Hello all,
I was wondering how many of you "modify" your kit wines. I want to
experiment with such things as adding elderberries, more sugar, more
concentrate (from another similar kit), maybe some black peppercorns,
tannins, oaks etc, etc. Does anybody have a favorite recipe that they would
like to share?
My experimentation would be with red wines only.
Thanks,
Al

I made a Grand Cru White Zinfandel, and when secondary fermentation was
finished and I racked it to another carboy, I added 1-4 oz bottle of
Raspberry Beer Flavoring. It turned out so good that I not only made a
second batch, but also tried two other batches with apple and blackberry
flavoring. The apple had to be sweetened, and the blackberry isn't ready to
taste, yet. But it seems to work quite well.

And you know how some kits have oak powder to add to your kit? Well, if you
think that a different flavor will help your wine, there's no reason not to
add it. I'm thinking of adding cinnamon (via cinnamon sticks) flavoring
into some of my kit wines. Of course, the big risk is that you're wrong and
the flavor of the kit doesn't mix with whatever you add.



"Alfonse" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hello all,
> I was wondering how many of you "modify" your kit wines. I want to
> experiment with such things as adding elderberries, more sugar, more
> concentrate (from another similar kit), maybe some black peppercorns,
> tannins, oaks etc, etc. Does anybody have a favorite recipe that they
would
> like to share?
> My experimentation would be with red wines only.
> Thanks,
> Al
>
>

I've added sugar to bring SG to a more desirable level. Any
amelioration is fair but remember watch your chemistry and make
adjustments. If an already balanced kit is compromised you'll be
doing yourself no flavours, er I mean favours.

I've seen in Winemaker where the BK guy (Tim Vandegrift) has
recommended adding sugar to BK's Pinot Selection kit to pump
up the alcohol to more Burgundy levels, and switching out the
oak for toasted French oak. Never tried it, so I can't comment.

--Mike L.

"glad heart" > wrote in message
om...
> I've added sugar to bring SG to a more desirable level. Any
> amelioration is fair but remember watch your chemistry and make
> adjustments. If an already balanced kit is compromised you'll be
> doing yourself no flavours, er I mean favours.

Out of many batches, perhaps one or two red wines didn't get elderberries
added -- and usually quite a lot -- up to a cup. But I really like
elderberries, and what it does to the wine.

Elder flowers can enhance a white wine too -- but you have to be really
careful with elderflowers, because for some people it can be really
overpowering and too much. Other people, absolutely love the stuff. Buy
some elderflower concentrate at Ikea. If you love the stuff, you'll
probably enjoy it in a white wine. If you're not crazy about it, a little
bit of elderflower can provide a hint of a bit more of a boquet to the wine.

LG

"Alfonse" > wrote:

>Hello all,
>I was wondering how many of you "modify" your kit wines. I want to
>experiment with such things as adding elderberries, more sugar, more
>concentrate (from another similar kit), maybe some black peppercorns,
>tannins, oaks etc, etc. Does anybody have a favorite recipe that they would
>like to share?
>My experimentation would be with red wines only.
>Thanks,
>Al

(glad heart) wrote:

>I've added sugar to bring SG to a more desirable level. Any
>amelioration is fair but remember watch your chemistry and make
>adjustments. If an already balanced kit is compromised you'll be
>doing yourself no flavours, er I mean favours.

Many kits I think can benefit with increased alcohol levels, but many of
them take longer to mature into a nicer wine when this is done. I have the
impression that if you don't add sugar, or if the alcohol content is lower,
it seems to be drinkable sooner. However, with a bit more alcohol, you
might get a better wine, later. I may speculate that some kits may
intentionally lower in alcohol because the kit makers want to sell kits that
can be rushed and drunk early.

LG

I don't know, I get a pretty good alcohol content from my kits. I just
finished fermenting two kit wines that started at 1.090 SG and ended at
0.90SG, for a computed alcohol content of 14%. That's not bad.


"LG" > wrote in message
...
> (glad heart) wrote:
>
> >I've added sugar to bring SG to a more desirable level. Any
> >amelioration is fair but remember watch your chemistry and make
> >adjustments. If an already balanced kit is compromised you'll be
> >doing yourself no flavours, er I mean favours.
>
> Many kits I think can benefit with increased alcohol levels, but many of
> them take longer to mature into a nicer wine when this is done. I have
the
> impression that if you don't add sugar, or if the alcohol content is
lower,
> it seems to be drinkable sooner. However, with a bit more alcohol, you
> might get a better wine, later. I may speculate that some kits may
> intentionally lower in alcohol because the kit makers want to sell kits
that
> can be rushed and drunk early.
>
> LG
>

"Matthew Givens" > wrote in message ink.net>...
> I don't know, I get a pretty good alcohol content from my kits. I just
> finished fermenting two kit wines that started at 1.090 SG and ended at
> 0.90SG, for a computed alcohol content of 14%. That's not bad.
>
>

That doesn't look right. What formula are you using?

