveB's point in the previous post may be very true...namely, if you're simply using spiles into buckets you have no chance of back flow...so therefore can't have a bacteria problem??

Dr Tim would be able to address that better than I could but it would seem to me that the problem would still exist as long as bacteria exist in the taps or in the atmosphere (highly likely). Keeping in mind that backflow exists when the pressure inside the tree is lower than outside the tree, it is not just sap that can flow backward. I'd expect that air can be sucked backward as well and with that air, bacteria.

[NTBugtraq]

On the subject of biofilms, you might find this article on food contact surfaces interesting. It's focus is food borne human pathogens which is not what we're really concerned about in taps but it helps explain why used taps are never as good as new, and why sanitation methods are for the most part ineffective..

http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/december-2002january-2003/biofilms-forming-a-defense-strategy-for-the-food-plant/

In brief, a moist environment and a steady nutrient source is all bacteria need to set up colonies that strongly attach themselves like barnacles to contact surfaces. Taps and tubing fit that bill nicely. It also explains why new taps which have never been exposed to moisture or nutrients work best for sap production.

Biofilms are multi layered and bacteria live throughout the entire mass. The problem when attempting to sanitize is that most methods do not penetrate or remove the biofilm easily or completely. Incomplete sanitation may make the problem worse by encouraging the remaining bacteria to reproduce even more robustly. At best, any remaining biofilm provides a ready surface for new colonization saving vegetative bacteria the work of building a new structure to set up housekeeping.

Interesting and instructive read Christine, thanks for that. That description of biofilms would seem to affirm that bucket spiles would be just as likely to suffer the same issues as tubing spiles/spouts. It also does a very good job of explaining why it is way more cost effective to replace rather than try to reuse after cleaning...given the types of cleaning methods and chemicals they suggest at being effective.

Cheers,
Russ

[DrTimPerkins]

... it suggests that the back flow (sap being drawn back into the tree) is the bigger problem. Does that then mean that if there is no back flow, there is no bacteria?

Backflow by itself is not an issue. The problem is that backflow of sap carries microbes from the tubing system (and spout) back into the tree, where they are filtered out by the wood surrounding the taphole, and collect there, where they induce a strong wound response (walling off) in the trees, resulting in taphole "drying" (a real misnomer if ever there was one). This happens more in vacuum tubing systems than in gravity systems due to the high differential pressures involved (sap can move tens of feet). There is far less chance of this happening with buckets and spouts. In that case, it is simply that the unclean surface harbors some spores that can rapidly grow. If the surface of the spout is not clean, then it provides a better surface for the microbes to attach to and proliferate.

[Biz]

Very informative. So for the case with buckets, are certain types of bucket spouts more or less likely to have microbes attach to them?

I use a combination of conventional 7/16 metal spouts, 5/16 blue plastic, 5/16 aluminum hookless, 5/16 stainless, and some anti microbial 5/16 pipeline taps (green color) running into buckets. All except the 7/16 were new this year. When I pulled some buckets with 7/16" older metal spouts last weekend after 3-4 weeks, the tapholes were horribly black with I assume bacteria. Will be interesting to compare. Perhaps the older metal ones, which are almost 20 years old and slightly rusty, should be replaced.

[brikel]

thank you all for the information on this post, I use plastic spiels (spouts) and drop tubes into gallon buckets. looks like I will be buying new spiels. I had an interesting year for my second year and am looking to go hard at it next year. thanks for all your comments

[Diesel Pro]

I too use Tomahawk clear/hard plastic spiles into 5/16" tubing drops and then into 5 gallon plastic pails. Guess it's new spiles for me. Suggestions for a good metallic spile maybe SS? I hate disposable stuff. The Tomahawks were $.15 last year $.18 this year so cost is not really an issue.

My question now is what is my level of concern about plastic pails and poly sap tanks?

[happy thoughts]

My question now is what is my level of concern about plastic pails and poly sap tanks?

None as far as affecting sap flow. Though any moist contact surface including stainless steel is susceptible to biofilm and bacterial growth, contaminated pails and tanks don't affect sap flow. Collection containers made of any material have their own issues related to sap/syrup quality. It's the effect on sap flow that makes replacing spiles worth considering and what is being discussed here.

As far as SS vs plastic spouts, neither is better in preventing bacterial growth and biofilms and neither can be effectively sterilized using simple at home methods short of autoclaving. The advantage of plastic spouts are their low replacement cost.

