I'm about to start my first batch of raspberry wine and have purchased
a Wine Acid Test Kit.

When do I test the acid, before or after I add sugar?

Are the guidelines for starting a must?
For example should I add sugar first, then test/adjust for acid before
adding the yeast?

Is there a specific order?

thanks,
Mark

by the sounds of it, you should do that before adding the yeast....
I just started a batch and wasn't aware of the ph factor...
and now my acid is a bit too high...
so now I have to wait and perhaps cold stabilize after fermentation is all
done...
or later add potassium or calcium carbonate...

I would do it before adding the sugar....
before fermentation...
Rick



"MkFn" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm about to start my first batch of raspberry wine and have purchased
> a Wine Acid Test Kit.
>
> When do I test the acid, before or after I add sugar?
>
> Are the guidelines for starting a must?
> For example should I add sugar first, then test/adjust for acid before
> adding the yeast?
>
> Is there a specific order?
>
> thanks,
> Mark

Make *all* your measurements before adding anything - it makes for
more consistency in your measurements batch-to-batch. I don't think
that the addition of sugar will make too much difference to the
acidity/pH of the must, and certainly not enough to greatly affect
what you'll need to add. Mix well, and then if you plan on making
confirmatory measurements, do it after you've made all the adjustments
you think you need.

For certain, any changes you make to the chemistry, try to do as early
as possible in the process - before you start fermentation is best.
The later you adjust, the less chance the adjustments will have time
to "marry in" to the rest of the wine. The working of the wine by the
yeast is a very active time for the wine, so it helps to integrate
everything

A word of advice, be judicious with adjustments. I had a chemistry
professor who's catch-phrase was "well, if some is good, then more
must be better." This was usually 15 seconds before something
exploded, and I think the same can apply to winemaking. If you're
within an acceptable range(say +-.05 TA, maybe a little more, to the
goal measurement), it's probably not worth the risk of further
adjustment. If you're way off (say, +- 0.30 TA), you've got to do
something, obviously.

Rob


(MkFn) wrote in message . com>...
> I'm about to start my first batch of raspberry wine and have purchased
> a Wine Acid Test Kit.
>
> When do I test the acid, before or after I add sugar?
>
> Are the guidelines for starting a must?
> For example should I add sugar first, then test/adjust for acid before
> adding the yeast?
>
> Is there a specific order?
>
> thanks,
> Mark

Hi Mark

At this point the best advice I can give to both you and Rick is that
unless or until you learn the basics of "country" wine making, you
should stick strictly to kits and/or proven recipes and follow the
directions *exactly*. This way the only thing you will need to know
is how to use a hydrometer. Lots of folks are quite happy just
doing it this way and are successful winemakers without ever having
to learn anything more about winemaking. My further comments
are interspersed below........

"MkFn" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm about to start my first batch of raspberry wine and have purchased
> a Wine Acid Test Kit.
>
> When do I test the acid, before or after I add sugar?

Welllll...There are two ways to reduce acidity. Dilution and/or
chemical (carbonates). If you choose dilution, you take a reading,
calculate the amount of dilution required, make that dilution, and
then retest to confirm that your estimates were correct. OTOH -
if you choose chemical reduction, you have to *completely* assemble
the must (so there is no subsequent dilution), *then* take a reading,
calculate the amount of carbonate required, add the carbonate,
and retest to confirm.

>
> Are the guidelines for starting a must?

Yes, of course. They can be found in any book that concerns
itself with basic winemaking practices.

> For example should I add sugar first, then test/adjust for acid before
> adding the yeast?
>
> Is there a specific order?

Yes, but it depends on which procedure you choose.
HTMS

>
> thanks,
> Mark

Hi Rick

Please see my comments to Mark (above in this thread). Further
comments interspersed.......

"Rick Vanderwal" > wrote in message
...
> by the sounds of it, you should do that before adding the yeast....
> I just started a batch and wasn't aware of the ph factor...

Let me try to explain some aspects of acid management. TA is
merely an empirically established *guideline*. Very helpful but
certainly not critical to success. OTOH - pH *is* critical to
success because it determines if the wine will have microbial
stability. This is why Joanne has stressed the importance of pH
in the other thread. While a pH meter is certainly the preferred
way to check pH, the papers you have are perfectly adequate for
doing this if you don't want to spend the money for a meter (they
ain't cheap).

> and now my acid is a bit too high...

See my comments to Mark on acid reduction.

> so now I have to wait and perhaps cold stabilize after fermentation is
> all done...

