Alcohol Content

Pp

I use both of Margolit's books, and do use his equation when looking for a ball park expectation of PA.

How are the wines tasting? Actually very good. We are being asked by anyone who has tasted the wine from the SS tank, when we will bottle. Since the grapes were picked at Brix that were higher than we originally wanted, this year's Pinot Grigio is far more lush, and complex than a typical Pinot Grigio that you may find in Italy, or at wineries that attempt to emulate the Italian style.

Where we are in California all of our grapes ripened at the same time in

Actually I am concerned that if next year's Pinot Grigio is a more acidic, leaner wine, we may have trouble selling it, as this year's wine is so smooth, has great fruit, very nice mouth feel and long finish. We will see!

As an aside, our Cabernet Sauvignon alcohol this year is 16.59%. That was a shocker. For those who are interested, it was fermented using ICV D21 yeast.

Regards

Jerry

When the alcohol is that high, what's your strategy with ML? I've got a Petit Sirah this year that's around 16% and the ML seems stuck midway. I've tried to restart it with the Hansen strain that should work for high alcohol (CH16?) but no luck so far.

Thx,

Pp

Greg Boyd wrote:

looking for

Pp

That is an interesting and challenging conundrum in winemaking. There are Lactobacillus that can develop in dessert wines of up to 18 or 20% alcohol (Peynaud, E., Knowing and Making Wine, Wiley Interscience, NY,

When we were faced with an MLF that stopped at 60% completion last year, we allowed the wine to age in that condition, evaluated it for taste and other sensory aspects, and decided that we actually liked it as it was. We then used Lysozyme to kill things, fined and filtered the wine, and bottled it. It is still aging at the moment, and will not be available to drink for another 6-9 months or so.

We are also considering making red wines that do not undergo malolactic fermentation at all, and in some cases do not see, any or at the most a bit of oak. We have a small test batch of Syrah that is in stainless, and will stay there for another 6-8 months. Its total contact with oak is five 1.5" x 10" x 1/4 " daisy chained ministaves hung off the bung. (French oak, medium toast).

All of the consequences of hi Brix wines are getting tiresome for us. Yes, the wines still come out fine thus far, but we are becoming more and more convinced that there is no real need to allow fruit to hang until Brix levels reach 26, 27 or 28 or higher. (A late harvest, hot weather Zinfandel at a colleague's winery was 36 Brix immediately after crush!) We are determined to pick sooner, and to make wines that start fermentation at 23 -25 Brix if at all possible given weather considerations, and the picking crews available to us. If successful, I think we will have fewer worries about stuck fermentations of all types, wine that is reduced, and wine that is so high in alcohol that a warning label should be included that says " do not get near an open flame".

I don't think that this long response necessarily answered your questions, but perhaps it offered a bit of grist for the winemakers press. I am very interested in other winemakers thoughts about these high alcohol wines.

Regards

Jerry

I agree with you and Dr. Richard Smart agrees with you. I do not have this problem with my grapes grown in the Mid Atlantic but sometimes I buy grapes from the Central Valley of California. I have found that a blend of Eastern grapes and the Central Valley grapes makes the best wine.

Jerry

Comments interspersed:

Maybe I wasn't clear. I quite_literally_make no calculations what-so- ever when doing sugar/alcohol management. All of my numbers are lifted_directly_from my multi-scale hydrometers. No calculations, no mistakes. If my hydrometers are right then I am right. If my hydrometers are wrong then I am wrong. Doing it this way makes life very simple for the "little guy". How about this. When you go to that symposium, pick up a triple scale hydrometer. That way you can see what the "other half" is using and it will be helpful when reading Berry since that is what he used. Between now and then, visit Jack Keller's site. It is a very much modernized version of the kind of thing that Berry used to do. He also uses the 0.55 conversion factor and the chart on his hydrometer page is a fair representation of the numbers you will find on that triple scale hydrometer when you get it.

Once again, I don't_do_calculations. I simply trust my hydrometers. The folks who designed my hydrometers did all the calculating for me, so all I have to do is read the numbers. If these are_not_ the best that modern science can provide, I sure wish modern science would get busy and come out with a "new and improved" version !!

If the available hydrometers are_not_the solution for the little guy, what exactly_do_ you recommend ??

Frederick

Frederick

I have a number of triple scale hydrometers and use them regularly.

If I were to suggest a course of action to a home winemaker it would be to use Margolit's 0.57 factor and the following equation:

% Potential Alcohol(v/v) = 0.57 x Brix.

The factor you suggest (0.55), could also be used. This equation, no matter what number, or hydrometer is used, has a number of limitations, and only provides an estimate for a number of reasons: Various studies have shown that the number ranges from 0.55-0.60. (references available). Some reasons are: The non-sugar solids which are part of the must's Brix, depend on the grape variety, growing region and state of maturity of the fruit. Less ripe grapes have higher non-sugar solids, and afford a lower alcohol/Brix ratio. Additionally, ethanol yield depends on fermentation temperature - higher temps lower yield - and evaporation of ethanol.

