I've been told that every time I move the wine, add 50ppm of KSO2. This
goes for crushing, pressing, racking and bottling.

A) I've also been told that if you want MLF to keep SO2 under 30ppm,
and in some cases seen it recommended that you only add so2 in the
crush and not the press. I'd be interested in the range of comments
capable of this board, as I plan on pressing tmw night.

B) Should I just get a SO2 test kit and bring the free SO2 up to 50
from wherever it is? - given that it probably doesn't go to 0.
thanks

On Oct 4, 12:49 pm, wrote:
> I've been told that every time I move the wine, add 50ppm of KSO2. This
> goes for crushing, pressing, racking and bottling.
>
> A) I've also been told that if you want MLF to keep SO2 under 30ppm,
> and in some cases seen it recommended that you only add so2 in the
> crush and not the press. I'd be interested in the range of comments
> capable of this board, as I plan on pressing tmw night.
>
> B) Should I just get a SO2 test kit and bring the free SO2 up to 50
> from wherever it is? - given that it probably doesn't go to 0.
> thanks

That's too much for a red wine. At pressing if you're doing MLF, it's
probably not finished, so adding SO2 would be detrimental. If you rack
carefully, you'd need only about 10-20ppm added.

B) is the way to go - depending on your pH, you might not go to 50ppm,
30 can be enough.

Pp

As I understand it, what we're after is free molecular SO2. How much free
SO2 is generated by any given quantity of KMS (short hand for potassium
metabisulfite) is inversely influenced by pH. Meaning; the more acidic the
must or wine, the greater the free molecular SO2 generated. I use a simple
chart to help me determine the desired level of SO2 to add at crush time.
One chart for red wine, one for white. A good source for info by which to
determine these ratios is Margalit's book.

After crush, I test for free SO2 (recently switched from Ripper to
aeration-oxidation; life is MUCH better!) to determine if I need to add
more. Usually at racking time. Again, I try to keep the freee SO2 within a
range determined by the pH. Before bottling, I try to get free SO2 to 30
ppm.

Personally, I try to minimize the addition of KMS. By testing more
frequently, and only adding as necessary, I hope to keep sulfite additions
to the minimal necessary to protect the wine. I'm one of those 'sensitive
nose' types who can detect when there is too much sulfite in a wine.



> I've been told that every time I move the wine, add 50ppm of KSO2. This
> goes for crushing, pressing, racking and bottling.
>
> A) I've also been told that if you want MLF to keep SO2 under 30ppm,
> and in some cases seen it recommended that you only add so2 in the
> crush and not the press. I'd be interested in the range of comments
> capable of this board, as I plan on pressing tmw night.
>
> B) Should I just get a SO2 test kit and bring the free SO2 up to 50
> from wherever it is? - given that it probably doesn't go to 0.
> thanks
>

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I've been told that every time I move the wine, add 50ppm of KSO2. This
> goes for crushing, pressing, racking and bottling.
>
> A) I've also been told that if you want MLF to keep SO2 under 30ppm,
> and in some cases seen it recommended that you only add so2 in the
> crush and not the press. I'd be interested in the range of comments
> capable of this board, as I plan on pressing tmw night.
>
> B) Should I just get a SO2 test kit and bring the free SO2 up to 50
> from wherever it is? - given that it probably doesn't go to 0.
> thanks

A more or less standard SO2 regime for a wine intended to go through MLF
would be....
Little or no SO2 at crush (more than 30 PPM will retard MLF)
No further SO2 additions until the wine has finished MLF.
Then add about 50 PPM of SO2 as soon as the wine has finished MLF.
Roughly half of the added 50 PPM will be quickly bound up and about half
will remain as free SO2.
After a week or two, measure the free SO2 and the pH of the wine.
Calculate the amount of free SO2 is needed to produce 0.8 PPM of molecular
SO2 and make the appropriate addition..
Maintain 0.8 PPM of molecular SO2 until the wine is bottled.

