Hi
I'd like to know the following:
1) Applying the German ripeness standard on French and Australian
riesling, which level are grapes harvested? a) before Kabinett,
b) Kabinett, c) Spatlese, d) Auslese, e) other. Dessert wine not
considered)
2) Do French and Australian chaptalize or dose their wine to achieve that
bone-dry-high alcohol style?
3) Why is dry style more popular than the fruity version?

Regards
Ray

"Raymond" > skrev i melding
...
> Hi
> I'd like to know the following:
> 1) Applying the German ripeness standard on French and Australian
> riesling, which level are grapes harvested? a) before Kabinett,
> b) Kabinett, c) Spatlese, d) Auslese, e) other. Dessert wine not
> considered)
Given that they use to be bone-dry and have about 13+%abv they probably are
harvested at about 100-110 degrees Oechsle, which is Auslese level. (24-25
Brix for you in the U.S.)
> 2) Do French and Australian chaptalize or dose their wine to achieve that
> bone-dry-high alcohol style?
Probably not, i.e. I don't think they have to - it is not all that high.
> 3) Why is dry style more popular than the fruity version?
>
Fashion - a high sugar consumption is today seen as a characteristic of
uneducated people and who wants to be stigmatized like that?
:-) Anders

>In Alsace (the only place in France allowed to grow Riesling)
>chaptalization is strictly forbidden on AOC wines.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't practiced.

>I might add that with the appearance of reverse osmosis machines by
>the thousands in France and elsewhere in Europe, chaptalization may
>have become an obsolete enrichemnt scheme, way too expensive compared
>to renting an osmosis truck for the day...

Can that be true? Sugar more expensive than RO? I have no particular
objection to RO, but it is my understanding that it is an expensive
process.

Andy

"Raymond" > wrote in message
...
> Hi
> I'd like to know the following:
> 1) Applying the German ripeness standard on French and
> Australian
> riesling, which level are grapes harvested? a) before
> Kabinett,
> b) Kabinett, c) Spatlese, d) Auslese, e) other. Dessert
> wine not
> considered)
> 2) Do French and Australian chaptalize or dose their wine
> to achieve that
> bone-dry-high alcohol style?
snip

Chaptalisation is forbidden in Australia. See
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food...m#_FSCchapter4
for premitted additives to Australian wine.
Cheers!
Martin

"Raymond" > wrote in message >...
> 2) Do French and Australian chaptalize or dose their wine to achieve that
> bone-dry-high alcohol style?

Chaptalization is not allowed in Australia

Mike Tommasi wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2005 09:33:32 -0800, "AyTee" > wrote:
>
> >>I might add that with the appearance of reverse osmosis machines by
> >>the thousands in France and elsewhere in Europe, chaptalization may
> >>have become an obsolete enrichemnt scheme, way too expensive
compared
> >>to renting an osmosis truck for the day...
> >
> >Can that be true? Sugar more expensive than RO? I have no particular
> >objection to RO, but it is my understanding that it is an expensive
> >process.
>
> Apparently not, otherwise you would not have over 600 of these things
> in France's top two wine areas.

I understand reverse osmosis is used more than most winemakers are
willing to admit, and that it is usually used to remove volatile
acidity, or to decrease alcohol concentration to below 14 percent for
tax purposes. In America, that is -- Europe may be different. Can it
also be used to increase alcohol?

Andy

"AyTee" > wrote:

> I understand reverse osmosis is used more than most winemakers
> are willing to admit, and that it is usually used to remove
> volatile acidity, or to decrease alcohol concentration to below
> 14 percent for tax purposes. In America, that is -- Europe may
> be different.

It is.

> Can it also be used to increase alcohol?

Yes. Reverse osmosis ("le concentrateur") removes water either
from the must (legal there, where chaptalisation is permitted) or
from wine (illegal).

Either process increases the alcohol content of the finished
product.

M.

"AyTee" > wrote:

> I understand reverse osmosis is used more than most winemakers
> are willing to admit, and that it is usually used to remove
> volatile acidity, or to decrease alcohol concentration to below
> 14 percent for tax purposes. In America, that is -- Europe may
> be different.

It is.

> Can it also be used to increase alcohol?

