William Frazier wrote:
You have about 12.1% v/v alcohol.

Please explain the 12.1% computation.
Dick

Dick - This has been discussed a lot recently. Here's the formula I use;
Reference: Homebrewing, Volume 1 by Al Korzonas
Page 31

Calculation of alcohol by weight;
% ABW = (OG - FG) x 105

Calculation of alcohol by volume;
% ABV = ABW x 1.25

Combined method for alcohol by volume;
% ABV = (OG - FG) x 131.25


OG refers to original specific gravity. FG refers to final gravity or the
specific gravity when fermentation is complete. It's my belief that you
can't ferment more sugar than is in the wine to begin with. So, the FG
should be considered 1.000. The fact that we observe specific gravities
less than 1.000 is because of the presence of alcohol and the way it
effects the hydrometer. Therefore, when I calculate alcohol content I
always use a FG of 1.000.

In R-D-C's case;
%ABW = (1.092-1.000) x 105 or 9.66%
%ABV = 9.66 x 1.25 = 12.075 or 12.1%

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA

Hi Bill

Neither of these methods work. As you have already indicated, the
Korzonas method doesn't compensate for the effect of the alcohol on
total drop. And - your method of substituting 1.000 for any and all FG
readings simply ignores the fact that there is a_big_difference between
an FG of say 0.984 and say 0.995. In fact, all your method does is
recalculate the original PA value. Do some "sanity checks"and you will
see this is true.

Of course, if the wine goes dry, this will be the correct answer, BUT_only_
if the wine goes *dry* !! This being the case, why bother with a
calculation at all when all we have to do is use the original PA as our
end alcohol value for *DRY* wines ?? HTMS

Frederick

"Kim" wrote in message
oups.com...
1.092 - .984 = 0.108 x 1000 = 108 / 7.36 = 14.67, or 14.7% abv.

Kim

Nope, this is the old CJJ Berry formula and it doesn't work because it
fails to compensate for the effect of alcohol on total drop. HTH

"atjo" wrote in message
oups.com...
Go to http://vzone.virgin.net/roger.simmonds/dear.htm and you can find
a formula that works for me. To get me in the ball park I just subtract
finished SG from the beginning SG, for get the decimels and devide by
7. That is close enough for me. Using my rounding system your alcohol
level would be 15.4%. Useing the correct ffigures it would be 108/7.04
= 15.3409.Aubrey


Nope. Your reference got it wrong so now you have it wrong. Authors
are not infallible. Be careful what you choose for a reference. HTH

"atjo" wrote in message
oups.com...
Go to http://vzone.virgin.net/roger.simmonds/dear.htm and you can find
a formula that works for me. To get me in the ball park I just subtract
finished SG from the beginning SG, for get the decimels and devide by
7. That is close enough for me. Using my rounding system your alcohol
level would be 15.4%. Useing the correct ffigures it would be 108/7.04
= 15.3409.Aubrey


Nope. Your reference got it wrong so now you have it wrong. Authors
are not infallible. Be careful what you choose for a reference. HTH

"...the Korzonas method doesn't compensate for the effect of the alcohol on
total drop. And - your method of substituting 1.000 for any and all FG
readings simply ignores the fact that there is a_big_difference between
an FG of say 0.984 and say 0.995. In fact, all your method does is
recalculate the original PA value. Do some "sanity checks"and you will
see this is true."

Frederick - I only have narrow range hydrometers. They don't have a PA
scale so Korzonas method and a FG of 1.000 gives me a reasonable number.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas UsA

"...the Korzonas method doesn't compensate for the effect of the alcohol on
total drop. And - your method of substituting 1.000 for any and all FG
readings simply ignores the fact that there is a_big_difference between
an FG of say 0.984 and say 0.995. In fact, all your method does is
recalculate the original PA value. Do some "sanity checks"and you will
see this is true."

Frederick - I only have narrow range hydrometers. They don't have a PA
scale so Korzonas method and a FG of 1.000 gives me a reasonable number.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas UsA

Frederick

I am confused about your "modern" and "old fashioned" winemaker
designations. Frankly they are silly and artificial. 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!

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% . Accounting for this is dependent upon quite a few factors,
and is best theft 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.

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.

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

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

Regards

Jerry

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.

Margalit in Concepts in Wine Chemistry (2004) uses conversion factor of
0.57 for initial Brix and refers to several references (actually people
from UC Davis) that report the conversion factor to be measured between
0.60 - 0.55 in practical fermentations. According to this info, the
0.55 is the most conservative estimate and Jerry's numbers, although on
the optimistic estimate side, fall within this range.