Pp
Vancouver, BC, Canada

I assume you mean SG final = 0.990 not .90. In that case I get 13.4%
alcohol. Assuming numbers a bit more conservative and closer to what I
generally get with kits: SG beginning = 1.088, SG ending = 0.996, I still
get 12.4% and your point is still true. That is a fine level as for as I am
concerned.

Ray

"Matthew Givens" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I don't know, I get a pretty good alcohol content from my kits. I just
> finished fermenting two kit wines that started at 1.090 SG and ended at
> 0.90SG, for a computed alcohol content of 14%. That's not bad.
>

Typo in the original post, the ending SG was 0.990.

The April-May edition of Wine Maker had an article on calculating alcohol
content from SG readings. I translated the article to an algorithm and
wrote a little program to do the calculation for me based on starting and
current SG. The code looks like this:

WDouble SGCalc(WDouble startingSG, WDouble endingSG)
{
WDouble startGravity= 1000 * (startingSG - 1.0);
WDouble finalGravity= 1000 * (endingSG - 1.0);
WDouble correctedStartGravity= startGravity - 7;
WDouble PA= (startGravity - finalGravity) / (7.75 - 3 *
correctedStartGravity / 800);

return ( PA );
}

Running this manually using the starting and ending SGs provided earlier, I
get PA of 13.44%. I'll go back into the code to see why it's storing 14%.



"pp" > wrote in message
om...
> "Matthew Givens" > wrote in message
ink.net>...
> > I don't know, I get a pretty good alcohol content from my kits. I just
> > finished fermenting two kit wines that started at 1.090 SG and ended at
> > 0.90SG, for a computed alcohol content of 14%. That's not bad.
> >
> >
>
> That doesn't look right. What formula are you using?
>
> Pp
> Vancouver, BC, Canada

Yeah, I ran the calc manually and it agrees with you: 13.44%. I'll have to
look and see why my program is returning more than 14%.


"Ray" > wrote in message
. com...
> I assume you mean SG final = 0.990 not .90. In that case I get 13.4%
> alcohol. Assuming numbers a bit more conservative and closer to what I
> generally get with kits: SG beginning = 1.088, SG ending = 0.996, I
still
> get 12.4% and your point is still true. That is a fine level as for as I
am
> concerned.
>
> Ray
>
> "Matthew Givens" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > I don't know, I get a pretty good alcohol content from my kits. I just
> > finished fermenting two kit wines that started at 1.090 SG and ended at
> > 0.90SG, for a computed alcohol content of 14%. That's not bad.
> >
>
>

"Matthew Givens" > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> Yeah, I ran the calc manually and it agrees with you: 13.44%. I'll have to
> look and see why my program is returning more than 14%.
>

Most likely it's rounding up to integer or doing an integer division
somewhere instead of a real division.

Pp

Hi Ray

Here we go again. You can_not_get more alcohol in the wine than
your original PA predicts. Period !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.090
will yield 12% alcohol. No more !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.088
will yield ~11.72% alcohol. No more !! If this were not true,
our pre-pitch PA calculations would have no meaning !!

The use of the PA formula to calculate post-pitch alcohol levels
simply does_not_work !! (unless you have a way to offset the
change in reference point caused by the presence of alcohol)

I don't get this magazine. Can someone please post a link where
I can read this article ?? HTH

Regards,
Frederick


"Ray" > wrote in message
. com...
> I assume you mean SG final = 0.990 not .90. In that case I get 13.4%
> alcohol. Assuming numbers a bit more conservative and closer to what I
> generally get with kits: SG beginning = 1.088, SG ending = 0.996, I
still
> get 12.4% and your point is still true. That is a fine level as for as I
am
> concerned.
>
> Ray
>
> "Matthew Givens" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > I don't know, I get a pretty good alcohol content from my kits. I just
> > finished fermenting two kit wines that started at 1.090 SG and ended at
> > 0.90SG, for a computed alcohol content of 14%. That's not bad.
> >
>
>

Fred, I would agree if the tables were correct, but most tables are based
incorrectly. If you use the table provided by Duncan and Acton in their
book "Progressive Winemaking" you are pretty much correct. Their number is
an maximum that can be obtained. Unfortunately most tables give PA as the
alcohol that will be generated if the SG drops to zero. As you know, SG
does not drop to zero and stop. The alcohol you end up with will generally
be higher than that predicted by most tables.

