I have been making wine from berries for a number of years. Great
hobby. One of the benefits are you do not have to drink the commercial
"chemical" products from the wine shop.
Dissapointingly it seems that a lot of the discussions in this forum
(and other) is about which chemicals to add to your wine. For
clearing/fining/acid managment/storage. You name it. Someone sells a
chemical to help you!

Home made wines can be made completely without chemicals! It just
takes care of cleanliness,patience (racking) and cool storage.

A wine with no chemicals added is one of the major benefits of home
wine making. Why give in to the doubtful methods of commercial wine
makers and profit seeking retailers. Commercial wine makers want to
send their product onto the market earlier and earlier. And they need
to compensate for every kind of handling and storage (temperatures).
Thats why they use all these chemicals. We don't!

(K.J.Kristiansen) wrote in message . com>...

> Dissapointingly it seems that a lot of the discussions in this forum
> (and other) is about which chemicals to add to your wine. For
> clearing/fining/acid managment/storage. You name it. Someone sells a
> chemical to help you!
>
> Home made wines can be made completely without chemicals!

I apologise in advance if my response is a bit harsh, but you've
struck a nerve with me with the quoted post.

The way you use the word "chemical" it almost sounds like you could
interchange the word with "poison". Why do you believe the use of
"chemicals" in the winemaking process is so bad? For that matter,
what exact chemicals are you opposed to using in the process (hydrogen
dioxcide)?

I used to be amused by people's fear of "chemicals", but now it just
bothers me. These are the types of people that wouldn't take
acetylsalicylic acid if their life depended on it, but would happily
pop a few aspirin (or, more accurately, go to the herbal store and buy
"willow bark extract") without thinking twice. Perhaps we just need
some cute, short names for the chemicals we use as part of winemaking
process. Maybe if we called potassium metabisulfite "pomet" people
would be more accepting.

The worst part is that your "chemical free" wine is already full of
"chemicals". By taking the stance you have chosen, you are probably
just making your life twice as hard for no good reason.

> The word "chemical" can, as demonstrated above, be interpreted differently
> and actually can also relate to several alternative (and different)
> definitions.

In my eyes this isn't a debate over the interpretation of "chemicals"
in wine (and this thread seems to have gone off track). When people
take issue with others saying that they dislike added "chemicals",
isn't the real issue that they are making it sound like those
"chemicals" are unnatural products to be added to wine?

Whereas infact, most additives to wine are completely natural. There
are not many (besides fining agents and sorbate) which aren't normally
naturally present in wine at some point already: acids are there,
sugars are there, SO2 is even often there. Such additives have also
been used in winemaking for centuries, long before large commercial
wineries ever existed. Their use of them had nothing to do with profit
seeking or band handling/storage compensation. They used them because
they were deemed to *improve wine quality*. Aside from risk issues
(which could be argued) and large wineries (which see winemaking as an
industrial process, though they are only a proportion of the
industry), that is the philosophy with which they are generally used
today.

The evils of additives shouldn't be whether they are used, but how and
when they are used. For example, having excess bentonite in your wine
is just like throwing a miniscule amount of clay in your glass, but it
also means the fining hasn't been done properly.

Ben