(Negodki) wrote in message m>...
> "Louise Gagnon" > wrote:
>
> > Are you guys saying that if I bring my PH to 3.4 by adding Tartaric acid, I
> > will have the right acidity?
>
> 3.4 is the target pH for a red wine. I believe that 3.2 is the target
> for white wines. The precise amount may vary depending on individual
> tastes, opinions, type of grape, etc. But those are the normal
> targets. A variation of +/- .2 will still keep you within the outside
> limits of the "acceptable" range.
>
> This may or may not bring your TA to it's "target", but the consensus
> seems to be that the pH is a much more important figure. Conversely,
> bringing the TA to the correct range will probably (but not
> necessarily) bring the pH into the correct range. But if pH is the
> more important value, it makes sense to adjust it directly.
>
> Assuming the preceding discussion to be correct, if you take a
> measured sample of must, and measure the pH, you can add Tartaric acid
> to LOWER the pH, and Calcium or Potassium Carbonate to INCREASE the
> pH, until your target pH is met. Then, if you kept track of how many
> grams of acid or carbonate were added, you can add the proportional
> weight/volume amount to the main must.
>
> This procedure seems to be much simpler and less error prone than
> titrating to determine the TA, computing the adjustment to be made,
> and then testing again to see how accurate your calculations were.



Hmm, I tend to respectfully disagree with this too general statement.
It might be allright if you stick to grapes only but when making
fruitwines, or worse flower wines, the lack of buffer will greatly
affect pH.

Just one example: Pear wine, following Lum's recipe. TA is adjusted to
0.65% . It's dry and the pH of this wine after a year still is (don't
jump) 2.7 . Taste is fabulous! And yes, the meter was properly
calibrated. In addition I can say that I have put batches aside with
lower acidity (TA 0.45%), pH also below 3 but clearly without bite.

So oversimplicity like saying pH is perceived acidity, therefore EQUAL
to your tastebuds is plainly wrong!
As a winemaker with only 5 years experience I think TA readings and
adjustments are an important reference tool to follow up recipes and
train your tastebuds for the right amount of acid, considering the
differences in base material. In that respect I think it's more
important than pH.

Rene.

"Rene" > wrote:

> Hmm, I tend to respectfully disagree with this too general statement.
> It might be allright if you stick to grapes only but when making
> fruitwines, or worse flower wines, the lack of buffer will greatly
> affect pH.

1) I really don't know to which "too general" statement you are referring.

2) This subject was discussed extensively in a recent thread titled: "Value
of a pH meter", which you can read at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...m%26rnum %3D1.

3) The strong consensus of opinion in that thread, which convinced me and
reversed my previously held opinion on the subject, was "that the pH is a
much more important figure" as I stated above in this thread.

4) I don't recall you objecting to that opinion when it was presented by a
number of other individuals in that thread. Your participation and
contrasting opinion would have been appreciated (and still are).

5) I thought we WERE discussing grapes in this thread, a logical assumption,
since I don't recall another fruit being mentioned. In fact, I thought we
were discussing RED grapes, and thus the need for a diluent for the
titration.

6) I presented both opinions --- that adjusting pH alone would probably be
sufficient, and that adjusting TA alone would probably be sufficient. Is
there another method?

7) I qualified all my "general statements" by such prefixes as "the
consensus SEEMS to be...", " But if...", "Assuming the preceding discussion
to be correct...", "This procedure SEEMS to be much simpler...".

8) The entire discussion was in respect to pre-fermentation adjustments,
which (I believe) was the original poster's situation. In respect to post
fermentation, the consensus SEEMS to be that taste tests are of more value
than empirical data. I didn't mention this in _this_ thread, because I as
trying to respond to my perception of the poster's situation, and not go off
on a tangent as I so often do.

> Just one example: Pear wine, following Lum's recipe. TA is adjusted to
> 0.65% . It's dry and the pH of this wine after a year still is (don't
> jump) 2.7 . Taste is fabulous! And yes, the meter was properly
> calibrated. In addition I can say that I have put batches aside with
> lower acidity (TA 0.45%), pH also below 3 but clearly without bite.

Personally, I have to date been measuring and adjusting only the TA, and
assuming that the pH would be in the correct range (as it "usually" is, at
least with the fruit which which I'm dealing). This method and assumption
was based primarily on that stated in Jon Iverson's book, which didn't seem
to be contradicted in any other publication in my small library. And I
haven't had cause to regret the technique --- yet. Again, for
post-fermentation adjustments, I use taste testing AND measurement of TA.

