Hi Lum

I'm quite sure you are right. I am at the age now where I have already
gone through my personal things and virtually all of my technical
books and material have been donated to the public library. The only
two books I still have on winemaking are an old copy of CJJ Berry
and a small booklet that I sometimes loan out to folks that think they
want to learn to make wine. So - the comments I make here are
now based entirely on memory, and my memory certainly isn't what
it used to be. :O(

Had to go look in the dictionary to understand what you meant here.
You are right. I should not have used the word "bacilli" as its meaning
is too narrow in this context. Sorry. Substitute "bacteria" or
"bacterium" as appropriate.

Can't remember where I got the original definition. I can ask around,
or go back to the library and try to find it, but I should think someone
in this group would be able to provide such a reference.

Best regards
Frederick


"Lum" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Frederick,
>
> You are probably correct about my mixing apples and oranges. I seem to be
> easily confused these days. But, your definition...... "an aseptic
level"
> of molecular SO2, is the level which will kill (dead) all *anaerobic
> bacilli* normally found in wine. Things which are *not* "anaerobic
bacilli"
> are dealt with by "other means"........ seems a bit odd to me since
> "anaerobic bacilli" make up only a small part of anaerobic wine microbes.
> In general, the anaerobic bacteria found in wine belong to three genera,
> Lactobacillus (long rods), Leuconostoc (short rods) and Pediococcus
> (spheres). Why does your definition single out the long rods and ignore
> the short rods and spheres? Do you feel that only Lactobacillus cause
wine
> problems?
>
> BTW, can you give me a reference for the above definition?
>
> Regards,
> lum
>
>
> ...
> > Hi Lum
> >
> > I agree that what you are saying is technically correct but I think
> > you are mixing apples and oranges. The definition of "an aseptic level"
> > of molecular SO2, is the level which will kill (dead) all *anaerobic
> > bacilli* normally found in wine. Things which are *not* "anaerobic
> > bacilli" are dealt with by "other means". So - the SO2 tolerance of
> > these "other things" has no relationship to "aseptic levels".
> >
> > Vinegar bacteria is easy. It is *not* anaerobic, so it is dealt with by
> > eliminating (severely limiting) the availability of atmospheric oxygen
> > in the wine. Even though SO2 is not the agent that eliminates the
> > bug, it helps by scavenging oxygen so it is not available for the bug
> > to use.
> >
> > While yeasts can function anaerobicly, they are not "bacilli", so they
> > also fall outside the definition of "aseptic level of SO2". It is well
> > known that the commercial yeasts we use are virtually *all* able to
> > function at SO2 levels well above the levels we consider "aseptic"
> > in winemaking. For this reason we deal with them by "other means".
> > Namely, we eliminate all sugars so it has nothing to feed on (a dry
> > wine) - or - we control it chemically (Sorbate/Benzoate etc) - or -
> > we sterile filter - or - we can raise the alcohol level above the
> > alcohol toxicity point of the yeast in question.
> > HTMS
> >
> > FWIW - the last I heard the "aseptic" level is now considered to
> > be 0.83 ppm. Something about one of the bugs which_does_ fall
> > within the definition was determined to have a slightly elevated
> > tolerance. Can't even remember where I read that.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Frederick
>
>
>