Ray

"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Ray
>
> Here we go again. You can_not_get more alcohol in the wine than
> your original PA predicts. Period !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.090
> will yield 12% alcohol. No more !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.088
> will yield ~11.72% alcohol. No more !! If this were not true,
> our pre-pitch PA calculations would have no meaning !!
>
> The use of the PA formula to calculate post-pitch alcohol levels
> simply does_not_work !! (unless you have a way to offset the
> change in reference point caused by the presence of alcohol)
>
> I don't get this magazine. Can someone please post a link where
> I can read this article ?? HTH
>
> Regards,
> Frederick
>
>
> "Ray" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > I assume you mean SG final = 0.990 not .90. In that case I get 13.4%
> > alcohol. Assuming numbers a bit more conservative and closer to what I
> > generally get with kits: SG beginning = 1.088, SG ending = 0.996, I
> still
> > get 12.4% and your point is still true. That is a fine level as for as
I
> am
> > concerned.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > "Matthew Givens" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > I don't know, I get a pretty good alcohol content from my kits. I
just
> > > finished fermenting two kit wines that started at 1.090 SG and ended
at
> > > 0.90SG, for a computed alcohol content of 14%. That's not bad.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message >...
> Hi Ray
>
> Here we go again. You can_not_get more alcohol in the wine than
> your original PA predicts. Period !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.090
> will yield 12% alcohol. No more !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.088
> will yield ~11.72% alcohol. No more !! If this were not true,
> our pre-pitch PA calculations would have no meaning !!
>
> The use of the PA formula to calculate post-pitch alcohol levels
> simply does_not_work !! (unless you have a way to offset the
> change in reference point caused by the presence of alcohol)
>
> I don't get this magazine. Can someone please post a link where
> I can read this article ?? HTH
>
> Regards,
> Frederick
>

Frederick:

doesn't look like it's online: It's The Unified Theory of Gravity, but
there is no link:
http://www.winemakermag.com/feature/archive.html

If I remember correctly, the author was comparing 2 different formulas
that started with big difference in values, but when one of these was
adjusted to include the ending gravity, the difference evened out.

I think the formula in Margalit's book is also closer if one included
the ending gravity to add to the original PA value. And my hydrometer
has a scale for PA under 1.000 sg, so that again suggests it makes
sense to consider the ending value. So if that's a mistake, it's
understandable why people (repeatedly) make it.

Pp

Hi Ray

Got your email. I will wait until I can read the article before I reply
to the rest of these posts. But - I think I already see where the
confusion lays. Hopefully, this time, I will be better able to explain.

Frederick

"Ray" > wrote in message
m...
> Fred, I would agree if the tables were correct, but most tables are based
> incorrectly. If you use the table provided by Duncan and Acton in their
> book "Progressive Winemaking" you are pretty much correct. Their number
is
> an maximum that can be obtained. Unfortunately most tables give PA as the
> alcohol that will be generated if the SG drops to zero. As you know, SG
> does not drop to zero and stop. The alcohol you end up with will
generally
> be higher than that predicted by most tables.
>
> Ray
>
> "frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi Ray
> >
> > Here we go again. You can_not_get more alcohol in the wine than
> > your original PA predicts. Period !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.090
> > will yield 12% alcohol. No more !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.088
> > will yield ~11.72% alcohol. No more !! If this were not true,
> > our pre-pitch PA calculations would have no meaning !!
> >
> > The use of the PA formula to calculate post-pitch alcohol levels
> > simply does_not_work !! (unless you have a way to offset the
> > change in reference point caused by the presence of alcohol)
> >
> > I don't get this magazine. Can someone please post a link where
> > I can read this article ?? HTH
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frederick
> >
> >
> > "Ray" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > I assume you mean SG final = 0.990 not .90. In that case I get 13.4%
> > > alcohol. Assuming numbers a bit more conservative and closer to what
I
> > > generally get with kits: SG beginning = 1.088, SG ending = 0.996, I
> > still
> > > get 12.4% and your point is still true. That is a fine level as for
as
> I
> > am
> > > concerned.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > > "Matthew Givens" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > > I don't know, I get a pretty good alcohol content from my kits. I
> just
> > > > finished fermenting two kit wines that started at 1.090 SG and ended
> at
> > > > 0.90SG, for a computed alcohol content of 14%. That's not bad.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

<snip>........