Yes. Reverse osmosis ("le concentrateur") removes water either
from the must (legal where chaptalisation is permitted) or from
wine (illegal).

Either process increases the alcohol content of the finished
product.

M.

Salut/Hi Andy,

le/on 5 Mar 2005 18:04:18 -0800, tu disais/you said:-


>Mike Tommasi wrote:
>> On 5 Mar 2005 09:33:32 -0800, "AyTee" > wrote:

>> >Can that be true? Sugar more expensive than RO? I have no particular
>> >objection to RO, but it is my understanding that it is an expensive
>> >process.

>> Apparently not, otherwise you would not have over 600 of these things
>> in France's top two wine areas.

I don't know whether 600 machines in the thousands of estates counts as a
significant but I do know that their usage is "tolerated" not encouraged.
However, in a year where rain during harvest has diluted the crop, and where
otherwise chaptalisation would have to be practiced to increase the alcohol
level, I can understand the temptation.

>I understand reverse osmosis is used more than most winemakers are
>willing to admit,

Grinm. All sorts of things are done mucxh more than most winemakers are
willing to admit!!!

> and that it is usually used to remove volatile acidity, or to decrease alcohol concentration to below 14 percent for
>tax purposes. In America, that is --

Really? This is an entirely different usage from that practiced here, and
I'm not clear how this can be done. Sounds like a question for Mark!!!

Trying to keep technicalities to a minimum, reverse osmosis is like
operating a filter. You take a semi permeable membrane, which lets small
molecules through but not larger ones, and force the liquid being treated
through it. It's most common usage is for desalination, where it allows H2O
through but not Na+ and Cl-. I would be utterly astonished if a "normal"
semi permeable membrane could allow volatile acidity (acetic acid CH3C00H)
and alcohol (ethanol, C2H5OH) through _without_ letting through the water in
much larger quantities. I have given the chemical formulae, because in
general the more complex the structure (and the higher the atomic weight of
the elements composing the molecule) the larger it is, and the more
difficult it will be to pass them through the pores of the filter. Now it's
obvious that these two chemicals with two carbon atoms each will be bigger
than water with only one oxygen atom. So forgive me if I am doubtful about
whether you're right.

> Europe may be different. Can it also be used to increase alcohol?

Indeed it can, or rather, it can be used to _remove water_, which is
slightly different in essence, and why it could be considered a "better"
solution to difficult years than chaptalisation.

Think about it. Adding sugar does nothing but adding alcohol. It can easily
throw the wine out of balance as it won't increase any of the components of
flavour.

Removing part of the water simply makes a more concentrated wine, almost as
if the vines had received less water in the run up to harvest. Before
everyone (and Mike T especially) jumps on me for this, I hasten to add that
it's not going to give results that are always better. BUT, as I said at the
beginning, in years where the harvest has been diluted by rain during
picking, it could very well play a part. I'm thinking of the notorious '64
vintage in Bordeaux. This was a year where some Chateaux were able to
complete their pickings in dry conditions and made magnificent wines. Others
were caught by the rain, the must was diluted and the wines were not so
good. Some tried to over-chaptalise their way out of it, and gave "hot"
wines. Others simply had dilute wines. If they had had R.O, it is very
probable that they would have been able to make a better tasting wine.

Note that I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether it's a "good thing" or
not, I'm simply trying to explain how R.O. works and therefore what it can
and can't do.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Ian Hoare > wrote:

>> and that it [sc. reverse osmosis] is usually used to remove
>> volatile acidity, or to decrease alcohol concentration to below
>> 14 percent for tax purposes. In America, that is --

> Really? This is an entirely different usage from that practiced
> here, and I'm not clear how this can be done. Sounds like a
> question for Mark!!!

I guess you're on right side, Ian. I have never ever heard of VA
being removed by inverse osmosis. Diminishing alcohol levels (up to
14.2% it's table wine, over 14.2 it's liquor with higher tax),
however, is not done by reverse osmosis but by a technique called
"spinning cones" which includes ultra-fast centrifugating of the
wine.

There was quite a good article in the Wine Spectator archive, but I
don't use their archives anymore since they ask $$$ for it.

M.

Ian Hoare > wrote:

> Note that I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether it's a
> "good thing" or not, I'm simply trying to explain how R.O. works
> and therefore what it can and can't do.