I would not buy an SO2 test kit. I would read a book and then buy the
necessary items separately. You will need to practice measuring SO2 in red
wines to become proficient.

Good luck.

Good information from everyone. THanks. But shouldn't I be worried
about protecting the wine during pressing? Or am I missing something?
Also, i was reading another post which said 1 camden tablet is about
..44gm KMS. If that is the case, the recommended 1 tab per gal (that is
supposed to equal 50ppm) really is only half that. If I put gallons in
to milliliters and divide into 1 million parts I get .0038, which is
one millionth of a gallon. Now 50 of those parts is .19 mls or .19gm
and not .44gm. Thoughts?








Ric wrote:
> As I understand it, what we're after is free molecular SO2. How much free
> SO2 is generated by any given quantity of KMS (short hand for potassium
> metabisulfite) is inversely influenced by pH. Meaning; the more acidic the
> must or wine, the greater the free molecular SO2 generated. I use a simple
> chart to help me determine the desired level of SO2 to add at crush time.
> One chart for red wine, one for white. A good source for info by which to
> determine these ratios is Margalit's book.
>
> After crush, I test for free SO2 (recently switched from Ripper to
> aeration-oxidation; life is MUCH better!) to determine if I need to add
> more. Usually at racking time. Again, I try to keep the freee SO2 within a
> range determined by the pH. Before bottling, I try to get free SO2 to 30
> ppm.
>
> Personally, I try to minimize the addition of KMS. By testing more
> frequently, and only adding as necessary, I hope to keep sulfite additions
> to the minimal necessary to protect the wine. I'm one of those 'sensitive
> nose' types who can detect when there is too much sulfite in a wine.
>
>
>
> > I've been told that every time I move the wine, add 50ppm of KSO2. This
> > goes for crushing, pressing, racking and bottling.
> >
> > A) I've also been told that if you want MLF to keep SO2 under 30ppm,
> > and in some cases seen it recommended that you only add so2 in the
> > crush and not the press. I'd be interested in the range of comments
> > capable of this board, as I plan on pressing tmw night.
> >
> > B) Should I just get a SO2 test kit and bring the free SO2 up to 50
> > from wherever it is? - given that it probably doesn't go to 0.
> > thanks
> >

Ric,
What are the Ripper and aeration-oxidation tests? I use the Titrets to
measure SO2.


Ric wrote:
> After crush, I test for free SO2 (recently switched from Ripper to
> aeration-oxidation; life is MUCH better!) to determine if I need to add
> more. Usually at racking time. Again, I try to keep the freee SO2 within a
> range determined by the pH. Before bottling, I try to get free SO2 to 30
> ppm.

Lum - do you think .8 ppm molecular SO2 is necessarily required? Some
literature suggests a range between .5 and .8; I've been tending towards the
lower end of that range in a desire to use as little KMS as possible. Could
be dumb luck, but thus far (only two seasons at those lower levels,
admittedly) no issues.

thoughts?


>
> A more or less standard SO2 regime for a wine intended to go through MLF
> would be....
> Little or no SO2 at crush (more than 30 PPM will retard MLF)
> No further SO2 additions until the wine has finished MLF.
> Then add about 50 PPM of SO2 as soon as the wine has finished MLF.
> Roughly half of the added 50 PPM will be quickly bound up and about half
> will remain as free SO2.
> After a week or two, measure the free SO2 and the pH of the wine.
> Calculate the amount of free SO2 is needed to produce 0.8 PPM of molecular
> SO2 and make the appropriate addition..
> Maintain 0.8 PPM of molecular SO2 until the wine is bottled.
>
> I would not buy an SO2 test kit. I would read a book and then buy the
> necessary items separately. You will need to practice measuring SO2 in
> red
> wines to become proficient.
>
> Good luck.
>
>

I think some terminology may be confusing me. why are we at .8ppm when
up til now we've been adding kms in the range of 50ppm?