>And my hydrometer
> has a scale for PA under 1.000 sg, so that again suggests it makes
> sense to consider the ending value. So if that's a mistake, it's
> understandable why people (repeatedly) make it.
>
> Pp

Hi Pp

I'm waiting for a copy of an article that Ray is sending. But let me
comment on just this last statement of yours. By *definition* there
is no such thing as a negative number for PA. Look it up. PA is
estimated based on the amount of fermentable sugars that are
available to be converted to alcohol. Since it should be obvious
that we *can't* have less than zero sugar, it follows that we can't
have less than zero PA. I know that the chart that is rolled up and
glued to the inside of your hydrometer has marks that make it
*seem* to have negative numbers, but the fact is that this just
ain't so. That chart is based entirely on the premise that the reference
point being used is SG 1.000, and so long as this is true, the
information on it is valid. HOWEVER - as soon as the reference
point shifts, ALL OF THAT INFO BECOMES INSTANTLY
*INVALID* !! Alcohol causes a shift in the reference point. Thus,
all post pitch readings are no longer accurate.

I will wait to read that article, but the above will be the basis of my
further comments. I really hope it makes sense this way. HTMS

pp ,

The author was me. Fred and I have had this difference of opinion before.
In fact it spurred me to write the article. Let Fred review the article and
discuss it with me off line and maybe we can agree on something even if it
is to agree to disagree. ;o)

Ray

"pp" > wrote in message
om...
> "frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
>...
> > Hi Ray
> >
> > Here we go again. You can_not_get more alcohol in the wine than
> > your original PA predicts. Period !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.090
> > will yield 12% alcohol. No more !! A pre-pitch SG of 1.088
> > will yield ~11.72% alcohol. No more !! If this were not true,
> > our pre-pitch PA calculations would have no meaning !!
> >
> > The use of the PA formula to calculate post-pitch alcohol levels
> > simply does_not_work !! (unless you have a way to offset the
> > change in reference point caused by the presence of alcohol)
> >
> > I don't get this magazine. Can someone please post a link where
> > I can read this article ?? HTH
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frederick
> >
>
> Frederick:
>
> doesn't look like it's online: It's The Unified Theory of Gravity, but
> there is no link:
> http://www.winemakermag.com/feature/archive.html
>
> If I remember correctly, the author was comparing 2 different formulas
> that started with big difference in values, but when one of these was
> adjusted to include the ending gravity, the difference evened out.
>
> I think the formula in Margalit's book is also closer if one included
> the ending gravity to add to the original PA value. And my hydrometer
> has a scale for PA under 1.000 sg, so that again suggests it makes
> sense to consider the ending value. So if that's a mistake, it's
> understandable why people (repeatedly) make it.
>
> Pp

"Ray" > wrote in message .com>...
> pp ,
>
> The author was me. Fred and I have had this difference of opinion before.
> In fact it spurred me to write the article. Let Fred review the article and
> discuss it with me off line and maybe we can agree on something even if it
> is to agree to disagree. ;o)
>
> Ray
>

Of course, we could just take some dry wine that's fermented down to
0.990, measure its alcohol level, and that should tell us which
formula is the closest Anybody who's got the hardware up for a
practical experiment?

Pp

<snip>.............

> Of course, we could just take some dry wine that's fermented down to
> 0.990, measure its alcohol level, and that should tell us which
> formula is the closest Anybody who's got the hardware up for a
> practical experiment?
>
> Pp

Pp

This has already been done many, MANY times. Why repeat
something when the results are already known ??

First I was gone for 2 days, and now Ray is on the road until
Thursday. Give us a little time to get together on this issue and
we will get back to you on this, I promise. TIA

That would be helpful, pp. As Fred say's, it has probably been done many
times but I have not been able to locate the data on the web or get anyone
who might have the data to allow me access to it. And I am not willing to
pay a lab to run the tests. Any volunteers?

Ray

"pp" > wrote in message
om...
> "Ray" > wrote in message
.com>...
> > pp ,
> >
> > The author was me. Fred and I have had this difference of opinion
before.
> > In fact it spurred me to write the article. Let Fred review the article
and
> > discuss it with me off line and maybe we can agree on something even if
it
> > is to agree to disagree. ;o)
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
> Of course, we could just take some dry wine that's fermented down to
> 0.990, measure its alcohol level, and that should tell us which
> formula is the closest Anybody who's got the hardware up for a
> practical experiment?
>
> Pp