Personally, I find the technique of "saignée" (which, of course,
changes the solid to liquid ratio in the must) with subsequent
addition of beet sugar to increase alcohol levels not particularly
more "natural" than removing water from the must.

More traditional? Yes. More natural? No.

M.

Ian Hoare wrote:
> Salut/Hi Andy,
>
> le/on 5 Mar 2005 18:04:18 -0800, tu disais/you said:-
>
>
> >Mike Tommasi wrote:
> >> On 5 Mar 2005 09:33:32 -0800, "AyTee" > wrote:
>
> >> >Can that be true? Sugar more expensive than RO? I have no
particular
> >> >objection to RO, but it is my understanding that it is an
expensive
> >> >process.
>
> >> Apparently not, otherwise you would not have over 600 of these
things
> >> in France's top two wine areas.
>
> I don't know whether 600 machines in the thousands of estates counts
as a
> significant but I do know that their usage is "tolerated" not
encouraged.
> However, in a year where rain during harvest has diluted the crop,
and where
> otherwise chaptalisation would have to be practiced to increase the
alcohol
> level, I can understand the temptation.
>
> >I understand reverse osmosis is used more than most winemakers are
> >willing to admit,

Ian,
During my visit to Bordeaux last year, virtually every Chateau that
we visited, Margaux, Mouton, both Pichons, Lynch Bages, Cos d'Estornel,
Pavie, Mondotte, etc. were quite vocal about the use of RO,
concentrators, rotogravure (sp), micro-oxygenation, and all sorts of
techniques to get more concentration, higher alcohol and softer tannins
from their wines. Basically they shrugged (the French shrug) and said
"it is what the market wants so that is what we give". Given all of
the agricultral regulations they felt that technology gave them the
tools that they needed to compete. They also felt that the higher
alcohol levels gave a richer mouthfeel and a bigger flavor to the
wines. While all declined comment on pricing they all recognized that
in order to compete in a world market that things had to change and
most conversations started and ended with the French shrug. For the
uninitiated the French shrug is a body movement where the shoulders
move upwards towards the ears while the head moves down into the
shoulders. This is accompanied by a palms up gesture, a slight rolling
of the eyes to the side and a slight exhale through pursed lips
prducing a soft "puh" sound. I found it to be fairly universal in
France and is used to start and end many conversations...:-) "puh"

Ian Hoare wrote:

>>and that it is usually used to remove volatile acidity, or to decrease alcohol concentration to below 14 percent for
>>tax purposes. In America, that is --
>
>
> Really? This is an entirely different usage from that practiced here, and
> I'm not clear how this can be done. Sounds like a question for Mark!!!

Err... It is?? I'd imagine that Andy is thinking of another type of
concentrator, the name of which escapes me, that works by evaporation.
Since VA is by its nature volatile, you are essentially distilling it
out of solution, though by all rights you'd also lose alcohol.

>
> Trying to keep technicalities to a minimum, reverse osmosis is like
> operating a filter. You take a semi permeable membrane, which lets small
> molecules through but not larger ones, and force the liquid being treated
> through it. It's most common usage is for desalination, where it allows H2O
> through but not Na+ and Cl-. I would be utterly astonished if a "normal"
> semi permeable membrane could allow volatile acidity (acetic acid CH3C00H)
> and alcohol (ethanol, C2H5OH) through _without_ letting through the water in
> much larger quantities. I have given the chemical formulae, because in
> general the more complex the structure (and the higher the atomic weight of
> the elements composing the molecule) the larger it is, and the more
> difficult it will be to pass them through the pores of the filter. Now it's
> obvious that these two chemicals with two carbon atoms each will be bigger
> than water with only one oxygen atom. So forgive me if I am doubtful about
> whether you're right.

RO is basically dialysis run under pressure, so it uses exclusion based
on molecular size primarily, as you've so ably described.

