Re: Kit Wine Aging in Oak Barrel?

Actually, if you do the math there is not a significant difference in the ratio of surface area for any size to volume for any size barrel.

That's not to say that a smaller barrel won't impact flavor a lot more..... I've never used one so cannot say. But if they do, it's not due to surface area.

clyde

"Negodki" wrote "the smaller barrels impart far too much flavour!" I've used a 5 gallon French Oak Barrel in the past and currently use a 10 gallon MO white oak barrel. I've had my Baco/Chambourcin in the new 10 gallon for three months and it still could more oak flavor.

Same goes for all barrels

"(IMO again) you are much better off using oak chips. " Chips are easier and I've used them myself. However, barrel oak gives a different flavor that I associate with great red wines.

Bill Frazier Olathe, Kansas

Clyde Gill ( snipped-for-privacy@misn.com) wrote: "Actually, if you do the math there is not a significant difference in the ratio of surface area for any size to volume for any size barrel."

William Frazier ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net) wrote: "I've used a 5 gallon French Oak Barrel in the past and currently use a 10 gallon MO white oak barrel. I've had my Baco/Chambourcin in the new 10 gallon for three months and it still could more oak flavor."

In respect to barrels, I'm just repeating "common wisdom".

Presque Isle (Catalog #23, Page 32) states, "While we are strong advocates of oak aging we are reluctant to urge many of you to use small barrels. They are expensive, require careful handling, evaporation loses are substantial, and leaks do occur. When making batches smaller than about 30 gallons, consider using Oak-Mor or Oak Chips ... the results will be similar to barrel aging with much less hassle.

Jon Iverson (Home Winemaking Step by Step, Page 118) states "... oak barrels are highly impractical for the home winemaker. First of all, the optimum surface-to-volume ratio is attained only with 55-gallon barrels .... A 30-gallon barrel is usable, despite its dramatically higher surface-to-volume ratio. Although a wine could NOT be aged for

2 to 3 years in a 30-gallon barrel...it could be aged for a year or so, and most of the benefits of oak aging attained....the problem with 15-gallon barrels is that the surface-to-volume ratio is so high as to limit the aging period so much that the desired oxidizing benefits of long term aging in cooperage will not be realized." [As to the mathematics: the volume of a cylinder is Area * Height. The volume of a circular cylinder is Pi * Radius**2 * Height. The volume of an elliptical cylinder is PI * A * B * Height, where A and B are the semi-axis of the ellipse. For simplicity, let's treat our barrel as a circular cylinder. The area of the lateral surface of a circular cylinder is 2 * Pi * Radius * Height. The area of the complete surface is 2 * Pi * Radius (Radius + Height). Now, do the arithmetic for each size barrel, and you see that the surface-to-volume ratio does indeed increase radically as the barrel size decreases.]

Jon Iverson further states, "In addition to size considerations, [any] oak barrels have to be monitored closely during aging and topped up religiously. It is easy for ethyl acetate, acetaldehyde, or other organic defects to develop during any aging process which exposes wine to air, however limited the exposure may be. Defects of this nature are unacceptable in even small amounts, and there is NO REMEDY for it. Should one of these problems strike, the barrel would have to be reworked (i.e. dismantled and the staves shaved) to remove the taint and avoid a repeat of the problem the next year.

"The oak barrel enthusiast will also have the ongoing nuisance of maintaining the barrel between batches of wine. Water and SO2 gas have to be added regularly to prevent drying out and/or molding. And after several seasons, the tannins and oak flavor will have been leached out of the oak. Your options then are to have the barrel reworked or to start adding oak flavor from an outside source, in the form of chips or staves. And all along, you will suffer from a lack of flexibility in that once used for a red wine, the barrel should not later be used for a white wine.

"OAK BARRELS ARE A LOT OF WORK AND GREATLY INCREASE THE CHANCE OF SPOILAGE. THERE HAS PROBABLY BEEN MORE WINE SPOILED AND TIME AND MONEY WASTED IN OAK BARREL ENDEAVORS THAN ANY OTHER ASPECT OF HOME WINEMAKING".

