I've read that one should use sufficient sulfite to kill off the natural
malolactic bacteria, and then (if malolactic fermentation is desired)
introduce a cultured strain of. The reason given was that there are three
types of (wild) malolactic bacteria, only one of which is desirable.
Reportedly, the other two will cause acetification.

What are the experiences and opinions of this group with respect to allowing
MLF to occur naturally?

"Negodki" wrote in message
...
I've read that one should use sufficient sulfite to kill off the natural
malolactic bacteria, and then (if malolactic fermentation is desired)
introduce a cultured strain of. The reason given was that there are three
types of (wild) malolactic bacteria, only one of which is desirable.
Reportedly, the other two will cause acetification.

What are the experiences and opinions of this group with respect to
allowing
MLF to occur naturally?

I've had spontaneous ML occur occasionally - usually with no problem.
Normally I inoculate for ML in well clarified juice, usually with culture at
the beginning of the yeast fermentation but also with an ML+ barrel. I feel
a lot safer putting stuff into the wine that I know should be there, and
leaving behind other stuff that maybe shouldn't be there. BTW, I don't add
any sulfite to healthy grapes at crush. The wine sees no added SO2 until ML
is complete.

Tom S

"Negodki" wrote in message
...
I've read that one should use sufficient sulfite to kill off the natural
malolactic bacteria, and then (if malolactic fermentation is desired)
introduce a cultured strain of. The reason given was that there are three
types of (wild) malolactic bacteria, only one of which is desirable.
Reportedly, the other two will cause acetification.

What are the experiences and opinions of this group with respect to
allowing
MLF to occur naturally?

Once a barrel has gone through MLF, the bacteria remain in the barrel. All
of my red wines and Chardonnay are stored in barrels. I rack barrel to
barrel, so all of my barrels are infected with ML bacteria. I add a new
barrel or two each year, but the new barrels become infected the next time I
rack. All of my wines stored in barrels go through MLF, but I haven't
inoculated with bacteria for the past several years. Most of my red wines
are high pH wines and preventing MLF in them is practically impossible.
lum

Many commercial winemakers ferment using indigenous yeast in an attempt to
achieve a desired level of complexity or terroir. However, under the
conditions required for the use of indigenous yeast (often no SO2 at crush),
indigenous ML bacteria may also become active. After tasting several
"indegenous yeast fermented" wines (especially after a few years of bottle
age), I have to say that I do not like the higher level of "funk" they
sometimes have. I have a feeling that much of the unpleasant funk comes
from wild ML activity and not wild yeast fermentation. I personally have
adopted the use of Lysozyme at 100ppm - 150ppm in my reds at crush to
prevent wild ML and innoculate with a clean strain toward the end of primary
fermentation. If you want to ferment using indigenous yeast, I would
suggest the use of Lysozyme, no SO2 at crush, and cultured ML strains.

CHEERS!

Aaron

"Negodki" wrote in message
...
I've read that one should use sufficient sulfite to kill off the natural
malolactic bacteria, and then (if malolactic fermentation is desired)
introduce a cultured strain of. The reason given was that there are three
types of (wild) malolactic bacteria, only one of which is desirable.
Reportedly, the other two will cause acetification.

What are the experiences and opinions of this group with respect to
allowing
MLF to occur naturally?

Aaron,
are you pulling out the Lysozyme with Bentonite, or does it disipate
sufficiently on it's own by the end of primary?
Thanks, John Dixon
"Aaron Puhala" wrote in message
. ..
Many commercial winemakers ferment using indigenous yeast in an attempt to
achieve a desired level of complexity or terroir. However, under the
conditions required for the use of indigenous yeast (often no SO2 at
crush),
indigenous ML bacteria may also become active. After tasting several
"indegenous yeast fermented" wines (especially after a few years of bottle
age), I have to say that I do not like the higher level of "funk" they
sometimes have. I have a feeling that much of the unpleasant funk comes
from wild ML activity and not wild yeast fermentation. I personally have
adopted the use of Lysozyme at 100ppm - 150ppm in my reds at crush to
prevent wild ML and innoculate with a clean strain toward the end of
primary
fermentation. If you want to ferment using indigenous yeast, I would
suggest the use of Lysozyme, no SO2 at crush, and cultured ML strains.

CHEERS!

Aaron

"Negodki" wrote in message
...
I've read that one should use sufficient sulfite to kill off the natural
malolactic bacteria, and then (if malolactic fermentation is desired)
introduce a cultured strain of. The reason given was that there are
three
types of (wild) malolactic bacteria, only one of which is desirable.
Reportedly, the other two will cause acetification.

What are the experiences and opinions of this group with respect to
allowing
MLF to occur naturally?

