That is a good question and a great example of where standard guidance and traditional service methods diverge a bit. The Brewers Association Draught Beer Quality Manual and Cicerone training both emphasize keeping the faucet out of the beer and off the glass, but that guidance is really built around standard forward sealing faucets used in most U.S. draft systems. Lukr side pull faucets are a different case entirely. They are designed for Czech style service, where the nozzle is intentionally submerged during the pour to control foam and achieve specific pour styles. So in that context, the no contact rule is not applied the same way. What shifts instead is the focus on faucet hygiene. In places using Lukr systems, it is common to see the nozzle rinsed between pours, along with more attention to keeping the faucet tip clean throughout service. The idea is that since contact is part of the process, sanitation has to be maintained through more active handling rather than avoidance. Thinking back to the Cicerone materials I worked through, including the German, English (CAMRA), Scottish and Irish, American, Keeping and Serving Beer, and Belgian style sections, I do not recall Lukr specific process being covered in detail there either. So a lot of this seems to come more from brewery side training and traditional Czech service practices rather than standard U.S. draft guidance. The closest comparison I can make is from coffee service. With an espresso machine steam wand, it is expected to be cleaned and purged every single time it is used, because it is repeatedly coming into contact with milk. This feels like a similar situation, where since contact is part of the process, cleanliness has to be actively maintained throughout service. Good catch bringing that up, because it is one of the few exceptions where the general rule does not quite apply the same way.
Sooo…pretty important then. Cuz I can’t stand when I’m at a hotel and the TP is set up to be pulled from the bottom. I’ll even fix it if I’m at someone’s house (after taking a pic to publicly shame them).
I checked that Oregon now requires 2 week cleaning intervals. I recollect that in the late 60s Oregon banned refilling of used glassware from the tap. That was meant to reduce the possibility of contamination. Somewhat strangely, until the 80s Oregon required bottle/can beer (less than gallon) to be pasteurized: NO COORS.
I’m not gonna lie, I do the same thing—except I wouldn’t do that as a guest in someone’s home. Still, I consider that on the same level as whether the tap comes into contact with my beer. A minor annoyance at most.
Zero fux about being a guest in someone’s home. Matter o’ fact, ima start keeping copies of this patent diagram in my car so that when I find myself in situations like this, I can hang it above the the holder and back it up with some historical context. I’m on a crusade for the good of mankind, to school everyone on proper TP placement!
Didn’t most places fill growlers from the taps? That would disturb me even more if those were contaminated as they may sit for a few days vs a draft pour of beer which you are drinking right away.
I don't know why this topic always seems to pop up on occasion (not the original post, talking about these kind of articles)...I have never really thought that much about it outside of, I guess most people that write these, have never had any cask beer?
If there is any piece of draft equipment that would be prone to build-up, contamination, etc. it would be the sparkler.
Oh for sure, I'm just thinking of their utter horror at seeing cask ale being served from the spout. I doubt whoever wrote this has even heard of cask let alone seen one in use ha.
Good question. I emptied and cleaned used growlers for my reuse. The growlers I took home kept well (but lost carbonation) for a week as I gradually emptied them. Maybe not best practice for a bar to refill a used growler considering back-contamination?
No joke, I was was at an orthodontist appointment for my kid and, shortly after my initial response, I needed to use the restroom. I walk in and wouldn’t ya know…the muthaf***in’ TP is set up to be pulled from under! Damn right I corrected it and I would do it again! This is merely an observation from my perspective/experience(s) but the only ppl I ever knew that argued for the under placement were of the female gender. I’m sure it’s merely coincidental, as was my experience today at the orthodontist, which was…not a single male works at this orthodontal practice. Now, while I was in the restroom, someone attempted to open the (locked) door. As I exited the facilities, I noticed one of the practitioners waiting nearby and sure enough, she went in. One can probably safely assume that there was an agreement between all of those employed in the practice about the placement of TP in the restroom. And one can also safely assume that all of those employed at the practice, sit to use the toilet regardless of the type of bodily evacuation (sans vomiting). The question is, can the tech who was waiting to use the restroom after I was occupying it safely assume that it was I who corrected the placement of the TP? TBC….
I know some would have a fit if they saw beer being served in Germany. The glasses are always clean, but touch the spout.
