I have a question about a couple of things on the Jack Keller web site:

He is says (excerpts below) that the transfer from primary to secondary
fermentation should contain all the yeast and the secondary fermentation can
sit for up to three months before the first rack if it is stirred once a
week.?

Is this right? Is it typical to do it this way? Are there any adverse
consequences that people have found leaving all that yeast on the bottom of
the fermentation vessel for so long - even with weekly stirring?

The E.C. Kraus web site http://www.eckraus.com/wine-making-steps.html says
transfer from primary to secondary should be done with a siphon without
stirring up the sediment, and that bottling is done 4-6 weeks later, as soon
as it clears and the hydrometer reading is between .990 and .998.

What is the right way?


The relevant excerpts from jackkeller.net a

This is from the page about the first transfer from primary to secondary
fermentation:
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/secondary.asp
Transfer does not mean rack. While the solids are strained off and
discarded, the liquid and lees are poured through a funnel into the
secondary. The lees are important at this stage because many of the live
yeast cells will have settled into the lees. Without them, fermentation will
get very sluggish or stick (stop altogether). The best procedure is to stir
the wine to get the lees into suspension, then pour the liquid through a
large funnel into the secondary. If the funnel has a fine-mesh screen
insert, use it to filter out the gross lees (large bits of pulp). The fine
lees, containing the yeast, will pass through the mesh.

This is on the page about racking:
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/racking.asp
"The rule is, as long as there are fresh deposits on the bottom after a
regular interval (30 to 60 days), even if they are just a light dusting, the
wine should be racked.
....
It is not necessary that the interval between rackings be 30 days, 45 days
or 60 days, but it should not be less than three weeks. It is perfectly okay
to leave the wine on the lees for three months. Beyond that and the wine
enters a danger zone caused by dead yeast cells breaking down -- rotting.
While this can cause off-flavors and odors if allowed to go on too long, the
bigger danger is the formation of hydrogen-sulfide gas, which smells like
rotten eggs and can be the death of the wine. But if the lees are stirred
every week or so, neither the off flavors, off odors nor hydrogen-sulfide
gas form. Indeed, the wine is actually improved by extended contact with the
lees as long as they are stirred frequently."



Thanks

On Apr 4, 2:40 am, "nl3wsch72gfdjkpq"
> wrote:
> I have a question about a couple of things on the Jack Keller web site:
>
> He is says (excerpts below) that the transfer from primary to secondary
> fermentation should contain all the yeast and the secondary fermentation can
> sit for up to three months before the first rack if it is stirred once a
> week.?
>
> Is this right? Is it typical to do it this way? Are there any adverse
> consequences that people have found leaving all that yeast on the bottom of
> the fermentation vessel for so long - even with weekly stirring?
>
> The E.C. Kraus web sitehttp://www.eckraus.com/wine-making-steps.htmlsays
> transfer from primary to secondary should be done with a siphon without
> stirring up the sediment, and that bottling is done 4-6 weeks later, as soon
> as it clears and the hydrometer reading is between .990 and .998.
>
> What is the right way?
>
> The relevant excerpts from jackkeller.net a
>
> This is from the page about the first transfer from primary to secondary
> fermentation:http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/secondary.asp
> Transfer does not mean rack. While the solids are strained off and
> discarded, the liquid and lees are poured through a funnel into the
> secondary. The lees are important at this stage because many of the live
> yeast cells will have settled into the lees. Without them, fermentation will
> get very sluggish or stick (stop altogether). The best procedure is to stir
> the wine to get the lees into suspension, then pour the liquid through a
> large funnel into the secondary. If the funnel has a fine-mesh screen
> insert, use it to filter out the gross lees (large bits of pulp). The fine
> lees, containing the yeast, will pass through the mesh.
>
> This is on the page about racking:http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/racking.asp
> "The rule is, as long as there are fresh deposits on the bottom after a
> regular interval (30 to 60 days), even if they are just a light dusting, the
> wine should be racked.
> ...
> It is not necessary that the interval between rackings be 30 days, 45 days
> or 60 days, but it should not be less than three weeks. It is perfectly okay
> to leave the wine on the lees for three months. Beyond that and the wine
> enters a danger zone caused by dead yeast cells breaking down -- rotting.
> While this can cause off-flavors and odors if allowed to go on too long, the
> bigger danger is the formation of hydrogen-sulfide gas, which smells like
> rotten eggs and can be the death of the wine. But if the lees are stirred
> every week or so, neither the off flavors, off odors nor hydrogen-sulfide
> gas form. Indeed, the wine is actually improved by extended contact with the
> lees as long as they are stirred frequently."
>
> Thanks

Yes,of course, Jack Keller is right.

