I fill my airlocks with a sanatizer solution.
Thats irrelevant. An air bubble will touch the outside of the liquid as it passed thru and thats it, 98% of the air won't touch the sanitizer. You would have to have some sort of device that would dissolve the air into the liquid to make it effective, which isn't practical.
Not to mention any sanitizer from k meta to any chemical will gas off or break down, its what they are made to do. So in a matter of hours/days/weeks its sterile anyway and no longer sanitizer.
I think most folks use some type of sanitizer solution in the airlocks, so that using a backed-off screw cap isn't exactly the same as using an airlock. Airlock just seems like pretty simple insurance that nothing much gets into the wine. but heck, store your wine in an old dirty shoe, if you feel that's for the best. I prefer to follow the industry standard kinda thing, that's just me.
Again sanitizer is virtually useless from a science perspective. Think it thru, try it, put an air lock on a 2 liter bottle or anything and squeeze it and play with it, some simple observation goes a long way in this case.
Agreed!!! Not to mention that a properly topped storage vessel with a properly filled airlock isn't frequently allowing air bubble to go into the vessel, if it ever does. In my experience with hundreds of six gallon carboys and large pressure changes, the only thing that ever happens is that the fluid in the airlock migrates from one side of the "S" in the airlock to the other. Me? I'm sticking with airlocks til AF / MLF is complete and switching over to vented silicone bungs after that.
I mean did you really sit and watch it 24 hours a day 7 days week for months at a time? Im not trying to be a jerk here, but Im a VERY technical person and from a science point of view that just isn't realisitic.
~~~~~
I appreciate everyones opinion, I do. None of it really gives me any science or split text experience though. Im looking for someone to give me scientific proof, verifiable with a tool that shows that its not as good. That or someone that split tested it and tasted the difference and can say X is better then Y or they are the same.
Im sure there is a difference, but I just don't know what. And to be honest, whats industry "standard" today wasn't 100 years ago and won't be 100 years from now. I break all sorts of rules in wine making and it turns out fine. In fact I made multiple batches last year and followed them to the text book perfect, dotting each I and crossing each T and guess what? I had some flops. This year is my 2nd year making it and I slid it more of what I would call reality.
Im a limits person. I like to know how stuff works, inside and out. Once you understand the science and limits of each and every element, you can begin to combine them and twist them in ways you might not otherwise have thought of. Thats where Im at, I always push the limits in everythign I do. Clearly dirty shoes are outside the limits, but inside of "industry standards" there is a lot of room to play and room to play outside them too. If it tastes good when its done and its not toxic, then thats all that really matters.
For that matter Ive followed winery tips and wine makers ideas this year that has proved better then what you find as industry standards here. For example most people say put 1 camptden table per gallon of liquid with fruit let set for 24 hours and then add yeast (of course you put other things in respectively but Im specifically speaking of kmeta/potasium metabisulfite here) Thats 30 ppm according to my bottle. A winery suggested to use 150ppm or 1g per gallon. I lost a batch last year following the 1 campden tablet method, this year I tried 2 campden or 60 ppm and almost lost it. Decided to forget "industry standard" and go for the 1g 150ppm and let set for 48 hours. Saved the batch.
I never accept industry standard because its industry standard. I disect it and see where its required and where it can be changed to benefit. This holds true to my business and my life in all areas.
Anyway, keep the opinons coming, but I like to label opinion and standard as opinion and standard and label science as science and realize they are 2 very different areas.