As Ben mentioned in the other thread, you will receive no benefit
by cold stabilizing this wine. "Tartaric" wines *must* be cold stabilized.
"Non-tartaric" wines (which your wine is) cannot form bitartrate
crystals because there is no tartaric acid present to combine with
the potassium. The reason that wines are categorized as "tartaric"
or "non-tartaric" is because acid management is radically different
for these two types. The above is just one aspect of this.
HTMS

> or later add potassium or calcium carbonate...
>
> I would do it before adding the sugar....
> before fermentation...
> Rick
>
>
>
> "MkFn" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I'm about to start my first batch of raspberry wine and have purchased
> > a Wine Acid Test Kit.
> >
> > When do I test the acid, before or after I add sugar?
> >
> > Are the guidelines for starting a must?
> > For example should I add sugar first, then test/adjust for acid before
> > adding the yeast?
> >
> > Is there a specific order?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Mark
>
>

"Rob" > wrote in message
om...
> Make *all* your measurements before adding anything - it makes for
> more consistency in your measurements batch-to-batch. I don't think
> that the addition of sugar will make too much difference to the
> acidity/pH of the must, and certainly not enough to greatly affect
> what you'll need to add. Mix well, and then if you plan on making
> confirmatory measurements, do it after you've made all the adjustments
> you think you need.

<snip>

Hi Rob

Novices might find this a little confusing, so let me please add a short
explanation here.

TA and pH are measures of *concentration* (not quantity). Thus,
anytime that you add something that increases the *volume* of the
must, the "quantity" of acid present remains the same, but the
"concentration" changes. Which of course is why dilution can be
used to adjust acidity. HTMS

Frederick, Joanne and All,

There may be some confusion about molecular sulfur dioxide levels and
the microbial stability of wine.

When sulfur dioxide is added to wine, some sulfur dioxide combines with
other materials in the wine and becomes bound or "fixed." The remaining
sulfur dioxide is in the "free" form. The free sulfur dioxide exists in
three different forms, the molecular form, the bisulfite form and the doubly
ionized sulfite form. In general, only the molecular sulfur dioxide is
effective against wine microbes, and many winemakers try and maintain a
level of 0.8 milligrams of _molecular_ SO2 per liter of wine. But, the
fraction of free sulfur dioxide that exists in the molecular form is
strongly dependent upon the pH of the wine. Consequently, winemakers are
always interested in wine pH so they can tell how much of the SO2 exists in
the molecular form.

Unfortunately, many wine microbes can tolerate much higher levels of SO2.
Some yeast strains, such as Saccharomyces bailii, can maintain normal
fermentation rates when more than 200 ppm of SO2 are present (see Rankine,
Making Good Wine, page 286). Vinegar bacteria are not very sensitive to
SO2. "Sulfur dioxide has almost no effect on the acetic acid bacteria
growth in the regular concentrations of SO2 in wine" (from Margalit,
Concepts in Wine Chemistry, page 327).

So, the value of 0.8 milligrams of molecular SO2 per liter of wine is only a
generalization and maintaining this level of SO2 certainly does _not_
guaranty microbial stability of any wine. In fact, the value of 0.8 mg/l is
really only applicable to some of the lactic bacteria and some native
yeasts.

Regards,
lum

"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Rick
>
> Please see my comments to Mark (above in this thread). Further
> comments interspersed.......
>
> "Rick Vanderwal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > by the sounds of it, you should do that before adding the yeast....
> > I just started a batch and wasn't aware of the ph factor...
>
> Let me try to explain some aspects of acid management. TA is
> merely an empirically established *guideline*. Very helpful but
> certainly not critical to success. OTOH - pH *is* critical to
> success because it determines if the wine will have microbial
> stability. This is why Joanne has stressed the importance of pH
> in the other thread. While a pH meter is certainly the preferred
> way to check pH, the papers you have are perfectly adequate for
> doing this if you don't want to spend the money for a meter (they
> ain't cheap).
>
> > and now my acid is a bit too high...
>
> See my comments to Mark on acid reduction.
>
> > so now I have to wait and perhaps cold stabilize after fermentation is
> > all done...
>
> As Ben mentioned in the other thread, you will receive no benefit
> by cold stabilizing this wine. "Tartaric" wines *must* be cold
stabilized.
> "Non-tartaric" wines (which your wine is) cannot form bitartrate
> crystals because there is no tartaric acid present to combine with
> the potassium. The reason that wines are categorized as "tartaric"
> or "non-tartaric" is because acid management is radically different
> for these two types. The above is just one aspect of this.
> HTMS
>
> > or later add potassium or calcium carbonate...
> >
> > I would do it before adding the sugar....
> > before fermentation...
> > Rick
> >
> >
> >
> > "MkFn" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I'm about to start my first batch of raspberry wine and have purchased
> > > a Wine Acid Test Kit.
> > >
> > > When do I test the acid, before or after I add sugar?
> > >
> > > Are the guidelines for starting a must?
> > > For example should I add sugar first, then test/adjust for acid before
> > > adding the yeast?
> > >
> > > Is there a specific order?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Mark
> >
> >
>
>

Hi Lum

I agree that what you are saying is technically correct but I think
you are mixing apples and oranges. The definition of "an aseptic level"
of molecular SO2, is the level which will kill (dead) all *anaerobic
bacilli* normally found in wine. Things which are *not* "anaerobic
bacilli" are dealt with by "other means". So - the SO2 tolerance of
these "other things" has no relationship to "aseptic levels".