Guy

On Apr 3, 11:40 pm, "nl3wsch72gfdjkpq"
> wrote:
> I have a question about a couple of things on the Jack Keller web site:
>
> He is says (excerpts below) that the transfer from primary to secondary
> fermentation should contain all the yeast and the secondary fermentation can
> sit for up to three months before the first rack if it is stirred once a
> week.?
>
> Is this right? Is it typical to do it this way? Are there any adverse
> consequences that people have found leaving all that yeast on the bottom of
> the fermentation vessel for so long - even with weekly stirring?
>
> The E.C. Kraus web sitehttp://www.eckraus.com/wine-making-steps.htmlsays
> transfer from primary to secondary should be done with a siphon without
> stirring up the sediment, and that bottling is done 4-6 weeks later, as soon
> as it clears and the hydrometer reading is between .990 and .998.
>
> What is the right way?
>
> The relevant excerpts from jackkeller.net a
>
> This is from the page about the first transfer from primary to secondary
> fermentation:http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/secondary.asp
> Transfer does not mean rack. While the solids are strained off and
> discarded, the liquid and lees are poured through a funnel into the
> secondary. The lees are important at this stage because many of the live
> yeast cells will have settled into the lees. Without them, fermentation will
> get very sluggish or stick (stop altogether). The best procedure is to stir
> the wine to get the lees into suspension, then pour the liquid through a
> large funnel into the secondary. If the funnel has a fine-mesh screen
> insert, use it to filter out the gross lees (large bits of pulp). The fine
> lees, containing the yeast, will pass through the mesh.
>
> This is on the page about racking:http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/racking.asp
> "The rule is, as long as there are fresh deposits on the bottom after a
> regular interval (30 to 60 days), even if they are just a light dusting, the
> wine should be racked.
> ...
> It is not necessary that the interval between rackings be 30 days, 45 days
> or 60 days, but it should not be less than three weeks. It is perfectly okay
> to leave the wine on the lees for three months. Beyond that and the wine
> enters a danger zone caused by dead yeast cells breaking down -- rotting.
> While this can cause off-flavors and odors if allowed to go on too long, the
> bigger danger is the formation of hydrogen-sulfide gas, which smells like
> rotten eggs and can be the death of the wine. But if the lees are stirred
> every week or so, neither the off flavors, off odors nor hydrogen-sulfide
> gas form. Indeed, the wine is actually improved by extended contact with the
> lees as long as they are stirred frequently."
>
> Thanks

this is something I have wondered about too. I dont have any books
that remotely suggest transferring the gross lees to the secondary,
but Mr Keller is well regarded by all. I think this thread could
probably use someone giving it some thoughtful rationale in the
interest of many of us learners. "Jack is right" may indeed be right,
but I'd like to know why, and if lots of you are doing this when so
many texts are fairly clear in saying the opposite.

snpm wrote:

> On Apr 3, 11:40 pm, "nl3wsch72gfdjkpq"
> > wrote:
>> I have a question about a couple of things on
>> the Jack Keller web site:
>>
>> He is says (excerpts below) that the transfer
>> from primary to secondary fermentation should
>> contain all the yeast and the secondary
>> fermentation can sit for up to three months
>> before the first rack if it is stirred once a
>> week.?
>>
>> Is this right? Is it typical to do it this way?
>> Are there any adverse consequences that people
>> have found leaving all that yeast on the bottom
>> of the fermentation vessel for so long - even
>> with weekly stirring?
>>
>> The E.C. Kraus web
>>
sitehttp://www.eckraus.com/wine-making-steps.htmlsays
>> transfer from primary to secondary should be
>> done with a siphon without stirring up the
>> sediment, and that bottling is done 4-6 weeks
>> later, as soon as it clears and the hydrometer
>> reading is between .990 and .998.
>>
>> What is the right way?
>>
>> The relevant excerpts from jackkeller.net a
>>
>> This is from the page about the first transfer
>> from primary to secondary
>>
fermentation:http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/secondary.asp
>> Transfer does not mean rack. While the solids
>> are strained off and discarded, the liquid and
>> lees are poured through a funnel into the
>> secondary. The lees are important at this stage
>> because many of the live yeast cells will have
>> settled into the lees. Without them,
>> fermentation will get very sluggish or stick
>> (stop altogether). The best procedure is to
>> stir the wine to get the lees into suspension,
>> then pour the liquid through a large funnel
>> into the secondary. If the funnel has a
>> fine-mesh screen insert, use it to filter out
>> the gross lees (large bits of pulp). The fine
>> lees, containing the yeast, will pass through
>> the mesh.
>>
>> This is on the page about
>>
racking:http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/racking.asp
>> "The rule is, as long as there are fresh
>> deposits on the bottom after a regular interval
>> (30 to 60 days), even if they are just a light
>> dusting, the wine should be racked. ... It is
>> not necessary that the interval between
>> rackings be 30 days, 45 days or 60 days, but it
>> should not be less than three weeks. It is
>> perfectly okay to leave the wine on the lees
>> for three months. Beyond that and the wine
>> enters a danger zone caused by dead yeast cells
>> breaking down -- rotting. While this can cause
>> off-flavors and odors if allowed to go on too
>> long, the bigger danger is the formation of
>> hydrogen-sulfide gas, which smells like rotten
>> eggs and can be the death of the wine. But if
>> the lees are stirred every week or so, neither
>> the off flavors, off odors nor hydrogen-sulfide
>> gas form. Indeed, the wine is actually improved
>> by extended contact with the lees as long as
>> they are stirred frequently."
>>
>> Thanks
>
> this is something I have wondered about too. I
> dont have any books that remotely suggest
> transferring the gross lees to the secondary,
> but Mr Keller is well regarded by all. I think
> this thread could probably use someone giving it
> some thoughtful rationale in the interest of
> many of us learners. "Jack is right" may indeed
> be right, but I'd like to know why, and if lots
> of you are doing this when so many texts are
> fairly clear in saying the opposite.

I do my first racking off the gross lees VERY soon
after fermentation has finished. I do not suck
ANY of the lees up but I do save them and put
them in another container and let them settle
some more. After a few days, I rack again and
save the wine for top up wine and throw away the
gross lees. If you are dealing with several
hundred pounds of fruit, you can recover quite a
bit of wine this way.

I do a second racking in about three months. I
smell the lees and if the lees smell sweet, I add
them back into the wine and stir. You can easily
tell if the lees are stinky in any way. In my
opinion, sweet lees are beneficial to the wine.

I think too many people are hung up on doing
numerous rackings and think of all lees as
something nasty and unclean. I think this is
true of Gross lees only - those which contain
pieces of pulp or stems and yes, gross lees
should be avoided.

I transfer my wine in carboy to barrel in the
spring - which is about 6 months after
fermentation ends. I rack the wine off the lees
before putting in barrel. After sitting in the
basement over winter, the wine will throw
considerable tartrates (depending on variety -
with my Cabernet Franc always throwing the most).
In other words, I put clean wine in barrel in
which most of the tartrates have precipitated out
because of being in a cool cellar environment.

This results in wine that precipitates little or
no tartrates in barrel and therefore my wine is
exposed to oak and not crusty tartrate crystals
lining the barrel. I think you get a lot more
mileage out of your barrels this way.

When I bottle, after being in barrel about a year,
I bottle directly from barrel and do not care if
there is perhaps a slight amount of sediment on
the bottom. Hey, that is what punts are for on
bottles. I have never noticed a problem with
sediment in my bottled wine.

