Jerry

Are you condemning us "little guys" to eternal darkness ?? I would rather
light a candle. Comments interspersed:


"Jerry DeAngelis" wrote in message
k.net...
Frederick

I am confused about your "modern" and "old fashioned" winemaker
designations.

I had thought that I had made the distinction very clear - but - if not, let
me do so now. "Modern" methods evolved with the advent of chemical
stabilizers (and sterile filtration). "Old fashioned" refers to the methods
used before these things came into general use. Two very different worlds.
You obviously understand "modern", so let me point out an example of
"old fashioned". I believe the best known example is CJJ Berry's book
"First Steps in Winemaking". (Suggest you get a copy). If you look in
the index you will_not_find any reference to chemical stabilizers or sterile
filtration (keep this in mind when reading the text). And yet, in his
recipe
section, you will find LOTS of sweet (RS) wines. I can assure you that
his wines_were_stable in the bottle !! Folks in this group often ask
how they can make a sweet wine without using sorbate. My answer
to them is to do it the "old fashioned" way. Silly ?? Nope. Lots of us
"old timers" did (and still do) these kinds of RS ferments.

Frankly they are silly and artificial.

If, after reading Berry's book, you still think that such distinctions are
"...silly and artificial...", well - I guess you are welcome to your
opinion.

If one wants to make fine wines there are few ways to do that regardless of
whether or not one is a home winemaker or a professional. Period!

I understand that folks who work only with "the grape" often share this
opinion. One need only look at the long lists of "country" (non-grape)
recipes to discover that there are_lots_ of ways to make "fine" wines.


Your long and arduous posts about PA, alcohol content and other minutia
are exercises in "reductio ad absurdum" For example, we have 400 gallons
of Pinot Grigio that currently has an RS value of 0.67, a pH of 3.41 and a
TA of 0.610. It also has an alcohol level of 15.1%. The starting Brix
was 25 degrees and the theoretical alcohol calculates to 14.3-14.5% .

Actually, my estimate for 25BRIX is more like 13.6%. 14.3% would
indicate a starting BRIX of ~26. And 15.1% would be a little over
27.5. Is there something wrong with both my references AND
my hydrometer ?? I have been using both for a _very_ long time.
Has something changed in the mean time ?? If so, maybe you should
inform UCDavis that the info on their site is wrong because their
info supports the numbers I have been using for all these years. They
have a "contact" address on their site. Please let us know what they say !!
Either way, this is obviously non-typical, and, if I had used a "typical"
yeast, I think I would_start_by questioning my own original BRIX
reading thinking that I must have taken that reading after the ferment
had already started.

Accounting for this is dependent upon quite a few factors,

I agree. And a winemaker with a little extra time on his hands should at
least make an effort to figure out why.

and is best left to the theorists on this thread for the moment. Other
considerations are easier to understand. It seems to me that in all of
your theoretical considerations you are neglecting the fact that the newer
yeasts (ICV D254, ICV D21 and ICV D80 for example) convert
sugars far
more efficiently and effectively than some of the older yeasts that have
been used for years. Thus a must that would have yielded a 12.5% alcohol
level using older style yeasts can now result in a wine of 13.5-14%
alcohol content starting at the same Brix level.

Not familiar with these yeasts but I promise I will look into it.
The fact is, that in the references we have been using here, not one of them
states that their numbers are only for specific "non-typical" yeasts. Most
of them _do_ state that the numbers are representative of typical ferments
using typical yeasts !! These numbers and our hydrometers are about the
only tools that us "little guys" have and I doubt you will convince any of
us
that we should simply abandon the use of these tools in our efforts to make
better wines.


Similarly a Rose we made from Pinot Noir, picked at 26 Brix, managed only
a 14.72% alcohol level even though the RS was 0.07. Why? Different yeast
(Lallemand SVG). The theoretical PA was 15.1. Was this yeast an
underachiever? No because it did what we wanted and resulted in fruit
forward and rather lush wine with a variety of floral characteristics.

The *REALISTIC* PA for an _average_ ferment of a 26BRIX must is
~14.3. I need only look at my triple scale hydrometer to confirm this.
UCDavis uses an "efficiency/conversion" factor of 0.55. Thus,
26*0.55 = 14.3 and once again, my hydrometer agrees. Many sources
tell us that the accuracy of such estimates is ~0.2% ABV. It is not unusual
at all that ferments might finish lower than such an estimate. What _would_
be unusual, would be to have them finish substantially _higher_. Which, by
the way, is what all of our previous discussions have been all about.

All of these data resulted from laboratory testing in a major USA winery
laboratory.

I suspect that the lab results only covered the "after ferment" data. I
also
suspect that the original BRIX data may have trusted field survey reports
or were taken after ferment had begun. No other way I can think of to
explain these kinds of anomalies.


My point is that while all of these theoretical considerations are
intellectually interesting, they seem to be of little practical value.

Sorry. I thought I was trying to_stress_practical applications.

The alcohol content of the finished wine is the alcohol content in the
finished wine, regardless of what one calculates it to be a priori.

True. But us "little guys" don't use lab reports and _we_ need some
kind of way to come up with realistic estimates. What do you suggest
_we_use ???


Regards

Jerry

Regards

Frederick

PS - Believe it not there is no malice in my comments here. I really
_am_ only trying to be helpful.