[Diesel Pro]

I've had suggestions of peroxide. I assume no go?

What about a UV light to kill them? Will the UV transmit through the clear units enough to work?

[NTBugtraq]

There are two issues Diesel. One is the hole shrinking, the other is the micro-bacteria encouraging the tree to close the wound quicker. The bigger of the two issues is the wound response the tree emits. When it sees the micro-bacteria, it reacts way more quickly than it does from a simple (clean) drill bit hole. Re-using spiels with that micro-bacteria on them compounds the problem. So, given that nothing has been found to eradicate the micro-bacteria completely (that is cost effective)...no agents, not peroxide or anything else, has been found to be effective at a cost less than the replacement cost of the spiels...unless of course your spiels are silver...which rejects the adherence of the micro-bacteria.

Just imagine the cost of subjecting all your spiels, inside their tap hole, to UV light...how would you even do that?

Cheers,
Russ

[Diesel Pro]

I mean a UV light source while the spiles are out of the tree.

If I'm following though I should also replace my tapping bit each year as well?

Last year was my first and truly exceptional. This year the daily production is simply unimpressive.

All holes drilled with last years bit. Most taps are reused, but some new. I added 10 pails so 20 taps as most were 2-fers and just don't seem to be getting the flow.

I don't know if my Bit or a spile will fit into it but I do have a UV chip eraser and they do make UV lights for killing bacteria in water.

[NTBugtraq]

I asked, how would you expose the interior of your spiels to extended (e.g. 10 minutes) of UV light anyway, outside of the tree in some sort of pan under a light inside your house...honestly, think about it, how would you get them all standing up so the light could extend through them? Think of the effort to achieve that, the cost of the electricity, etc...I mean, what's a spiel cost, < C$0.31...

No, your tapping bit is not being exposed to a flow of sap. These micro-bacteria form as a result of a constant exposure...your bit isn't being constantly exposed. Each exposure is short, and abrasive...but the sap flowing over your spiel isn't like that. Its a long exposure, and no abrasion.

I can't say whether your "UV chip eraser" (what is that?), or UV lights for that matter, have any effect on this micro-bacteria being spoken about here. I know it forms a very hard surface, one that only reacts badly to abrasion (e.g. it responds by getting more aggressive at growing). UV kills some stuff, but stimulates other stuff, and I'm no boi-chemist. All I do know is that according to the research done by Cornell and UVM (which Dr. Tim is part of) couldn't find a cost effective method of cleaning spiels. Replacement was always more cost effective.

So, unless you're thinking of a way to make money by patenting a new way...;-]...I'd suggest you're only going to spend money looking for an alternative way of cleaning spiels...;-]

Cheers,
Russ

[Diesel Pro]

With clear plastic I would think that the UV transmission would be sufficient so no need to align.

[happy thoughts]

With clear plastic I would think that the UV transmission would be sufficient so no need to align.

Not sufficient. Again the problem is biofilms. UV light doesn't penetrate them. As for peroxide, that and mechanical action can help remove the biofilm but you'll never get it to a "like new" condition or anywhere near sterile. And the question again becomes cost of cleaning and labor vs replacement.

[NW Ohio]

I went back and read through another recent thread about this topic and some discussion about autoclaving (which I think was mentioned earlier in this thread). Is autoclaving effective? My understanding is that it would be.

I ask because I use the 5/16" treesaver spouts from Leader (black plastic with the hose barb, $0.39). I actual autoclave twice (...not sure why...), once at the end of the season and then again before the beginning of the next. I only had 100 taps this year but reusing the sterilized taps did save me $39 (plus S&H). Running the autoclave cost me $0.89, for the gallon of distilled water that I used.

I have not had any issues with melting of deforming and believe the taps appear good as new (unless someone tells me that heating the plastic liberate chemicals that are going to kill me).

If autoclaving (heating to 250F (121C) & 15 psi (100kPa) for 15 minutes (I go 30)) works, can't these conditions be copied in a pressure cooker?

[NTBugtraq]

Despite the publications that I cited earlier (which got me to admit I was wrong for thinking the idea of replacing spiels was wrong), people think that the two Universities involved in studying this issue simply missed the dead simple idea of a pressure cooker. I get it, I too was incredulous when I first read this stuff...but come on, if there were a bunch of people working on a study about what works and what doesn't, do you really think they just missed something obvious?