Everyone has their own methods but this is mine.

On Apr 4, 8:48 pm, "snpm" > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 11:40 pm, "nl3wsch72gfdjkpq"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > I have a question about a couple of things on the Jack Keller web site:
>
> > He is says (excerpts below) that the transfer from primary to secondary
> > fermentation should contain all the yeast and the secondary fermentation can
> > sit for up to three months before the first rack if it is stirred once a
> > week.?
>
> > Is this right? Is it typical to do it this way? Are there any adverse
> > consequences that people have found leaving all that yeast on the bottom of
> > the fermentation vessel for so long - even with weekly stirring?
>
> > The E.C. Kraus web sitehttp://www.eckraus.com/wine-making-steps.htmlsays
> > transfer from primary to secondary should be done with a siphon without
> > stirring up the sediment, and that bottling is done 4-6 weeks later, as soon
> > as it clears and the hydrometer reading is between .990 and .998.
>
> > What is the right way?
>
> > The relevant excerpts from jackkeller.net a
>
> > This is from the page about the first transfer from primary to secondary
> > fermentation:http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/secondary.asp
> > Transfer does not mean rack. While the solids are strained off and
> > discarded, the liquid and lees are poured through a funnel into the
> > secondary. The lees are important at this stage because many of the live
> > yeast cells will have settled into the lees. Without them, fermentation will
> > get very sluggish or stick (stop altogether). The best procedure is to stir
> > the wine to get the lees into suspension, then pour the liquid through a
> > large funnel into the secondary. If the funnel has a fine-mesh screen
> > insert, use it to filter out the gross lees (large bits of pulp). The fine
> > lees, containing the yeast, will pass through the mesh.
>
> > This is on the page about racking:http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/racking.asp
> > "The rule is, as long as there are fresh deposits on the bottom after a
> > regular interval (30 to 60 days), even if they are just a light dusting, the
> > wine should be racked.
> > ...
> > It is not necessary that the interval between rackings be 30 days, 45 days
> > or 60 days, but it should not be less than three weeks. It is perfectly okay
> > to leave the wine on the lees for three months. Beyond that and the wine
> > enters a danger zone caused by dead yeast cells breaking down -- rotting.
> > While this can cause off-flavors and odors if allowed to go on too long, the
> > bigger danger is the formation of hydrogen-sulfide gas, which smells like
> > rotten eggs and can be the death of the wine. But if the lees are stirred
> > every week or so, neither the off flavors, off odors nor hydrogen-sulfide
> > gas form. Indeed, the wine is actually improved by extended contact with the
> > lees as long as they are stirred frequently."
>
> > Thanks
>
> this is something I have wondered about too. I dont have any books
> that remotely suggest transferring the gross lees to the secondary,
> but Mr Keller is well regarded by all. I think this thread could
> probably use someone giving it some thoughtful rationale in the
> interest of many of us learners. "Jack is right" may indeed be right,
> but I'd like to know why, and if lots of you are doing this when so
> many texts are fairly clear in saying the opposite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, it's all relative to what you're working with - are you doing
white or red wine, kit or fresh grapes, or fruit? The procedures can
differ significantly based on that. The transfer from primary to
secondary, for example, is mostly relevant to kit/juice winemaking
when your primary is an open container. In that case you want to move
the wine while it's still fermenting into a closed container. This
being a juice fermentation, I wouldn't personally worry about the lees
this early and just transfer the whole thing because as Jack said
there is a danger of the ferment sticking if most of the yeast is
sitting at the bottom of the container.

The EC Krauss instructions sound again like they're meant for a kit
and not for general winemaking - notice they mention bottling within
4-6 weeks and give a large range for the final sg (up to 0.998), I've
only seen parameters like that before in kit instructions. So you have
to take that context into account.

Finally, if you think about large scale winemaking of say fruity,
light-bodied whites, these would typically be full fermented in closed
stainless steel tanks and only then racked, so there is no secondary
fermenter vessel involved and the wine is in contact with all the
yeast lees until it's racked. So that would also speak to there being
no danger in transferring all yeast lees from primary to a secondary
fermenter, if you employ that step in your kit/juice winemaking.