Mark Lipton

"Mike Tommasi" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 08:12:43 +1100, "Martin Field"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>> 2) Do French and Australian chaptalize or dose their
>>> wine
>>> to achieve that
>>> bone-dry-high alcohol style?
>>snip
>>
>>Chaptalisation is forbidden in Australia. See
>>http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food...m#_FSCchapter4
>>for premitted additives to Australian wine.
>
>
> Ooops, sorry Martin. Now chips, are they OK?
>
>
>
> Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
> email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Hi Mike - Oak chips are used - usually in high volume el
cheapo reds. Isinglass - (boiled down sturgeon bladders
from memory) is also used in fining wine. So imagine, in one
bottle you can have fish and chips and a sprinkling of
vinegar (in wine jargon - volatile acidity measured as
acetic acid).

Cheers!
Martin

PS - I prefer my reds unfiltered unfined and
unsophisticated.

Thanks, Ian, for your thorough response. Look here for an explanation
of how RO is used to remove VA. (Even more interesting, how it was used
in Australia to remove smoke taint from wine made from grapes that were
exposed to wild fires.) For the moment, I too am not judging the ethics
of using RO.

http://www.winenet.com.au/articles/W..._DWollan03.pdf

Andy "Keeping an Open Mind" Thomas

Salut/Hi Andy,

le/on 5 Mar 2005 18:04:18 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

I've just noticed your email address.

What a shame I didn't know you were in Walla-Walla, as Jacquie and I were
there last fall, and we'd have loved to meet you there. We had a great trip,
spending 3/4 nights in the area, and visiting a bunch of wineries. MOST
impressed with them in general and even managed to relate to the amazing
Charles! However, the place that we most enjoyed visiting, I guess, was the
Woodward Canyon Winery where Rick's enthusiasm really set up alight. We'd
allowed loads of time for the visit, and were late arriving next door at
l'Ecole 42!!!

by the way, you'll perhaps have seen my comments and others' amplifications.
I wonder if you might not have mistaken the name/purpose of the machine.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

AyTee wrote:
> Thanks, Ian, for your thorough response. Look here for an explanation
> of how RO is used to remove VA. (Even more interesting, how it was used
> in Australia to remove smoke taint from wine made from grapes that were
> exposed to wild fires.) For the moment, I too am not judging the ethics
> of using RO.
>
> http://www.winenet.com.au/articles/W..._DWollan03.pdf
>
> Andy "Keeping an Open Mind" Thomas
>

Aha! Andy, if you've read that PDF carfeully, what you saw is that the
removal of VA is actually accomplished by ion exchange chromatography of
the RO "permeate." So, yes, RO is used in the removal of VA, but only
as a tool in conjunction with other technology. By itself, RO cannot
remove VA from wine for the reasons cited by Ian.

Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton > wrote:

> Err... It is?? I'd imagine that Andy is thinking of another type
> of concentrator, the name of which escapes me, that works by
> evaporation. Since VA is by its nature volatile, you are
> essentially distilling it out of solution, though by all rights
> you'd also lose alcohol.

"Vacuum evaporation" ("évaporation sous vide") is the other type
of concentrateur in commercial use in Europe. Unlike reverse
osmosis, it can only be done on the must (to evaporate water),
never on finished wine, where it would evaporate alcohol first. It
is used, however, to produce alcohol free wine (called "vacuum
destillation"). So that's definitely not a technique to remove VA
in standard winemaking.

M.

Salut/Hi Mike,

le/on Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:20:41 +0100, tu disais/you said:-


Martin said

>>PS - I prefer my reds unfiltered unfined and unsophisticated.

Mart's Tin shed?

>Right you are. Unfortunately it seems that most of the wine from
>Australia that is seen as competing with EU wine here is the kind of
>cheap overoaked stuff that you are describing.

That's in France, Mike. In the UK, wines like Yarra Yering are available -
at a price.

>A friend of mine, young chap finished winemaking school in Dijon and
>who did a year in Australia, was telling me that somehow all the rules
>there are different somehow, you can make great wines at 2-3 times the
>yields that would produce dilute **** here in Europe, while you get
>deep concentrated perfect grapes.

Absolutely true. It's astonishing.

> It cannot be only a matter of insolation (where I am we get 3000 hours of sun per year, yet high
>yields will ruin our mourvedre).

Well, in NW USA, there's a lot of talk about wide diurnal variations in
temperature being very important, together with long bunch hang time.

>Someday I'll have to come and take a look...

You should, because for a European, used to European viticultural methods
and results, what they do in the Antipodes seems to fly in the face of
everything obvious,and yet work!