NW Ohio...you missed adding the cost of the time it took you to put them in and take them out of the autoclave (labor), the cost of the electricity to get it to 121C (that's not 15 minutes worth, that's all the time up to when the 15 minutes starts). I'm not saying that adds up to $39 (+ S&H), but its more than $0.89. You have also done nothing to prove you've made a difference, and if so, how much difference? You've used your common sense to say; "I...believe the taps are good as new". Nice, glad you believe that...but people believed that simply rinsing them in warm/hot water was enough...but that's been proven wrong by the cited studies.

The studies proved (and other studies for uses other than maple taps, as cited by happy thoughts) heat is not enough, there must be agitation in order to break the biofilms surface. You might think, well hey, they're knocking around in the boiling water, so... Yup, you're right, they are, but is that doing any good? They're certainly bumping into the outside of each other, but the biofilm is largely on the inside...and if you could use something to agitate inside, then you'd have to wonder what it could do to the surface of the plastic spiel. Studies say that surfaces that are less smooth (such as micro-scratched plastic) are only going to gather an even greater amount of biofilm...so did you just make it worse?

So do this instead. Next year, on any tree you have 2 or more taps in, try replacing one spiel with a new one, and do whatever you want to the others...and do that again the next year (preferably always replacing the same spiel). If you can put those taps into 5 gallon pails on the ground via a drop line, you'll be able to measure the difference. You'll get your very own proof as to whether cleaning is as good as replacing or not.

For the $39 (+ S&H), which is maybe what, 5% or less of your operating expense?, I'd just accept the studied advice.

Cheers,
Russ

[SDdave]

No disrespect to anyone as everyone is entitled to their opinion. But here is my opinion...I'm going to pop some popcorn sit back and read some more. It's almost better than TV! And when this gets over I'll search radioactive sewage drums for sap storage, or tree farms, or...:rolleyes:

SDdave

[NTBugtraq]

Dang, I did it again eh? Sorry.

[NW Ohio]

Autoclaving takes virtually no time. Mine is always set up. The labor is me dropping them in the pan, adding the water, closing the door and hitting run. An hour later (or when I get back to it) I pop the top and pull out the sterilized taps. My time spent as labor doing this would be doubled if I had to call Leader place the order and then unpack it upon arrival... ...therefor no consideration of the minimal time spent. My autoclave operates at 1250 Watts and takes less than an hour to heat up and complete a 30 minute cycle, so I'll add $0.10. Now, like I said I do this twice so I'll credit you that (actually not using a full gallon of water each time but 45 oz., one gallon could cover both runs and I would nearly have enough to do a third). Total expense < $0.89/season.

Autoclaving also creates virtually no agitation. The taps are not bouncing around in water, but instead sit on a tray in a second pan inside the autoclave, so there are no abrasions to the surface.

I'm simply asking (not trying to convince), is it effective? I know it works better for me if it is.

My studies are this: for years people have been reusing mason jars. Some of which may have had significant bacterial growth in them through previous use. We have had homemade apple sauce that spoils after being opened and then stored in the fridge for too long. We wash all of the jars in the dishwasher not taking the time to mechanically scrub them. But they basically get autoclaved when the next item gets canned. We have never had anything spoil after processing through a pressure cooker (until opened as I mentioned before). Shouldn't there be biofilms in those jars. Maybe they spoil faster if there are? I understand that these are glass and we am talking about plastic so there may be differences. I also understand that biofilms are more than just the bacteria that they contain, but also contain organic and inorganic material that might aid in the adhesion of new bacteria that could find their way into the tap hole (or Mason jar) in subsequent years. I just haven't seen a definitive statement about the effectiveness of autoclaving taps(not that it doesn't exist). Have these studies been done in relation to maple taps?

[NTBugtraq]

Since you haven't read the studies, I am not going to try and present them here. Uncle, you win.

[happy thoughts]

Autoclaving takes virtually no time. Mine is always set up. The labor is me dropping them in the pan, adding the water, closing the door and hitting run. An hour later (or when I get back to it) I pop the top and pull out the sterilized taps. My time spent as labor doing this would be doubled if I had to call Leader place the order and then unpack it upon arrival... ...therefor no consideration of the minimal time spent. My autoclave operates at 1250 Watts and takes less than an hour to heat up and complete a 30 minute cycle, so I'll add $0.10. Now, like I said I do this twice so I'll credit you that (actually not using a full gallon of water each time but 45 oz., one gallon could cover both runs and I would nearly have enough to do a third). Total expense < $0.89/season.