Negodki: "Additionally, barrels are a nuisance. You MUST keep them topped up"

William Frazier: Same goes for all barrels

Negodki: I think that's what I just said. :)

William Frazier: Chips are easier and I've used them myself. However, barrel oak gives a different flavor that I associate with great red wines.

Negodki: Some chips are made from barrel oak (e.g. Stavin), and should impart the same flavours, without the extra trouble.

Actually, Tom's done the math (which of course requires being able to measure the dimenions of barrels), and found that the ratio doesn't change all that much. He posted the results of doing the math, but I'm not sure how it easy it would be to search for.

And this, so far as I know, is just wrong. I don't know of ANY winemaking professinal who adds water to empty barrels, except immediately before refilling them with wine. Leaving water in an empty barrel is a sure-fire way of wrecking the barrel.

But the more important thing missing from all these discussions is the other important taste-aspect imparted by barrel aging which can't, so far as I know, be reproduced any other way, and that's the concentrative efffects of barrel aging. Over the course of a year, something like 5%-6% of the water evaporates out of the wine in a barrle (the exact ratio of water to ethanol and the exact amount depends on the ambient humidity), and this serves to concentrate the flavors in the wine,

This, to my mind (and Tom will disagree with me here) is the most important aspect of barrel aging, not the oak character imparted by younger barrels. I keep and use older barrels and often prefer them to younger barrels for exactly this reason--I can concentrate the wine without adding unwanted oak flavor. That isn't to say that sometimes I don't want oak, but I always want it to be my choice.

But yes, barrels are a great big pain in the butt, gnerally speaking.

Dave

**************************************************************************** Dave Breeden snipped-for-privacy@lightlink.com

I don't have the precise dimensions of the various barrels sizes handy, but let's "do the math" with a few hypothetical cylinders:

Applicable Formulae: volume = Pi * Radius**2 * Height surface area = 2 * Pi * Radius (Radius + Height) surface-to-volume ratio = surface / volume one gallon = 231 cubic inches

Let cylinder#1 be 22" in diameter and 34" in height (which are the ~ inside dimensions of a 55-gallon oil drum)

volume = 3.14 * 11**2 * 34 = 12,918 cubic inches = 56 gallons surface area = 2 * 3.14 * 11 (11 + 34) = 3108.6 square inches surface-to-volume ratio = 3108.6 / 12918 = .24

Let cylinder#2 be 18" in diameter and 28" in height (preserving ~ the same aspect ratio in a 30-gallon cylinder).

volume = 3.14 * 9**2 * 28 = 7122 cubic inches = 31 gallons surface area = 2 * 3.14 * 9 (9 + 28) = 2091square inches surface-to-volume ratio = 2091 / 7122 = .29 which is 1.22 times greater than the surface-to-volume ratio of the 56-gallon cylinder

Let cylinder#3 be 14.2" in diameter and 22" in height (preserving ~ the same aspect ratio in a 15-gallon cylinder).

volume = 3.14 * 7.1**2 * 22 = 3482 cubic inches = 15.1 gallons surface area = 2 * 3.14 * 7.1 (7.1 + 22) = 1297.5 square inches surface-to-volume ratio = 1297.5 / 3482 = .37 which is 1.55 times greater than the surface-to-volume ratio of the 56-gallon cylinder.

A 22% and 55% increase in surface-to-volume ratio seems significant to me.

If, as Jon Iverson (and others) state, the increased surface-to-volume ratios prevent one from leaving the wine in the smaller barrels for the required time (which does seem logical), it would appear that one cannot achieve the effect you are describing (using the smaller barrels) without over-oaking.