Prior to making wine commercially, we started as home winemakers. We now do both as we are slightly daft. Thus I am able to lead two lives relative to winemaking. I am not actually recommending anything, but I am suggesting that all of this fretting about PA is more an intellectual exercise than a practical reality for many winemakers - both professional home and professional commercial (I believe that anyone who takes winemaking seriously is, or at least can be, a professional.)

While home winemakers may like to know the alcohol content of a wine they are making, it makes little difference in the scheme of things, vis-a-vis taxes, labels, etc. If a wine is 13%, 14,% or 15.5% alcohol, great as long as the wine is balanced, and a good example of that particular varietal. Commercial operations are different in that they must know the alcohol content in order to calculate taxes, make labels, and be ready for any site visit from those folks who take these things seriously - state and federal agents. From that perspective, home and commercial winemakers are like the Chicken and Pig commenting about a ham and egg breakfast - one is interested, but the other is really involved, as the consequences are different for both.

For those who must know the final alcohol content of their wine - or those who just want to know - there are at least 6 laboratory methods available to accomplish this. Ebulliometry (for wines with < 2% residual sugar corrective measures must also be taken), Gas Chromatography and Determination by Hydrometric Analysis (essentially distillation and measuring S. Gravity) are three are offered by many laboratories, and which are not necessarily expensive to have done.

Regards

Jerry

Jerry

Does your triple scale hydrometer have a PA scale on it ? If so, do the PA numbers that appear there use the 0.57 conversion factor that you recommend ? If so, where can I get one ?? TIA

Frederick

VERY much agree.

Agree again - excellent.

Well stated. Excellent post.

Paul

Thank you.

In reading your comments I noticed that I inadvertently typed the "2% residual sugar corrective measures must also be taken)....."

Sorry for any concerns this may have caused anyone.

Regards

Jerry

Frederick

You are missing my point. In actuality, one can use any factor between

Regards

Jerry

Jerry

Obviously, your hydrometer is the same as everyone else's. At this particular moment in time I feel intolerably frustrated. First you come to this group and arrogate it upon yourself to make a sweeping condemnation of everything most of us are doing, and then turn right around and say that you know a better way of doing those same things. You tell us that making estimates is impossible and then tell us that 0.57 will give us _better_ estimates. You recommend 0.57 in spite of the fact that 0.55 has been an industry standard for as long as I can remember (and I am an_old_man) and,_most_of the literature is based on this standard.

We already know that this stuff ain't rocket science and that what we are doing is making "estimates". If you truly believe that such estimates are "useless", I suggest that you live by that philosophy and stop making and using them. But please allow the rest of us to go on doing things the way we have always done them. We already understand that 0.55 gives us conservative estimates because all of the literature tells us that. But if rubber is ever going to meet the road and give us some traction here, we are going to have to agree on using some kind of standard numbers and definitions for our terminology. Like it or not, our hydrometers tell us what that standard currently is. When a newbie who is using a triple scale hydrometer asks a question, DON'T give them an answer that contradicts the standard that they are using. It's like speaking in a foreign language that they don't understand and only leads to confusion !!

You are free to do things any way you like, but I reserve that same right for myself and everyone else.

To the others that may be reading this that don't use lab reports, it is_my_advice that you go right on using your triple scale hydrometers and _believe_ what they tell you because that is the best tool that is available to us for practicing our craft. For goodness sake !! Even_kit_instructions recommend using one.

While I am at this, let me make some comments about your wines. Every novice soon discovers that "hot" (high alcohol) wines are_not_desirable. And most "professionals" understand full well the problems encountered with high alcohol ferments. Seems odd that a person with both experience and a degree might not know this. You seem to have fallen victim to the current hype and bull chips that "27 is the new 24". High BRIX grapes are cheap for a reason. They_don't_make good wine and they cause all kinds of problems in production !! Unfortunately, you are now finding this out the hard way and are in the process of reinventing the wheel (so to speak). The reason you decided not to do MLF on that high alcohol wine is because you_can't_ !! The commercially available MLB can't tolerate that much alcohol and strains that could are _not_desirable and no one in their right mind would risk infecting a entire winery with an undesirable bug.

At this point you are kinda stuck with your own creations. I think you may encounter problems in marketing some of them. Customers may not be very "savvy" about wine, but they_do_know what they do and don't like.

Let me try to save you some time and anguish. Don't pass "go". Go directly back to the old "24" rule. I think you will find that all of your "rocket fuel" and MLF problems will magically disappear. If you play with the numbers a bit I think you will find that 24 produces about the upper end of what MLB is really comfortable living with (another "estimate" of course). I'm sure that you will find that "good" grapes are far more expensive because a lot of "pros" will be trying to outbid each other to get their hands on them. It's just part of the cost of doing business.