Ric wrote:
> Lum - do you think .8 ppm molecular SO2 is necessarily required? Some
> literature suggests a range between .5 and .8; I've been tending towards the
> lower end of that range in a desire to use as little KMS as possible. Could
> be dumb luck, but thus far (only two seasons at those lower levels,
> admittedly) no issues.
>
> thoughts?
>
>
> >
> > A more or less standard SO2 regime for a wine intended to go through MLF
> > would be....
> > Little or no SO2 at crush (more than 30 PPM will retard MLF)
> > No further SO2 additions until the wine has finished MLF.
> > Then add about 50 PPM of SO2 as soon as the wine has finished MLF.
> > Roughly half of the added 50 PPM will be quickly bound up and about half
> > will remain as free SO2.
> > After a week or two, measure the free SO2 and the pH of the wine.
> > Calculate the amount of free SO2 is needed to produce 0.8 PPM of molecular
> > SO2 and make the appropriate addition..
> > Maintain 0.8 PPM of molecular SO2 until the wine is bottled.
> >
> > I would not buy an SO2 test kit. I would read a book and then buy the
> > necessary items separately. You will need to practice measuring SO2 in
> > red
> > wines to become proficient.
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> >

KMS is added, depending on pH and winemaking tactic, in amounts ranging from
20 ppm to 50 ppm. Depending on pH, that KMS will create SO2 in a couple
forms - it is the resulting molecular level of "free SO2" that has the
preservative qualities we are after. In other words, one measurement (KMS
added) begets the other (free SO2) - depending on pH.


>I think some terminology may be confusing me. why are we at .8ppm when
> up til now we've been adding kms in the range of 50ppm?
>
>
>

I think a lot of guys on here are confused on here because this group
is becoming a lot like chemistry class. Certain people are on here just
to ensure they don't F*** ** a batch of wine on a very basic level.
Many simply do not have the tools required to measure sulphite levels,
check for completion of MLF, etc. Many of you are miles ahead of the
rest of us. It's usually obvious by the initial question,at what stage
the poster is at. Sometimes the answers,although top knotch in my
opinion,are just basically useless to some of us at times. Trying to
say this as diplomatically as possible. I'm sure it has been addressed
before.

I think a lot of guys on here are confused on here because this group
is becoming a lot like chemistry class. Certain people are on here just
to ensure they don't F*** ** a batch of wine on a very basic level.
Many simply do not have the tools required to measure sulphite levels,
check for completion of MLF, etc. Many of you are miles ahead of the
rest of us. It's usually obvious by the initial question,at what stage
the poster is at. Sometimes the answers,although top knotch in my
opinion,are just basically useless to some of us at times. Trying to
say this as diplomatically as possible. I'm sure it has been addressed
before.

Yes. I agree. (on here, on here) But I figure if I hang in there and
read, I will learn more about chemistry and what to do than just reading
books.
My fruit and grape wines are better from reading strange, over my head
discussions that I finally got a piece of. smile.

Your comment is good, hopefully some will remember some of us are just
in this hobby a few years and not high volume (I make 120 bottles a
year). However, I enjoy all the postings as long as it stays away from
nasty or rude comments, or insulting. I mean, is there really a stupid
question? smile. Is there really snobs among us? I don't think so.

DAve

wrote:
> I think a lot of guys on here are confused on here because this group
> is becoming a lot like chemistry class. Certain people are on here just
> to ensure they don't F*** ** a batch of wine on a very basic level.
> Many simply do not have the tools required to measure sulphite levels,
> check for completion of MLF, etc. Many of you are miles ahead of the
> rest of us. It's usually obvious by the initial question,at what stage
> the poster is at. Sometimes the answers,although top knotch in my
> opinion,are just basically useless to some of us at times. Trying to
> say this as diplomatically as possible. I'm sure it has been addressed
> before.
>