Also, if the evaporation of 5-6% of the wine (although I understood it to be much greater) produces a benefit, there ARE other means to allow evaporation, just as there are other means of imparting oak flavour. One of the "arguments" against plastic fermenters is that (supposedly) they allow some amount of air to permeate their walls (i.e. breath). So this might be one method. One could also use some sort of semi-porous (cork?) stopper instead of a rubber bung on carboys. With a stainless steel fermenter, there are other possibilities that come to mind for implementing a controlled breathing methodology. It's curious that no one has does so --- or perhaps they have.

There are many different methods of making wine, and almost as many opinions as to which is "the correct way". We each have to do what works best for us.

Couldn't find Tom's calculations with a search, but I did find the following threads which discuss the issue, and contain Kirk's calculations:

Interesting discussion. :)

No offence taken. As indicated by the quotation marks and snipped text, this is a direct quotation from Jon Iverson's book, and reflects his opinion, not mine.

As to whether (failed) "oak barrel endeavors" or "wine oxidation" are the greater villian, I suspect neither of you have any empirical evidence to support your contention, but are simply expressing a gut feeling based on your experiences.

Thanx for going through, and displaying the math, Negodki. I would have to agree with you that this is a signifcant amount, and have to admit that I'd never actually went through the trouble of doing the math, and was only reflecting what others have said: something I detest in others and feel ashamed of now.

This is true, unless you were able to get to the point that the barrel was aged, and no longer contributed such a strong oak flavor to the wine. This is exactly why many wineries, including mine now, will use a variety of ages of barrels.

This is close to how much we loose, though time in the barrel will be an obvious factor. Typically the french have longer cooperage time than those in the states (two years as compared to one or less). It's highly dependent on factors like temp and (more importantly) humidity. We keep the wine relatively cool (55 to 65F) and high humidity (60-90%).

I can dispell this one. I see NO significant difference in free SO2 consumption between my SS and plastic tanks. Beyond that, it may not need to be said, but there is never ANY ullage in a plastic tank, which tells me there's no evaporative effects either.

Reverse osmosis perhaps.

Very true and one of the characteristics that makes winemaking, and it's subsequent discussions, so interesting to me.

clyde

I've been enjoying following this thread as our wine club has been making wine (some in kit form) for over 35 years and aging them in oak

55 gallon oak barrels. In the beginning we made the mistake of purchasing used whisky barrels which of coarse gave all our wines the same whisky bouquet and flavor. With experience and gained wisdom we purchased used wine barrels from local vinters with much better success. We have had up to 12 barrels in use at a time, although currently we have only 7. A few of those are over 20 years old and don't add any oak to the wines flavor. Our purpose is strickly for the aging process, in our opinion the barrel helps in that regard. Those who like an oakier wine add oak chips to their share when they bring it home. In truth the greater incentive for most of us the fellowship we enjoy as we get together at the various homes where these barrels are kept, but we wouldn't continue if we did not enjoy the results. I would encourage anyone who has the interest, assuming the cost and the incredible amount of work maintaining a barrel entails, that they go for it. In Vino Veritas, Larry

I agree. Before I did the math for the thread, I was expecting a much larger difference, primarily based on the "common wisdom" I had read, and secondarily based on rough impression of what the formula would yield.

[I wish I had found Kirk and Gorak's calculations first, since the delta value can be found by taking the cube root of the ratio of the two volumes, which is much less arithmetic and typing!]

A 22-55% difference is still significant, but can be compensated for procedurally (as Clyde and yourself have suggested).

Again, I am in agreement with you. But this thread began with a query about using barrels for kit wine. I assume that someone who is making wine from a kit IS a novice, and is probably talking about a 3-5 gallon batch. It was primarily to that person (and others like him) that my comments were addressed.

Similarly, even the experienced home wine-maker (who is complying with the law and limiting production to the statutory 100-gallons per year) may find the expense and extra trouble of barrels to be not worth the effort.

I am quite happy (and pleasantly surprised) with the results I get from glass carboys and oak chips, and many of my reds have been favorably compared to expensive commercial wines. Still, if I was running a commercial winery, I would be using oak barrels.