The proponents of pH measurement in the aforementioned thread presented
compelling arguments to measure and adjust the pH and ignore TA, and made a
believer of me. Examples were given in that thread of acid being within
"acceptable" range, and pH being outside (albeit high pH, not low). The
consensus was that the acid should be adjusted until the target pH was
reached, and there was no reason to know the TA to do so. Again the
arguments were quite convincing.

If you disagree with this conclusion, I would appreciate a bit more detail
before I "waste" my money on a pH meter. In the above example, I'm assuming
you measured both values, but adjusted based on TA alone? Do you always do
so, in which case your pH measurements are (presumably) only to determine
the amount of sulfites required? Or do you sometimes adjust based on TA,
and sometimes based on pH, in which case when and why? Or do you somehow use
a combination of methods.

Or are you trying to make an entirely different point, which I have missed
completely.

> So oversimplicity like saying pH is perceived acidity, therefore EQUAL to
your tastebuds is plainly wrong!

I made no such statement.

> As a winemaker with only 5 years experience I think TA readings and
> adjustments are an important reference tool to follow up recipes and
> train your tastebuds for the right amount of acid, considering the
> differences in base material. In that respect I think it's more
> important than pH.

Thank you. It really seems that we are in substantial agreement, at least in
respect to post-fermentation adjustments.

Meanwhile, I think we are confusing the heck out of poor Louise. So, in
conclusion:

Louise,

1) you can use your mineral water for a diluent and proceed with your
titration as you originally intended, or

2) you can perform your titration with a pH meter accurate to at least +/-
..2%, by titrating to an endpoint of 8.2, and you won't need the diluent.

3) you can adjust the pH to 3.2 (for a white grape wine) or 3.4 (for a red
grape wine) or some other value(s) (for other wines), with a pH meter
accurate to at least +/- .1%, and you won't need the diluent or
sodium-hydroxide reagent.

Do whichever you prefer.

I measure and consider both pH and TA on any type of wine or mead. I
have both tools, so use both.

Taste is alway the reality check, I measure out whatever I decide to
add, add 1/2 and taste, then the other half if necessary.

Meads are whacky, the pH can really drop and the TA usually rises post
fermentation on mine.

If I were making 10 gallons or less, I might get someone to measure pH
for me, like the high school science teacher, rather than buy a pH
meter.

That said;

Titration kits are under $10, that's preety cheap insurance.

If buying a meter, consider the cost of the meter and buffers. A good
meter that has ATC and is accurate to 0.1 pH units costs around $50
(US); buffers for a few years around $30.

I have servicable meter probe combinations like this that are 5 years
old, so the cost per year to me was minimal.

I usually make over 50 gallons of various types, so the cost per
bottle is pretty low.

> 3) The strong consensus of opinion in that thread, which convinced me and
> reversed my previously held opinion on the subject, was "that the pH is a
> much more important figure" as I stated above in this thread.

I have bottled reds with pH in excess of 3.6 that were fine 6 years
later, none of mine sit around much longer than that.

In that respect I disagree. I really do not want to bottle a red with
TA over 6.0 g/l; I just think that is too tart. Once I get to 6.0, the
pH is more for information for me, I never use more tha 70 ppm SO2,
usually stop at 50. Those wines I sample more often since the pH
would indicate they are under protected. So far so good on that.

6.5 is the limit on dry whites for me. If I use a little sugar to
balance, I will go as high as 8.5 g/l. At that point pH is never an
issue.

Just another thought on the subject.
Regards,
Joe

Uhoh :-), don't feel personally attacked, my response was merely
directed against the whole thread saying: just get it io the accepted
TA and pH, and than it should be fine.

"Negodki" > wrote in message >...
> "Rene" > wrote:
>
> > Hmm, I tend to respectfully disagree with this too general statement.
> > It might be allright if you stick to grapes only but when making
> > fruitwines, or worse flower wines, the lack of buffer will greatly
> > affect pH.
>
> 1) I really don't know to which "too general" statement you are referring.

The general statement to add tartaric acid until the right pH of 3.4



> 2) This subject was discussed extensively in a recent thread titled: "Value
> of a pH meter", which you can read at
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...m%26rnum %3D1.
>
> 3) The strong consensus of opinion in that thread, which convinced me and
> reversed my previously held opinion on the subject, was "that the pH is a
> much more important figure" as I stated above in this thread.
>
> 4) I don't recall you objecting to that opinion when it was presented by a
> number of other individuals in that thread. Your participation and
> contrasting opinion would have been appreciated (and still are).