"Ric" > wrote in message
...
> Lum - do you think .8 ppm molecular SO2 is necessarily required? Some
> literature suggests a range between .5 and .8; I've been tending towards
the
> lower end of that range in a desire to use as little KMS as possible.
Could
> be dumb luck, but thus far (only two seasons at those lower levels,
> admittedly) no issues.
>
> thoughts?
>
Ric,
I don't think 0.8 PPM is a magic number. Down here in the southwest, pH
levels tend to be high so many winemakers try and maintain 0.8 PPM for white
wines and 0.5 PPM for red wines. After all, it is possible to make good
wine without using any SO2. But, the wine wont last very long and the
winemaker had better keep things very clean.
Lum
Del Mar, California, USA
www.geocities.com/lumeisenman

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I think a lot of guys on here are confused on here because this group
> is becoming a lot like chemistry class. Certain people are on here just
> to ensure they don't F*** ** a batch of wine on a very basic level.
> Many simply do not have the tools required to measure sulphite levels,
> check for completion of MLF, etc. Many of you are miles ahead of the
> rest of us. It's usually obvious by the initial question,at what stage
> the poster is at. Sometimes the answers,although top knotch in my
> opinion,are just basically useless to some of us at times. Trying to
> say this as diplomatically as possible. I'm sure it has been addressed
> before.
>
Andy,
You make a good point.
I wrestled with this issue for some time. I finally decided education is
more important than saving a small batch of wine. But, I may be WRONG.
What do you think is the best way to address this issue?
Lum
Del Mar, California, USA
www.geocities.com/lumeisenman

RE....
> Andy,
> You make a good point.
> I wrestled with this issue for some time. I finally decided education is
> more important than saving a small batch of wine. But, I may be WRONG.
> What do you think is the best way to address this issue?
> Lum
> Del Mar, California, USA
> www.geocities.com/lumeisenman


Actually Lum , I am with you all the way. I am trying thru this group
to educate myself.I think the key is to just recognise whether the
poster is a new poster, inexperienced at the craft,etc. and try to
address the question from there. The guys on here like yourself all
give exceptional advice which would cost us newer folk hundreds or
thousands of dollars to learn elsewhere. There are times though when a
small batch of wine to some guys is a very big thing because we fuss
over it so very much. It's such a source of pride and joy to us.

Apologies if the posts weren't on point. And you make a very good point - to
try to match the technicality of the answer to the demand of the question.
Many a time I have been lost by the technicality of others' writings - so
I'm sympathetic to the point.

The problem is that sometimes simplifying can be misleading - and I'd hate
to cause someone mess up their batch of wine. An analogy; if someone asks
you "how do I get get this car going?", and you tell them how to push the
gas pedal, you've answered the question. But if they don;t understand gears,
or brakes, etc - well, they might not exactly be prepared to drive the car,
eh?

To attempt a better answer to the question - I recommend reading Lum's
online book (excellent) or, if you are more inclined to play with the
science, get a copy of Margalit's book.


>I think a lot of guys on here are confused on here because this group
> is becoming a lot like chemistry class. Certain people are on here just
> to ensure they don't F*** ** a batch of wine on a very basic level.
> Many simply do not have the tools required to measure sulphite levels,
> check for completion of MLF, etc. Many of you are miles ahead of the
> rest of us. It's usually obvious by the initial question,at what stage
> the poster is at. Sometimes the answers,although top knotch in my
> opinion,are just basically useless to some of us at times. Trying to
> say this as diplomatically as possible. I'm sure it has been addressed
> before.
>

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> RE....
> > Andy,
> > You make a good point.
> > I wrestled with this issue for some time. I finally decided education
is
> > more important than saving a small batch of wine. But, I may be WRONG.
> > What do you think is the best way to address this issue?
> > Lum
> > Del Mar, California, USA
> > www.geocities.com/lumeisenman
>
>
> Actually Lum , I am with you all the way. I am trying thru this group
> to educate myself.I think the key is to just recognise whether the
> poster is a new poster, inexperienced at the craft,etc. and try to
> address the question from there. The guys on here like yourself all
> give exceptional advice which would cost us newer folk hundreds or
> thousands of dollars to learn elsewhere. There are times though when a
> small batch of wine to some guys is a very big thing because we fuss
> over it so very much. It's such a source of pride and joy to us.
>

Point well made Andy.
I will try and keep it in mind.
Lum
Del Mar, California, USA
www.geocities.com/lumeisenman

Going with the Keep it Simple process, what about this for and approach
for those without a chemistry background or a lot of hardware who want
to use titrettes?