One thing I've learnt in my visits to many various places, is that wonderful
wine can be made in far more places than any one region considers possible,
by using viticultural and vinicultural techniques found abhorrent in other
regions! So in Oz, they can't chaptalise, but they can irrigate, while its
the opposite in Europe, and so on.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

"don't know whether 600 machines in the thousands of estates counts as
a
significant "

Ian, while many (most? pretty sure all of the 1sts except maybe
Margaux) of the larger more prestigous estates own their own RO
machines, my understanding many of the machines are owned by
consultants/specialists who are contracted by wineries (just as many
chateaux contract out bottling) , so they might service dozens of
estates. So I'd say that 600 machines is pretty significant (especially
since when most of us refer to Bordeaux, we're not referring to the
petit chateaux that produce 2,000 cases per annum).

Salut/Hi DaleW,

le/on 7 Mar 2005 05:47:18 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

>"don't know whether 600 machines in the thousands of estates counts as
>a significant "
>
>Ian, while many (most? pretty sure all of the 1sts except maybe
>Margaux) of the larger more prestigous estates own their own RO
>machines, my understanding many of the machines are owned by
>consultants/specialists who are contracted by wineries (just as many
>chateaux contract out bottling) , so they might service dozens of
>estates. So I'd say that 600 machines is pretty significant (especially
>since when most of us refer to Bordeaux, we're not referring to the
>petit chateaux that produce 2,000 cases per annum).

Well, firstly that was 600 in TWO areas, (proportion unknown).

Secondly, although it may be true that the most prestigious places have one,
I'd have thought that in a rather paradoxical way, they'd be least in need.
Their prices are so high that they can afford to hire many pickers and
therefore get the first choice, so can hand pick quickly. It's the ones down
the pecking (picking?) order who may find themselves with must that's more
dilute.

And although their called "Petit Chteaux" that doesn't necessarily relate
to their production, (sadly) they are the thousands of lesser properties who
produce the great mass of fair to wretched Bordeaux, and who may well need
the benefits most.

But if you feel it's a significant presence, then I'd not want to argue.


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Ian Hoare > wrote:

> Secondly, although it may be true that the most prestigious
> places have one, I'd have thought that in a rather paradoxical
> way, they'd be least in need. Their prices are so high that they
> can afford to hire many pickers and therefore get the first
> choice, so can hand pick quickly. It's the ones down the pecking
> (picking?) order who may find themselves with must that's more
> dilute.

There is an excellent interview dating back to 1996, when Alain
Laliberté, a jounalist from Quebec (iirc), met Bruno Prats of
Chateau Cos d'Estournel. A google search will reveal traces of
this interview, but not the text itself.

Ian, I will mail you the text which is extremely interesting; your
English being much better than mine, maybe you could sum it up in
five lines for a.f.w.

If anybody whishes to have the text (it's in French) just mail me
via the reply button.

M.

Noted, Mark. Thanks. This process (VA reduction using RO and ion
exchange) was done last week on a wine that I helped make at school.
(I'm a student of Enology and Viticulture in Walla Walla, WA USA.) I
tasted the result this morning and the wine was much improved. The VA
had been about 1.5 ppm if I recall correctly, and the treatment brought
it down to 0.6 ppm, with no loss of flavor or other desirable
components. It's a syrah-based blend.

Andy

Salut/Hi Michael Pronay,

le/on Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:23:35 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>Ian Hoare > wrote:
>
>> Secondly, although it may be true that the most prestigious
>> places have one, I'd have thought that in a rather paradoxical
>> way, they'd be least in need. Their prices are so high that they
>> can afford to hire many pickers and therefore get the first
>> choice, so can hand pick quickly. It's the ones down the pecking
>> (picking?) order who may find themselves with must that's more
>> dilute.
>
>There is an excellent interview dating back to 1996, when Alain
>Laliberté, a jounalist from Quebec (iirc), met Bruno Prats of
>Chateau Cos d'Estournel.

Ah... one of my favourite places.

>Ian, I will mail you the text which is extremely interesting; your
>English being much better than mine, maybe you could sum it up in
>five lines for a.f.w.

Thanks very much. I'll have a noble try, though my ability to say _anything_
in five lines is doubtful.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website