I have no diplomas to wave in the air. My only qualification is long experience. Every one has a right to their own opinion and I am only expressing mine. I will therefore request: No flames please. HTH

Frederick

We've been over this several times, but I haven't seen your reply on my last posts, so just briefly: The scale is one thing, the question how to use the scale is another:

- my triple scale hydrometer instructions say to use the final gravity to calculate PA;

- Jack's post from a while back also indicates his scale is meant to use the final gravity;

- you mentioned Berry got his approach wrong too. I think this means he uses the final gravity to calculate PA too.

So your three examples of scales that use 0.55 conversion factor actually use a higher conversion factor. The 0.55 would apply if the bottom of the scale was 1.000. If the final gravity is used as indicated above, the conversion factor would be higher because the PA calucated by this method is higher.

Pp

frederick ploegman wrote:

what-so-

hydrometers

Thanks Jerry, that's basically what I was thinking, but at this point I can't unfortunately influence when the grapes will be picked - don't know if I mentioned it in the first post, but the Petit Sirah came in at 31B and we diluted it with water to 26B. Other people who didn't or who diluted it less had a bigger problem on their hand than we did - stuck alcoholic fermentation that refuses to get started again.

I've got a question concerning Lysozyme. I routinely use it on my whites and last year I also used it on 2 batches of reds (juice with some Zin skins added). In both cases I got a huge amount of sediment overall, with some still dropping out after a year of aging and 6 or more rackings. Apart from the lysozyme, I also added some grape skin concentrate to improve the colour, so I'd like to find out if it was the lysozyme or the colouring or combination of the two that caused the large amount of precipitate. In your experience, do you find that lysozyme acts as a fining agent this way? It seems to me that it should basically behave as egg whites, and the recommended dose for preventing ML seems pretty substantial, so I'm wondering how well suited it is for use in reds?

Thx,

Pp

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

available

Frederick

Obviously you have not read my posts carefully, but have decided to react anyway. I have not pontificated in any way about whether one should or should not do anything relative to hydrometer readings, etc.. I have simply stated that these are estimates, and if one wants correct and accurate results that stand up to scrutiny, one needs to do lab tests. Period!

I have commented on the fact that 0.55 or 0.56 05 0.57 , etc. are numbers that give estimates. All of your ranting does not change that.

I have never said they are "useless" and I ask to not to put words in my mouth. You may get away with that when addressing other members of this group but not with me. (BTW I am probably as old or older than you.) I have maintained all along that estimates are just that - estimates, and all winemakers need to know that, even your proverbial newbie. Yes, they - newbies - need to learn how to make and use their hydrometer readings, but they should not be told that these readings are as reliable as the atomic clock. That teaches nothing and only treats newbies as people too stupid to think for themselves. I have been firm on my belief that those selling wines need more accurate data than those who make wine non-commercially.

Frederick - you cannot comment on my wines because you have never had them, and know nothing about them. Some are high alcohol and some are not. I have not fallen victim to anything. We pick at all sugar levels and each grape varietal is considered individually. You ought to know that. Furthermore you ought to know that in a large vineyard one has many factors to consider when picking, and that includes the ability to use the things you can control and deal with the things you cannot - like the weather.

That is not true. We have just completed MLF on a 15.45% alcohol Chardonnay. The newer strains of MLF bacteria will complete MLF at 15 and 16% alcohol. Last year all - I repeat all - of the red wines that I made completed malolactic, except for a Pinot aged in Stainless Steel that I decided to stop at 60% completion. Regarding your cheap high Brix fruit comment, high Brix Pinot fruit sells around here for $2100-3500/ton. Not bad prices. We do not have to go on the market however as we grow all of our own grapes, and have total control of the vineyards.

I am not finding anything out the hard way. I make my wines in the style I want to make them.

What creations are those exactly? I mentioned a Pinot Grigio that was high in alcohol, and a small lot of Cabernet. The Pinot Grigio does not undergo MLF by design. The 2 barrels of high alcohol Cabernet are 2.5 months old and are stored in a 63-65 degree F. facility, hardly MLD friendly conditions. At this stage, MLF on this wine is not something I am worried about.

Finally I have never "waved my diplomas in the air" as you contend. I mentioned it making a point. What I have not done is call you a liar, as you have done me. I have no intention of doing so, but I do wonder why you feel you must do so.

Additionally, I have not just joined this News Group as you imply. I have been around for a few years. I do not comment often. I decided to comment about PA because as I followed that thread for months, I began to feel that it was rather "over the top". I still do.