*Ferment the wine and measure the SO2 at completion.
*Assume whatever your are reading is a false positive value because all
of the free SO2 should have been blown off in fermentation.
* Subtract that value from any subsequent reading and maintain sulfite
levels based on this extrapolated value.

Example:
Post fermentation reading = 22 PPM.
Wine is racked and 50 PPM is added
The next rack 42 PPM is measured.
42-22 =20 PPM remaining.
Measure the pH and determine how much SO2 is needed to protect the
wine.

I'm not saying it's a precise process but I do think either Lum or Ben
Rotter proposed that a while back and it's intriguing.

As to the 0.8 molecular; it's a more precise way to discuss sulfite
levels in wine. The general value of 50 PPM is based on maintaining
0.8 molecular at a pH of 3.6.

I can post a chart of pH vs recommended PPM sulfite from Margalit but I
think it's already in the FAQ.

Joe

Lum Eisenman wrote:
> "Ric" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Lum - do you think .8 ppm molecular SO2 is necessarily required? Some
> > literature suggests a range between .5 and .8; I've been tending towards
> the
> > lower end of that range in a desire to use as little KMS as possible.
> Could
> > be dumb luck, but thus far (only two seasons at those lower levels,
> > admittedly) no issues.
> >
> > thoughts?
> >
> Ric,
> I don't think 0.8 PPM is a magic number. Down here in the southwest, pH
> levels tend to be high so many winemakers try and maintain 0.8 PPM for white
> wines and 0.5 PPM for red wines. After all, it is possible to make good
> wine without using any SO2. But, the wine wont last very long and the
> winemaker had better keep things very clean.
> Lum
> Del Mar, California, USA
> www.geocities.com/lumeisenman

Interesting suggestion. I'll need to go back through my recent past
winemaking notes to determine if the primary assumption (that "all of the
free SO2 has blown off in fermentation") holds true in my own experience. To
my recollection there is usually some significant free SO2 remaining after
primary. Maybe not enough to invalidate your suggested recipe approach
though.

The problem, of course, with all these 'recipe' approaches is that the
underlying premise is that all wines are more or less equal and that all
winemaking situations more or less the same. I don't find that to be true.
To my mind the only way to control the winemaking process is to have
reasonably empirical information on which to base winemaking decisions.
Biggest improvement in my own winemaking life was this year when I moved
from Ripper to A-O for SO2 measurement. Once you get the hang of it, the A-O
methodology is pretty straightforward (certainly easier than Ripper) and
fun.

I guess for those making small lots on an infrequent basis the investment of
$ and time is not worth it and a more programmatic approach is the easiest
and most efficient. But if the goal is to make 'quality' wine on a
consistent basis then knowing SO2 levels and making informed decisions is
critical, MHO.