I've also heard from a professional winemaker here in BC that they were
getting higher final alcohol values for initial Brix measurements than
5-10 years ago. She also thought this was because the current "designer
yeasts" were getting more efficient in alcohol production.

Also, keep in mind that most references for the conversion factors are
not recent, so if there was a recent increase in yeast efficiency, this
might not be reflected in the typical PA fomrmulas in use.

My main question to Jerry would be - how are the wines tasting? That's
pretty high alcohol, especially for the Pinot Gris.

Pp

frederick ploegman wrote:
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.

So how do you compensate?

"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...

"Kim" wrote in message
oups.com...
1.092 - .984 = 0.108 x 1000 = 108 / 7.36 = 14.67, or 14.7% abv.

Kim

Nope, this is the old CJJ Berry formula and it doesn't work because it
fails to compensate for the effect of alcohol on total drop. HTH

Wow,

I wish I knew what all that meant :-)

It is an apple wine made from a recipe base on that from CJJ Berry's First
Steps... I added a blend of acids as per his instructions but didn't check
the acidity. (Will have to get an acid test kit).

"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...
Hi

Got back to find so many posts that I decided to reset my reader and get
a fresh start. Senior moment (don't ever get old) 'cause now I can't find
the threads I was watching. Will do my best to answer those I can find.

RDC

You have about 12.2%ABV in that wine. However, with an end reading
of 0.984, I would *guess* that this is a "Country" (non-grape) wine and
that there *may* not be enough acid in it. If this wine were mine, I
would
re-check the pH immediately. If I found that it was higher than ~3.5, (ie
4.0) I would adjust_both_acid and SO2 to achieve an "aseptic" level of
molecular SO2. If my *guess* turned out to be wrong, at least I would
be satisfied that my wine would "keep". HTH

Frederick

PS - Let me add this in here. About all that most "modern" winemakers
do is hammer all their ferments down to as close to bone dry as they can
get them and either leave them that way or stabilize chemically and
re-sweeten later. For these folks there is no *need* for end alcohol
calculation since the original PA already tells you how much alcohol will
be in that wine _if_ and _when_ the wine goes DRY !! (eg when all of
the sugar is consumed). So - for all of these folks, all they have to do
is use the original PA number for their "end alcohol" value and print that
on the label. (assuming there have been no subsequent dilutions) This
stuff is *REALLY* easy if you will just let it be. This works because
this is exactly what our hydrometers are designed to do for _practical_
winemakers !!

The only time alcohol (and RS) calculations are_needed_is when a ferment
_doesn't_go dry. (eg for RS ferments and/or "stuck" wines) Even for
"stuck" wines, this isn't really necessary if the maker is determined to
re-start the ferment and hammer it the rest of the way down to dry. About
the only thing it tells him is whether a re-start is feasible or not.

Which pretty much leaves us with only "old fashioned"
RS ferments to worry about. So - for all those who only do "modern"
ferments, forget about all this foolishness and just use the PA number
to print on the labels of your *DRY* wines !! Of course, for wines
that are fermented dry and then re-sweetened, subsequent dilutions
will have to be calculated. HTH and HTMS




"R-D-C" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I know this one gets debated a lot and don't want to start an argument
but was trying to work out the alcohol content of my latest concoction.

I started with SG 1.092 giving PA of 12.5%.

Finished at 0.984.

So, do I have a 12.5% abv wine or do I use the total drop of SG giving
14.5%?

This is only for the label on the bottle for when I give a couple of
bottles away. Main thing is even before any aging it tastes great!
Definitely my best batch yet.

Wow,

I wish I knew what all that meant :-)

It is an apple wine made from a recipe base on that from CJJ Berry's First
Steps... I added a blend of acids as per his instructions but didn't check
the acidity. (Will have to get an acid test kit).

"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...
Hi

Got back to find so many posts that I decided to reset my reader and get
a fresh start. Senior moment (don't ever get old) 'cause now I can't find
the threads I was watching. Will do my best to answer those I can find.

RDC

You have about 12.2%ABV in that wine. However, with an end reading
of 0.984, I would *guess* that this is a "Country" (non-grape) wine and
that there *may* not be enough acid in it. If this wine were mine, I
would
re-check the pH immediately. If I found that it was higher than ~3.5, (ie
4.0) I would adjust_both_acid and SO2 to achieve an "aseptic" level of
molecular SO2. If my *guess* turned out to be wrong, at least I would
be satisfied that my wine would "keep". HTH

Frederick

PS - Let me add this in here. About all that most "modern" winemakers
do is hammer all their ferments down to as close to bone dry as they can
get them and either leave them that way or stabilize chemically and
re-sweeten later. For these folks there is no *need* for end alcohol
calculation since the original PA already tells you how much alcohol will
be in that wine _if_ and _when_ the wine goes DRY !! (eg when all of
the sugar is consumed). So - for all of these folks, all they have to do
is use the original PA number for their "end alcohol" value and print that
on the label. (assuming there have been no subsequent dilutions) This
stuff is *REALLY* easy if you will just let it be. This works because
this is exactly what our hydrometers are designed to do for _practical_
winemakers !!