Probably had other things to do at the time...

>
> 5) I thought we WERE discussing grapes in this thread, a logical assumption,
> since I don't recall another fruit being mentioned. In fact, I thought we
> were discussing RED grapes, and thus the need for a diluent for the
> titration.
>

I didn't recall ANY fruit being mentioned.


> 6) I presented both opinions --- that adjusting pH alone would probably be
> sufficient, and that adjusting TA alone would probably be sufficient. Is
> there another method?

Well they go together so it's strange to try and separate them. My
point is that there's a compromise which is (fruit) base and taste
dependant.


>
> 7) I qualified all my "general statements" by such prefixes as "the
> consensus SEEMS to be...", " But if...", "Assuming the preceding discussion
> to be correct...", "This procedure SEEMS to be much simpler...".


Yeahyeah, again, it wasn't ment personally.

> 8) The entire discussion was in respect to pre-fermentation adjustments,
> which (I believe) was the original poster's situation. In respect to post
> fermentation, the consensus SEEMS to be that taste tests are of more value
> than empirical data. I didn't mention this in _this_ thread, because I as
> trying to respond to my perception of the poster's situation, and not go off
> on a tangent as I so often do.
>
> > Just one example: Pear wine, following Lum's recipe. TA is adjusted to
> > 0.65% . It's dry and the pH of this wine after a year still is (don't
> > jump) 2.7 . Taste is fabulous! And yes, the meter was properly
> > calibrated. In addition I can say that I have put batches aside with
> > lower acidity (TA 0.45%), pH also below 3 but clearly without bite.
>
> Personally, I have to date been measuring and adjusting only the TA, and
> assuming that the pH would be in the correct range (as it "usually" is, at
> least with the fruit which which I'm dealing). This method and assumption
> was based primarily on that stated in Jon Iverson's book, which didn't seem
> to be contradicted in any other publication in my small library. And I
> haven't had cause to regret the technique --- yet. Again, for
> post-fermentation adjustments, I use taste testing AND measurement of TA.
>
> The proponents of pH measurement in the aforementioned thread presented
> compelling arguments to measure and adjust the pH and ignore TA, and made a
> believer of me. Examples were given in that thread of acid being within
> "acceptable" range, and pH being outside (albeit high pH, not low). The
> consensus was that the acid should be adjusted until the target pH was
> reached, and there was no reason to know the TA to do so. Again the
> arguments were quite convincing.
>
> If you disagree with this conclusion, I would appreciate a bit more detail
> before I "waste" my money on a pH meter. In the above example, I'm assuming
> you measured both values, but adjusted based on TA alone? Do you always do
> so, in which case your pH measurements are (presumably) only to determine
> the amount of sulfites required? Or do you sometimes adjust based on TA,
> and sometimes based on pH, in which case when and why? Or do you somehow use
> a combination of methods.

I do make wine from different fruit every year, then it's difficult to
judge what the right acid level should be for my personal taste. Yes,
I adjust with the TA in mind, but make a note of the pH. Next year
they are merely reference points to get it further in balance.

> Or are you trying to make an entirely different point, which I have missed
> completely.
>
> > So oversimplicity like saying pH is perceived acidity, therefore EQUAL to
> your tastebuds is plainly wrong!
>
> I made no such statement.

Just the saying 'perceived acidity' implies so, and I've read that
many times. Not by you? Sorrie!


> > As a winemaker with only 5 years experience I think TA readings and
> > adjustments are an important reference tool to follow up recipes and
> > train your tastebuds for the right amount of acid, considering the
> > differences in base material. In that respect I think it's more
> > important than pH.
>
> Thank you. It really seems that we are in substantial agreement, at least in
> respect to post-fermentation adjustments.
>
> Meanwhile, I think we are confusing the heck out of poor Louise. So, in
> conclusion:
>
> Louise,
>
> 1) you can use your mineral water for a diluent and proceed with your
> titration as you originally intended, or
>
> 2) you can perform your titration with a pH meter accurate to at least +/-
> .2%, by titrating to an endpoint of 8.2, and you won't need the diluent.
>
> 3) you can adjust the pH to 3.2 (for a white grape wine) or 3.4 (for a red
> grape wine) or some other value(s) (for other wines), with a pH meter
> accurate to at least +/- .1%, and you won't need the diluent or
> sodium-hydroxide reagent.
>
> Do whichever you prefer.

Get on with this discussion in the pub