> Going with the Keep it Simple process, what about this for and approach
> for those without a chemistry background or a lot of hardware who want
> to use titrettes?
>
> *Ferment the wine and measure the SO2 at completion.
> *Assume whatever your are reading is a false positive value because all
> of the free SO2 should have been blown off in fermentation.
> * Subtract that value from any subsequent reading and maintain sulfite
> levels based on this extrapolated value.
>
> Example:
> Post fermentation reading = 22 PPM.
> Wine is racked and 50 PPM is added
> The next rack 42 PPM is measured.
> 42-22 =20 PPM remaining.
> Measure the pH and determine how much SO2 is needed to protect the
> wine.
>
> I'm not saying it's a precise process but I do think either Lum or Ben
> Rotter proposed that a while back and it's intriguing.
>
> As to the 0.8 molecular; it's a more precise way to discuss sulfite
> levels in wine. The general value of 50 PPM is based on maintaining
> 0.8 molecular at a pH of 3.6.
>
> I can post a chart of pH vs recommended PPM sulfite from Margalit but I
> think it's already in the FAQ.
>
> Joe
>
> Lum Eisenman wrote:
>> "Ric" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Lum - do you think .8 ppm molecular SO2 is necessarily required? Some
>> > literature suggests a range between .5 and .8; I've been tending
>> > towards
>> the
>> > lower end of that range in a desire to use as little KMS as possible.
>> Could
>> > be dumb luck, but thus far (only two seasons at those lower levels,
>> > admittedly) no issues.
>> >
>> > thoughts?
>> >
>> Ric,
>> I don't think 0.8 PPM is a magic number. Down here in the southwest, pH
>> levels tend to be high so many winemakers try and maintain 0.8 PPM for
>> white
>> wines and 0.5 PPM for red wines. After all, it is possible to make good
>> wine without using any SO2. But, the wine wont last very long and the
>> winemaker had better keep things very clean.
>> Lum
>> Del Mar, California, USA
>> www.geocities.com/lumeisenman
>

As the original poster of the question, I should say that I appreciate
the technicallity of the answers simply because they are more 'precise'
answers than simplistic ones. Both would leave me with more questions,
but the technical replies direct me to what the next question is,
rather than a vague and simplistic reply which would leave me
scratching my head and not knowing what next to ask.
I get Andy's point, however, and perhaps it is up to the poster to
say, "I don't get it, please simplify". Further to that point, I am
thankful for everyones help in not f'ing up my 90 gal batch.


wrote:
> I think a lot of guys on here are confused on here because this group
> is becoming a lot like chemistry class. Certain people are on here just
> to ensure they don't F*** ** a batch of wine on a very basic level.
> Many simply do not have the tools required to measure sulphite levels,
> check for completion of MLF, etc. Many of you are miles ahead of the
> rest of us. It's usually obvious by the initial question,at what stage
> the poster is at. Sometimes the answers,although top knotch in my
> opinion,are just basically useless to some of us at times. Trying to
> say this as diplomatically as possible. I'm sure it has been addressed
> before.

Ric, you said:
> Biggest improvement in my own winemaking life was this year when I moved
> from Ripper to A-O for SO2 measurement. Once you get the hang of it, the A-O
> methodology is pretty straightforward (certainly easier than Ripper) and
> fun.

Can you explain the difference? I use Titrets -- is that one of these
two methods?

(Lum or others here can give you more precise answers) As best I understand
and can explain;

Ripper is a method for determining free SO2 using iodine as an oxidizing
agent. Essentially it involves a couple of titrations watching for color
shifts. It works OK for white wine (although I never got the same result
twice!) but is damned near useless for red wine - can't recoognize the color
shift (at least, I can't). It also requires a lot of prep work - creating
and normalizing the solutions. Too much work, too inconsistent, and useless
for red wine. For me, wasn;t working.

Aeration-oxidation is a method of releasing SO2 from the wine being measured
by acidifying (is that a word? acidulating?) it then pulling air through it
in a closed system, passing that air through a second medium (hydrogen
peroxide) which accumulates the released SO2, then titrating that H2O2
solution to determine the actual amount of SO2 it has accumulated. It can be
used to determine both free SO2 and total SO2. Sounds complicated but is
acutally pretty easy - and the 'color shift' on the titration is easy to
spot. I get consistent results which I believe to be accurate.