Autoclaving also creates virtually no agitation. The taps are not bouncing around in water, but instead sit on a tray in a second pan inside the autoclave, so there are no abrasions to the surface.

I'm simply asking (not trying to convince), is it effective. I know it works better for me if it is.

Interesting thoughts. If it works for you then go for it. Autoclaving would seem to me the best of all methods if you plan on reusing but the taps would still need to be thoroughly cleaned. Have you factored in the time doing that? Throwing them in a dishwasher may be effective for a mason jar but isn't going to do much for the inside of a spile.


My studies are this: for years people have been reusing mason jars. Some of which may have had significant bacterial growth in them through previous use. We have had homemade apple sauce that spoils after being opened and then stored in the fridge for too long. We wash all of the jars in the dishwasher not taking the time to mechanically scrub them. But they basically get autoclaved when the next item gets canned. We have never had anything spoil after processing through a pressure cooker (until opened as I mentioned before) Shouldn't there be biofilms in those jars. Maybe they spoil faster if there are? I understand that these are glass and we am talking about plastic so there may be differences. I also understand that biofilms are more than just the bacteria that they contain, but also contain organic and inorganic material that might aid in the adhesion of new bacteria that could find their way into the tap hole (or Mason jar) in subsequent years. I just haven't seen a definitive statement about the effectiveness of autoclaving taps(not that it doesn't exist). Have these studies been done?

I think comparing taps to mason jars is apples and oranges. A properly canned and sealed jar should not support microbial growth as the contents inside are either sterile, too acid or too highly osmotic. Taps are open to air and in use have a ready source of moisture and nutrients in an environment that readily supports microbial growth.

I am not sure whether autoclaving removes the actual biofilm matrix or just kills the organisms (and spores) that live in it. If some matrix remains I'd expect that would be a basis for faster future colonization. But again, the usual pre-sterilization process is to thoroughly clean before autoclaving. I'm not aware of any studies on autoclaving taps though Dr Tim may be able to answer if he isn't too swamped with what is probably the peak of his research season.

Now I'm joining SDdave and making some popcorn :) Want some?

Hope your season was a good one!

[NW Ohio]

Which studies are you referring to? The article that Happy Thoughts linked earlier in this thread is good, but it does not consider autoclaving. Probably because it is not practical in most "food processing environments." It is practical in my operation and could be helpful to others... ...if it works.

I can't find anything on the UV or Cornell sites that you linked specific to autoclaving.

In a thread that played out last month Dr. Perkins referred to autoclaving twice. He never said that it worked or it didn't. He did say that boiling drop lines "might be somewhat effective" but that it is impractical. In another statement he says that boiling in no longer used by hospitals for sterilization... ...they autoclave. Probably because it is more effective. Would it be more effective with maple spouts? Even though someone else asked if the 5/16" plastic Leader spouts could be autoclaved, nobody responded (though I waited with great anticipation that someone would, again I know they can be, I wanted someone to discuss effectiveness).

...and so my question remains. How effective is autoclaving on spouts?

I don't win because you say I do... ...I win if I can find a definitive answer to my question and it saves me $40-$50 per year. We all win if there is an answer.

[GeneralStark]

Autoclaving is better than doing nothing, but is still not as effective as using a new spout every year. There is no way you can kill all the microbes on a spout regardless of the material it is made of. Look at the medical industry, they rarely reuse anything.

Let's sum it up this way: 1. If you want to achieve the highest yields possible annually, use a new spout every season. 2. If you don't mind some reduction in yields, use some cleaning method like boiling, sanitizing or autoclaving annually. (but this will not achieve the results of using method #1) 3. If you don't really care about your yields, keep using the same spouts every year, and don't bother cleaning them or replacing them.

[DrTimPerkins]

How effective is autoclaving on spouts?

Although it has not been studied directly (it isn't practical for most producers) autoclaving (of metal spouts) would be very effective (assuming the temperatures, pressures, and cycle time were adequate). However sterilizing (by autoclave) would not remove any surface debris, so there would likely be residue that microbes could quickly become established on and grow.

I wouldn't try it with plastic spouts though.