Regards

Jerry

Pp

I have used Lysozyme , but not extensively. I have used it in the Pinot Noir I mentioned in another post as well as in Sauvignon Blanc. I will most likely use it in a Viognier this year (a 2004 wine still in the barrel) that I want to undergo only a partial malolactic fermentation. To date, I have not had sediment in unusual amounts, nor have I had problems with post Lysozyme fining and filtering.

Lysozyme does effect protein stability in white wines, and as you know can precipitate lees in red wines. I have not yet seen anything about why or how this happens chemically or physically. I imagine that data is out there. I have not found it yet, and need to do more looking in the literature. Typing "Lysozyme in Wine Making" into Google resulted in 4230 hits. Much was source of same, but I imagine that somewhere in these articles are important data. It this rain continues here in CA, I may have a chance to read all of them!

Have you used Bentonite to deactivate and remove the Lysozyme after it has done what you intended? Another thing that Scott Labs stresses is the use of correct hydration procedures for maximum efficiency. They do not discuss the effects of improper hydration other than to state undissolved Lysozyme will not be as effective as when properly hydrated. Here is their link to Lysozyme. Scott Labs' recommended rehydration methodology is a pdf file within this article.

Wine Maker Magazine had an article about Lysozyme a couple of years ago. You may have already seen it, but if not here is a link:

A colleague had flocking difficulties last year when he used it, and had to filter more than he had hoped. He has been making wines for 35 years, and had not used it. I suggested he do so on this particular wine. Now whenever I mention Lysozyme, he mutters a bit.

Sorry I could not be of more help.

Regards

Jerry

Jerry

Yes, this has gone completely over the top, and that is unfortunate. I still have your original post. It contains the words: "...posts about PA, alcohol content and other minutia are exercises in "reductio ad absurdum". I will_gladly_bow out of these discussions if you will answer the folks questions with something other than these words !! GLADLY !!

I will try to keep this simple. The original question was: "How do I calculate end alcohol when fermentation is complete?". This was being asked by people that don't use lab tests. They_were_ using a triple scale hydrometer for their frame of reference. The most often used example was a 1090/990 ferment. Please answer this question for them.

The next question was: "I wish to make a dry (country) wine which will have 12% alcohol in it when fermentation is complete. Where should I set my original gravity?" Please answer this question for them.

Everything else flowed from these questions. Answer them and our problem is solved. Your best estimates will be good enough.

Further comments interspersed:

YOUR words were: "...posts about PA, alcohol content and other minutia are exercises in "reductio ad absurdum"..."

Now I will request that you not put words in _my_ mouth. The actual numbers being used were only examples intended to demonstrate methodology.

You are right and I apologize. Too many assumptions with too little info.

Folks have been asking this group for a reference to an MLB that has an_initial_alcohol toxicity point of 15 or above. You would certainly be helping them if you would post an on line source that provides a detailed description. I would also be interested.

If you feel that that is what I have done, then I will once again apologize.

I agree and I have proposed a solution. YOU answer those two questions and get me off the hook. TIA

Frederick

Jerry:

Thanks a lot, this was helpful. The one thing I didn't consider was bentonite - I use it on whites but not on reds, so that is a significant difference that could explain what happened. Other than that, I rehydrated it properly, and I can see why they stress the need to do it.

I think I'll do a trial bentonite fining this year if I end up using lysozyme on the Petit Sirah.

Thx,

Pp

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

fermentation.

resulted

They

hydrated.

Frederick

I will answer your questions and stay true to my comments, which probably means you will disagree with me and the results or recommendations.

2.) I would once again use Margolit's formula, but calculate the starting Brix. Thus 0.57B = 12 and B = 21.05 (Where B = Brix). Using "your" number the results are 0.55B = 12 and B = 21.8. To be safe I wild also calculate 0.60B = 12 and find that B = 20. Then I would use my expertise as a viticulturalist and winemaker to determine if these estimates would indeed allow me to end up with the wine I wanted. Frankly I would pick at 22 Brix if the seeds were beginning to brown, the skins were not too thick, and the varietal was one that lent itself to being picked at this sugar level, paying special attention to whether or not this was red or a white wine.

I answered your question simply as an exercise. I would not use them as anything but a guide. You may feel differently than I do about the alcohol level in wines, and that is your right. But I ask, is there any sensory difference between a 12 and a 12.25 or 12.5% wine? In my opinion, not really. Thus I would never personally try, nor would I suggest to anyone an absolute number. I would try to assist them to make a wine between 12 and 12.5% alcohol. It would be incredibly arrogant of me to state that I knew enough about the complex wine making process to nail a specific % a priori.

I imagine that the inherent errors in estimating alcohol is why the Feds allow a 1.5% variance for wines that test at 14% alcohol or more, and 1% variance for wines that test for 14 % alcohol or less. Even they, dunderheads that they can be at times, realize that these % are nothing but estimates.

Regards

Jerry