Pp

I had a several email exchange with Jack some time ago on this topick when I
had a couple of batchs stick. He suggested at the time that when you are
making a low solids wine from pure filtered juice such as Welch's grape
concentrate, most of the yeast will settle to the bottome toward the end of
primary fermentation. If you carefully rack off the leas and leave all of
them behind you may end up with too few yeast to carry on an active ferment
and the yeast, which is not reproducing at this stage, may die off before
finishing ending in a stuck ferment. He never seemed to suggest this when
you are fermenting on pulp from fruit which yield gross leas.

I do not mean to put words in Jacks mouth but that is basically what I took
from his suggestions.

Ray

I would agree in general with everything said so far on this but it's
actually more complicated than this; but still very simple.

In general, if your fermentation vessel is not closed or poorly
sealed, once the wine is close to done fermenting you risk oxidation.

Transfer of that wine is always recommended, especially if it's
white. Bring everything over, it doesn't matter if it's from juice,
grapes, honey or fruit wine. Get it under airlock now and keep it
that way. Don't top up yet. That way you are assured you will remove
all of the oxygen when the fermentation completes. That is the safest
way to remove the risk of oxidation.

Once it stops bubbling; check the gravity over a few days and see if
it's still dropping. (A better test is Clinitest; see if the Residual
Sugar is 0.2% or less. If so, it's done and now you let it settle and
rack; never transfer again.

If you are fermenting in sealed containers a transfer will not be
needed, just racking.

I agreed with everything said about timing; time is not important,
sediment is. Gross lees are a bit dangerous. The lees from an
initial ferment may decompose if left alone. Gross lees can be a
problem, you need to either remove them or check the wine very
regularly, as in every few days if you feel a need to leave the wine
on them.

Fine lees on the other hand, stirred, can impart a 'butteriness' to
the wine and that can be nice in a Chardonnay or good Chenin, it's a
little odd in a Riesling. It's not often done in reds, but a mediocre
Pinot may be made more interesting this way. If you want to leave
wine on the gross lees, you need to stir it and check it. Once that
first rack removes the gross lees, the fine lees are not quite as
problematic in my experience.


Joe

On Apr 14, 3:14 am, "Joe Sallustio" > wrote:
>
> Fine lees on the other hand, stirred, can impart a 'butteriness' to
> the wine and that can be nice in a Chardonnay or good Chenin, it's a
> little odd in a Riesling. It's not often done in reds, but a mediocre
> Pinot may be made more interesting this way. If you want to leave
> wine on the gross lees, you need to stir it and check it. Once that
> first rack removes the gross lees, the fine lees are not quite as
> problematic in my experience.
>
> Joe

I've seen this several times lately about lees aging not being used
with reds apart from maybe Pinot and am wondering what's the reference
and rationale for that? As a counterexample, a bunch of people from
our winemaking club were on a holiday in Italy a year or two ago and
among other things, visited a winery whose Merlot got over 95 points
from Parker. Seeing they were winemakers, the owner gave them a
several hours long tour of his operation. To get back to the question,
he ages his wines in barrels on fine lees and rotates the barrels
regularly without opening them, mixing the lees into wine that way.

Also, since reds as a rule are aged longer than whites and go through
ML, the conditions would seem to be well suited for lees contact so
I'm curious why it would not be recommended?

Thx,

Pp

The steps in wine making are not a bunch of independent processes that can
be mixed and matched like tinker toys. Each step that goes into winemaking
must match all the rest of the steps. You cannot simply develope a process
that makes a decent wine and then say, "Oh, if I add extended leas contact I
will get better wine because soo-and-so uses it and gets better wine." It
may work for you and it may not. It depends on the rest of the steps in the
process you use. If you want to get the kind of wine someone else gets you
cannot just pick a step out of his process and add it to your process and
expect it to give you what he got. You must use his entire process. That
step may make a worse wine when added to your process. You can experiment
with changing your process and you should. But don't gamble your entire
years production on a new step.

Anyway, that is my take on it.