The only time alcohol (and RS) calculations are_needed_is when a ferment
_doesn't_go dry. (eg for RS ferments and/or "stuck" wines) Even for
"stuck" wines, this isn't really necessary if the maker is determined to
re-start the ferment and hammer it the rest of the way down to dry. About
the only thing it tells him is whether a re-start is feasible or not.

Which pretty much leaves us with only "old fashioned"
RS ferments to worry about. So - for all those who only do "modern"
ferments, forget about all this foolishness and just use the PA number
to print on the labels of your *DRY* wines !! Of course, for wines
that are fermented dry and then re-sweetened, subsequent dilutions
will have to be calculated. HTH and HTMS




"R-D-C" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I know this one gets debated a lot and don't want to start an argument
but was trying to work out the alcohol content of my latest concoction.

I started with SG 1.092 giving PA of 12.5%.

Finished at 0.984.

So, do I have a 12.5% abv wine or do I use the total drop of SG giving
14.5%?

This is only for the label on the bottle for when I give a couple of
bottles away. Main thing is even before any aging it tastes great!
Definitely my best batch yet.

Frederick

Thank you for your long and detailed response.

Your first comment was "Are you condemning us "little guys" to eternal
darkness ?? I would rather
light a candle. " Absolutely not.

I will address the notion that our Brix Measurements are incorrect.
They are not. I do them up to harvest, and then they are also done by
the owner of the vineyard - a 7th generation farmer and vinyardist. The
Brix are then taken when the grapes arrive at the winery. we do this
in order to again ascertain the starting point for the fermentation
tables and data we keep. I am confident that between all of these
measurement - made BTW with calibrated refractometers and hydrometers -
are as accurate as they can humanly be. There is nothing wrong with
your hydrometers, or perhaps your references. There seems to be
something wrong with how you are using the data, and your results. I am
not calculating anything. We take measurements at Point A - the day we
pick, and we test again throughout fermentation and after fermentation -
Point X.

I posit that both you (I do not mean this in a pejorative or nasty sense
in any way), are calculating using equations that may be the best
available, but cannot take into account all of the factors effecting PA.
And yes I do think that Davis is wrong in this case. They can be - not
always, but often. I usually put their work into the "It's great in
theory, but will it work in practice" category. Like your calculations,
reading and thinking about the work done at Davis is a terrific
intellectual exercise.

I have discussed this concept of calculating PA with a colleague who has
been making fine wines for 35 years - wines you would most likely
recognize. His response was similar to mine. Too many variables to
calculate anything but a ballpark.

I am not suggesting that it is not important to try and understand what
your PA will be. It is. I also know that the objectives of home or
occasional winemakers are different from those of professional
winemakers. I am only suggesting that trying to calculate PA in a
system that is a soup of hundreds - if not thousands - of chemicals and
organisms is an exercise that cannot provide accurate results. The
results may be precise, but they are not necessarily accurate.

I have had some experience with calculating theoretical endpoints. My
doctoral thesis was at points (or at least is seemed that way at times)
one long calculation. Try as I might there were never perfect overlays
of the theoretical curves vs. the actual ones. The systems were too
complex. Was the work useless? No, as it gave us an idea of what the
results would or could or should look like when we were able to obtain
experimental endpoints.

I will look for Berry's book when I am at the Wine Symposium in
Sacramento this month. There is usually a great book selection there.
Thank you for the reference.

Regards

Jerry



"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...
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.

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
2004. Thus we were cursed/blessed with hi Brix grapes, and quite high
alcohols as there were not enough picking crews to go round all of the
vineyards in this area, and some grapes had to hang there until we could
pick them. We have changed our picking strategy for 2005, and will
attempt to get the Pinot Grigio off the vines at 22.5-23.5 Brix.

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

Jerry , we had or Cab come out at 16.9 also , and our petite sirah come out
at 16.6 .
High alcohol , but yet it is still balanced and what a fruit bomb it is . In
oak now and getting better every week .
Greg
"Jerry DeAngelis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Pp

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

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