AO kits are available for sale (see any of the major winemaking retailers
online) - but are spendy becuase they use a vacuum pump to pull the air
through the system. Being a cheap SOB I bought the basic components
(titration stand, clamps, beakers, hoses, etc) and then bought a little
aquarium pump; I push air through (pressure aspiration) rather than pull it
through (vacuum aspiration). Saves a heap of $. An aquarium pump is
relatively cheap compared to a vacuum pump. A winemaking friend / mentor (a
commercial winemaker) showed me how to set it up as such and pointed out the
only possible flaw; the system has to be airtight lest you lose any of the
released SO2 (whereas in a vacuum aspiration system you may pull extra air
in but won;t lose any SO2). So I make sure the hoses and clamps are secure
and it's good as gold.

It also satisfies the basic Frankensteinian impulse to have lots of cool
looking lab apparatus, complete with colored fluids bubbling away. ;-)

As for titrtets I tried them back a couple years ago; couldn't get
consistent results, and frankly mistrusted the results I was getting.
Someone else can better explain how they work.




>
> Can you explain the difference? I use Titrets -- is that one of these
> two methods?
>

On Oct 6, 8:44 am, "Ric" > wrote:
> As for titrtets I tried them back a couple years ago; couldn't get
> consistent results, and frankly mistrusted the results I was getting.
> Someone else can better explain how they work.
>

Titrets are Ripper test, with the iodine solution sealed in the ampule.
You draw the wine in and watch the colour change.

Pp

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> As the original poster of the question, I should say that I appreciate
> the technicallity of the answers simply because they are more 'precise'
> answers than simplistic ones. Both would leave me with more questions,
> but the technical replies direct me to what the next question is,
> rather than a vague and simplistic reply which would leave me
> scratching my head and not knowing what next to ask.
> I get Andy's point, however, and perhaps it is up to the poster to
> say, "I don't get it, please simplify". Further to that point, I am
> thankful for everyones help in not f'ing up my 90 gal batch.


A 90-gallon batch??? I like your style.

>
> wrote:
> > I think a lot of guys on here are confused on here because this group
> > is becoming a lot like chemistry class. Certain people are on here just
> > to ensure they don't F*** ** a batch of wine on a very basic level.
> > Many simply do not have the tools required to measure sulphite levels,
> > check for completion of MLF, etc. Many of you are miles ahead of the
> > rest of us. It's usually obvious by the initial question,at what stage
> > the poster is at. Sometimes the answers,although top knotch in my
> > opinion,are just basically useless to some of us at times. Trying to
> > say this as diplomatically as possible. I'm sure it has been addressed
> > before.
>

Yeah. Year 1 =15 gal zin; year 2 60 gal cab + 20 gal 2nd press wine;
year 3 90 gal cab + 15 gal 2nd press, + 5 gal port. We like scale-up.
We make enough to drink for the whole year (me and a friend). We'd like
to get enough stock to be able to drink last year's wine. Each of us
is on a 40 gal consumption pace (including give-aways and family,etc).

Marco

Lum Eisenman wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > As the original poster of the question, I should say that I appreciate
> > the technicallity of the answers simply because they are more 'precise'
> > answers than simplistic ones. Both would leave me with more questions,
> > but the technical replies direct me to what the next question is,
> > rather than a vague and simplistic reply which would leave me
> > scratching my head and not knowing what next to ask.
> > I get Andy's point, however, and perhaps it is up to the poster to
> > say, "I don't get it, please simplify". Further to that point, I am
> > thankful for everyones help in not f'ing up my 90 gal batch.
>
>
> A 90-gallon batch??? I like your style.
>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I think a lot of guys on here are confused on here because this group
> > > is becoming a lot like chemistry class. Certain people are on here just
> > > to ensure they don't F*** ** a batch of wine on a very basic level.
> > > Many simply do not have the tools required to measure sulphite levels,
> > > check for completion of MLF, etc. Many of you are miles ahead of the
> > > rest of us. It's usually obvious by the initial question,at what stage
> > > the poster is at. Sometimes the answers,although top knotch in my
> > > opinion,are just basically useless to some of us at times. Trying to
> > > say this as diplomatically as possible. I'm sure it has been addressed
> > > before.
> >