Vinegar bacteria is easy. It is *not* anaerobic, so it is dealt with by
eliminating (severely limiting) the availability of atmospheric oxygen
in the wine. Even though SO2 is not the agent that eliminates the
bug, it helps by scavenging oxygen so it is not available for the bug
to use.

While yeasts can function anaerobicly, they are not "bacilli", so they
also fall outside the definition of "aseptic level of SO2". It is well
known that the commercial yeasts we use are virtually *all* able to
function at SO2 levels well above the levels we consider "aseptic"
in winemaking. For this reason we deal with them by "other means".
Namely, we eliminate all sugars so it has nothing to feed on (a dry
wine) - or - we control it chemically (Sorbate/Benzoate etc) - or -
we sterile filter - or - we can raise the alcohol level above the
alcohol toxicity point of the yeast in question.
HTMS

FWIW - the last I heard the "aseptic" level is now considered to
be 0.83 ppm. Something about one of the bugs which_does_ fall
within the definition was determined to have a slightly elevated
tolerance. Can't even remember where I read that.

Best regards,
Frederick


"Lum" > wrote in message
...
> Frederick, Joanne and All,
>
> There may be some confusion about molecular sulfur dioxide levels and
> the microbial stability of wine.
>
> When sulfur dioxide is added to wine, some sulfur dioxide combines with
> other materials in the wine and becomes bound or "fixed." The remaining
> sulfur dioxide is in the "free" form. The free sulfur dioxide exists in
> three different forms, the molecular form, the bisulfite form and the
doubly
> ionized sulfite form. In general, only the molecular sulfur dioxide is
> effective against wine microbes, and many winemakers try and maintain a
> level of 0.8 milligrams of _molecular_ SO2 per liter of wine. But, the
> fraction of free sulfur dioxide that exists in the molecular form is
> strongly dependent upon the pH of the wine. Consequently, winemakers are
> always interested in wine pH so they can tell how much of the SO2 exists
in
> the molecular form.
>
> Unfortunately, many wine microbes can tolerate much higher levels of SO2.
> Some yeast strains, such as Saccharomyces bailii, can maintain normal
> fermentation rates when more than 200 ppm of SO2 are present (see Rankine,
> Making Good Wine, page 286). Vinegar bacteria are not very sensitive to
> SO2. "Sulfur dioxide has almost no effect on the acetic acid bacteria
> growth in the regular concentrations of SO2 in wine" (from Margalit,
> Concepts in Wine Chemistry, page 327).
>
> So, the value of 0.8 milligrams of molecular SO2 per liter of wine is only
a
> generalization and maintaining this level of SO2 certainly does _not_
> guaranty microbial stability of any wine. In fact, the value of 0.8 mg/l
is
> really only applicable to some of the lactic bacteria and some native
> yeasts.
>
> Regards,
> lum
>
> "frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi Rick
> >
> > Please see my comments to Mark (above in this thread). Further
> > comments interspersed.......
> >
> > "Rick Vanderwal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > by the sounds of it, you should do that before adding the yeast....
> > > I just started a batch and wasn't aware of the ph factor...
> >
> > Let me try to explain some aspects of acid management. TA is
> > merely an empirically established *guideline*. Very helpful but
> > certainly not critical to success. OTOH - pH *is* critical to
> > success because it determines if the wine will have microbial
> > stability. This is why Joanne has stressed the importance of pH
> > in the other thread. While a pH meter is certainly the preferred
> > way to check pH, the papers you have are perfectly adequate for
> > doing this if you don't want to spend the money for a meter (they
> > ain't cheap).
> >
> > > and now my acid is a bit too high...
> >
> > See my comments to Mark on acid reduction.
> >
> > > so now I have to wait and perhaps cold stabilize after fermentation is
> > > all done...
> >
> > As Ben mentioned in the other thread, you will receive no benefit
> > by cold stabilizing this wine. "Tartaric" wines *must* be cold
> stabilized.
> > "Non-tartaric" wines (which your wine is) cannot form bitartrate
> > crystals because there is no tartaric acid present to combine with
> > the potassium. The reason that wines are categorized as "tartaric"
> > or "non-tartaric" is because acid management is radically different
> > for these two types. The above is just one aspect of this.
> > HTMS
> >
> > > or later add potassium or calcium carbonate...
> > >
> > > I would do it before adding the sugar....
> > > before fermentation...
> > > Rick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "MkFn" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > I'm about to start my first batch of raspberry wine and have
purchased
> > > > a Wine Acid Test Kit.
> > > >
> > > > When do I test the acid, before or after I add sugar?
> > > >
> > > > Are the guidelines for starting a must?
> > > > For example should I add sugar first, then test/adjust for acid
before
> > > > adding the yeast?
> > > >
> > > > Is there a specific order?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Hi Frederick,