Ray

"pp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 14, 3:14 am, "Joe Sallustio" > wrote:
>>
>> Fine lees on the other hand, stirred, can impart a 'butteriness' to
>> the wine and that can be nice in a Chardonnay or good Chenin, it's a
>> little odd in a Riesling. It's not often done in reds, but a mediocre
>> Pinot may be made more interesting this way. If you want to leave
>> wine on the gross lees, you need to stir it and check it. Once that
>> first rack removes the gross lees, the fine lees are not quite as
>> problematic in my experience.
>>
>> Joe
>
> I've seen this several times lately about lees aging not being used
> with reds apart from maybe Pinot and am wondering what's the reference
> and rationale for that? As a counterexample, a bunch of people from
> our winemaking club were on a holiday in Italy a year or two ago and
> among other things, visited a winery whose Merlot got over 95 points
> from Parker. Seeing they were winemakers, the owner gave them a
> several hours long tour of his operation. To get back to the question,
> he ages his wines in barrels on fine lees and rotates the barrels
> regularly without opening them, mixing the lees into wine that way.
>
> Also, since reds as a rule are aged longer than whites and go through
> ML, the conditions would seem to be well suited for lees contact so
> I'm curious why it would not be recommended?
>
> Thx,
>
> Pp
>
>

On Apr 17, 9:52 am, "Ray Calvert" > wrote:
> The steps in wine making are not a bunch of independent processes that can
> be mixed and matched like tinker toys. Each step that goes into winemaking
> must match all the rest of the steps. You cannot simply develope a process
> that makes a decent wine and then say, "Oh, if I add extended leas contact I
> will get better wine because soo-and-so uses it and gets better wine." It
> may work for you and it may not. It depends on the rest of the steps in the
> process you use. If you want to get the kind of wine someone else gets you
> cannot just pick a step out of his process and add it to your process and
> expect it to give you what he got. You must use his entire process. That
> step may make a worse wine when added to your process. You can experiment
> with changing your process and you should. But don't gamble your entire
> years production on a new step.
>
> Anyway, that is my take on it.
>
> Ray
>

Ray:

I agree with that up to a point, that being that to develop a process
that works for me there is by necessity some experimentation involved.
I think it's ok to borrow and try things and see how they work and
then adjust the process accordingly. But yes, it's definitely
dangerous to make big process changes for the whole year production, I
wouldn't recommend that.

However, back to my original question - I wasn't saying we should all
do extended lees aging on reds from now on, I was asking for some
references why we shouldn't, so I could read up some more about it to
make a more informed decision. I don't recall a specific discussion of
this in any of my wine books and am curious because I don't see why it
would be problematic for red wines.

Pp

Pp, presumably you already considered that it might be due to some extract of the grape skins that remains in the lees?
I speak from a lay perspective, I just figured that that is perhaps one of the main differences between whites and reds
and so could be of relevance?

Jim

"pp" > wrote in message oups.com...
> On Apr 17, 9:52 am, "Ray Calvert" > wrote:
>> The steps in wine making are not a bunch of independent processes that can
>> be mixed and matched like tinker toys. Each step that goes into winemaking
>> must match all the rest of the steps. You cannot simply develope a process
>> that makes a decent wine and then say, "Oh, if I add extended leas contact I
>> will get better wine because soo-and-so uses it and gets better wine." It
>> may work for you and it may not. It depends on the rest of the steps in the
>> process you use. If you want to get the kind of wine someone else gets you
>> cannot just pick a step out of his process and add it to your process and
>> expect it to give you what he got. You must use his entire process. That
>> step may make a worse wine when added to your process. You can experiment
>> with changing your process and you should. But don't gamble your entire
>> years production on a new step.
>>
>> Anyway, that is my take on it.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>
> Ray:
>
> I agree with that up to a point, that being that to develop a process
> that works for me there is by necessity some experimentation involved.
> I think it's ok to borrow and try things and see how they work and
> then adjust the process accordingly. But yes, it's definitely
> dangerous to make big process changes for the whole year production, I
> wouldn't recommend that.
>
> However, back to my original question - I wasn't saying we should all
> do extended lees aging on reds from now on, I was asking for some
> references why we shouldn't, so I could read up some more about it to
> make a more informed decision. I don't recall a specific discussion of
> this in any of my wine books and am curious because I don't see why it
> would be problematic for red wines.
>
> Pp
>

I'd encourage experimenting on a portion of the batch with extended lees
contact, splitting out a gallon or two into jugs when racking from
primary. That way you can get some idea as to whether you'd want to
incorporate this process variant into the larger batch the following year.