"Negodki" wrote:
I've read that one should use sufficient sulfite to kill off the natural
malolactic bacteria, and then (if malolactic fermentation is desired)
introduce a cultured strain of. The reason given was that there are three
types of (wild) malolactic bacteria, only one of which is desirable.
Reportedly, the other two will cause acetification.

All three (Lactobacillus, Pediococcus and Leuconostoc) can produce
acetic acid. It is really dependent on the individual strain and
environment as to whether it is a more likely to or not. More reliable
MLB have a preference for metabolising malic acid over sugars, citric
acid, etc - those are what we want.

What are the experiences and opinions of this group with respect to allowing
MLF to occur naturally?

So as to spontaneous/indigenous MLB, it really depends on what you
have "growing" locally and the wine environment that they would grow
in. Sometimes you are lucky to have a reliable MLB around and it
manages to grow in a suitable wine environment, other times not.

A cultured strain will give you security, an indigenous one could give
you more complexity (as many advocates of indigenous MLB/yeast use
argue) or it could give you a funky/VA disaster (same as the
indigenous yeast issue which Aaron mentioned). Until you try with your
given fruit and wine it's not really possible to say which way it will
go, so it just depends on how the individual winemaker feels about
taking the risk.

That's my take,
Ben

"Ben Rotter" wrote:

A cultured strain will give you security, an indigenous one could give
you more complexity (as many advocates of indigenous MLB/yeast use
argue) or it could give you a funky/VA disaster (same as the
indigenous yeast issue which Aaron mentioned). Until you try with your
given fruit and wine it's not really possible to say which way it will
go, so it just depends on how the individual winemaker feels about
taking the risk.

So, if I've been happy with the results of all the natural MLF that has
occurred so far (which I am), can I assume that my indigenous bacteria are
beneficial, or is this likely to change without notice? I don't grow my own
fruit, but rather purchase it from a variety of places. I do use all my
pressings and lees for compost, but I suppose it takes centuries, not years,
for that to have any effect.

So, if I've been happy with the results of all the natural MLF that has
occurred so far (which I am), can I assume that my indigenous bacteria are
beneficial, or is this likely to change without notice? I don't grow my own
fruit, but rather purchase it from a variety of places. I do use all my
pressings and lees for compost, but I suppose it takes centuries, not years,
for that to have any effect.

I think it's safe to assume so, unless some drastic change to the
environment occurs (i.e. the environment of the winemaking, the grape
growing, and the wine itself).

If you have been happy so far, the risk talked about before is
significantly minimised.

Ben

Is there an easier test than a malolactic fermentation paper chromatography
test? Is there a rough time window for it to happen under certain
temperatures?

"Tom" wrote in message
erio.net...
How will I know when the malolactic fermentation is finished? Tests?

Is there an easier test than a malolactic fermentation paper chromatography
test? Is there a rough time window for it to happen under certain
temperatures?

"Tom" wrote in message
erio.net...
How will I know when the malolactic fermentation is finished? Tests?

"Tom" wrote in message erio.net...
Is there an easier test than a malolactic fermentation paper chromatography
test? Is there a rough time window for it to happen under certain
temperatures?

"Tom" wrote in message
erio.net...
How will I know when the malolactic fermentation is finished? Tests?



I have heard that Accuvin is much easier to use and take only few
minutes to get a more accurate result than the Chromatography test
kit. I just order one kit of Accuvin to compare the results with the
regular chromatography test on the same wine. Check this link
http://valleyvintner.com/Merchant2/m...ory_Co de=TES

As for the estimated time to complete the MLF it's very difficult to
say. If all the variable are constant and the wine are in the proper
numbers range for a MLF you should be near completion after 1 months
if the temperature is 20-22 Celcius all the time. This is a rough
estimate from my own experiences over the years. You should wait a
bit longer to be sure and check your bung for any activity.

Séb

"Tom" wrote in message erio.net...
Is there an easier test than a malolactic fermentation paper chromatography
test? Is there a rough time window for it to happen under certain
temperatures?

"Tom" wrote in message
erio.net...
How will I know when the malolactic fermentation is finished? Tests?



I have heard that Accuvin is much easier to use and take only few
minutes to get a more accurate result than the Chromatography test
kit. I just order one kit of Accuvin to compare the results with the
regular chromatography test on the same wine. Check this link
http://valleyvintner.com/Merchant2/m...ory_Co de=TES

As for the estimated time to complete the MLF it's very difficult to
say. If all the variable are constant and the wine are in the proper
numbers range for a MLF you should be near completion after 1 months
if the temperature is 20-22 Celcius all the time. This is a rough
estimate from my own experiences over the years. You should wait a
bit longer to be sure and check your bung for any activity.

Séb