You are probably correct about my mixing apples and oranges. I seem to be
easily confused these days. But, your definition...... "an aseptic level"
of molecular SO2, is the level which will kill (dead) all *anaerobic
bacilli* normally found in wine. Things which are *not* "anaerobic bacilli"
are dealt with by "other means"........ seems a bit odd to me since
"anaerobic bacilli" make up only a small part of anaerobic wine microbes.
In general, the anaerobic bacteria found in wine belong to three genera,
Lactobacillus (long rods), Leuconostoc (short rods) and Pediococcus
(spheres). Why does your definition single out the long rods and ignore
the short rods and spheres? Do you feel that only Lactobacillus cause wine
problems?

BTW, can you give me a reference for the above definition?

Regards,
lum


...
> Hi Lum
>
> I agree that what you are saying is technically correct but I think
> you are mixing apples and oranges. The definition of "an aseptic level"
> of molecular SO2, is the level which will kill (dead) all *anaerobic
> bacilli* normally found in wine. Things which are *not* "anaerobic
> bacilli" are dealt with by "other means". So - the SO2 tolerance of
> these "other things" has no relationship to "aseptic levels".
>
> Vinegar bacteria is easy. It is *not* anaerobic, so it is dealt with by
> eliminating (severely limiting) the availability of atmospheric oxygen
> in the wine. Even though SO2 is not the agent that eliminates the
> bug, it helps by scavenging oxygen so it is not available for the bug
> to use.
>
> While yeasts can function anaerobicly, they are not "bacilli", so they
> also fall outside the definition of "aseptic level of SO2". It is well
> known that the commercial yeasts we use are virtually *all* able to
> function at SO2 levels well above the levels we consider "aseptic"
> in winemaking. For this reason we deal with them by "other means".
> Namely, we eliminate all sugars so it has nothing to feed on (a dry
> wine) - or - we control it chemically (Sorbate/Benzoate etc) - or -
> we sterile filter - or - we can raise the alcohol level above the
> alcohol toxicity point of the yeast in question.
> HTMS
>
> FWIW - the last I heard the "aseptic" level is now considered to
> be 0.83 ppm. Something about one of the bugs which_does_ fall
> within the definition was determined to have a slightly elevated
> tolerance. Can't even remember where I read that.
>
> Best regards,
> Frederick

Hi Lum

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

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

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

Best regards
Frederick


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

I guess I don't care how you pronouce it....
I bow at the feet of experienced and wise masters,

I'm not worthy! I"m not worthy!

thanks for your wisdom and advice!
Rick Vanderwal

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

I know what you mean Frederick My father often complained that he..... "was
so old he couldn't find his butt with both hands." He died in his late
60's. I am now 74, and that old saying becomes more meaningful each day.

Regards,
lum

If *anyone* here is_ever_offended by anything I say, they have
my immediate and most profuse apologies. I am only trying to
be helpful.


"Rick Vanderwal" > wrote in message
...
> I guess I don't care how you pronouce it....
> I bow at the feet of experienced and wise masters,
>
> I'm not worthy! I"m not worthy!
>
> thanks for your wisdom and advice!
> Rick Vanderwal
>
>
>

I hope you don't think I was offended...
i was just reading your back and forth very technical responses between two
people who obviously know more about winemaking than I do or ever might...
I'm really grateful for your help and your suggestions and advice...

But as I was reading your posts, I just had this picture, a la Wayne and
Garth (Waynes' World) of them bowing down before people
they truly admired and saying: I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!.....
So.....
that's a bit of cultural context....

No offense..
just appreciation...
and admiration!

Blessings.
Rick Vanderwal
Fremont, MI


"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
...
> If *anyone* here is_ever_offended by anything I say, they have
> my immediate and most profuse apologies. I am only trying to
> be helpful.
>
>
> "Rick Vanderwal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I guess I don't care how you pronouce it....
> > I bow at the feet of experienced and wise masters,
> >
> > I'm not worthy! I"m not worthy!
> >
> > thanks for your wisdom and advice!
> > Rick Vanderwal
> >
> >
> >
>
>