I have been very happy with sur lies aging on some of my zinfandel. It
is not as fruity as the one racked off the fine lees, but it does add a
depth to the wine that I enjoy, at least with the D254 yeast I used. I
haven't tried sur lies aging zinfandel with other yeasts yet.

I agree with Ray that you may have to experiment with various
combinations of cold soak, yeast selection, yeast inoculation method,
fermentation temperature profile, (with reds) skin contact time, and
lees contact time in order to come up with a combination you like. It
took me two years and six 1-gallon batches to 'develop' my preferred
combination.

One nice thing about this being a hobby is the freedom to experiment.

Gene

Ray Calvert wrote:
> The steps in wine making are not a bunch of independent processes that can
> be mixed and matched like tinker toys. Each step that goes into winemaking
> must match all the rest of the steps. You cannot simply develope a process
> that makes a decent wine and then say, "Oh, if I add extended leas contact I
> will get better wine because soo-and-so uses it and gets better wine." It
> may work for you and it may not. It depends on the rest of the steps in the
> process you use. If you want to get the kind of wine someone else gets you
> cannot just pick a step out of his process and add it to your process and
> expect it to give you what he got. You must use his entire process. That
> step may make a worse wine when added to your process. You can experiment
> with changing your process and you should. But don't gamble your entire
> years production on a new step.
>
> Anyway, that is my take on it.
>
> Ray
>
> "pp" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On Apr 14, 3:14 am, "Joe Sallustio" > wrote:
>>> Fine lees on the other hand, stirred, can impart a 'butteriness' to
>>> the wine and that can be nice in a Chardonnay or good Chenin, it's a
>>> little odd in a Riesling. It's not often done in reds, but a mediocre
>>> Pinot may be made more interesting this way. If you want to leave
>>> wine on the gross lees, you need to stir it and check it. Once that
>>> first rack removes the gross lees, the fine lees are not quite as
>>> problematic in my experience.
>>>
>>> Joe
>> I've seen this several times lately about lees aging not being used
>> with reds apart from maybe Pinot and am wondering what's the reference
>> and rationale for that? As a counterexample, a bunch of people from
>> our winemaking club were on a holiday in Italy a year or two ago and
>> among other things, visited a winery whose Merlot got over 95 points
>> from Parker. Seeing they were winemakers, the owner gave them a
>> several hours long tour of his operation. To get back to the question,
>> he ages his wines in barrels on fine lees and rotates the barrels
>> regularly without opening them, mixing the lees into wine that way.
>>
>> Also, since reds as a rule are aged longer than whites and go through
>> ML, the conditions would seem to be well suited for lees contact so
>> I'm curious why it would not be recommended?
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>> Pp
>>
>>
>
>

I don't know that I have ever heard aging on the lees as 'not
recommended' for reds; I can't see it as a bad idea if you don't want
fruit forward results. I don't think it's a common practice though.
That Italian winemaker certainly likes the idea and it works well for
him. I think this is something like adding stalks in with your grapes
on a red. There are lots of ways to make wine and you kind of have to
try something to decide if it's for you or not. Green stalks are
usually considered bad; brown stalks on the other hand are sometimes
used. Henri Jayer uses stalks in his Burgundy but he tastes them
first.

It may be the same with the lees. Leaving wine on gross lees is a bad
idea, leaving it on fine lees may be great as long as you get those
gross lees out of there. I think some of this comes down to 'don't
mess with success'. I only experiment with things when I'm not very
happy with the current state of affairs. I may try leaving one on the
lees someday. I'm sure I will screw up a racking at some point and
unintentionally do this anyway; now i just need to track the results.

Joe