Jerry

Does your triple scale hydrometer have a PA scale on it ? If so, do the
PA numbers that appear there use the 0.57 conversion factor that you
recommend ? If so, where can I get one ?? TIA

Frederick

"Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Frederick
>
> I have a number of triple scale hydrometers and use them regularly.
>
>> <snip>
>
>>>If the available hydrometers are_not_the solution for the little guy,
>>>what
>>>exactly_do_ you recommend ??
>
> If I were to suggest a course of action to a home winemaker it would be to
> use Margolit's 0.57 factor and the following equation:
>
> % Potential Alcohol(v/v) = 0.57 x Brix.
>
> The factor you suggest (0.55), could also be used. This equation, no
> matter what number, or hydrometer is used, has a number of limitations,
> and only provides an estimate for a number of reasons: Various studies
> have shown that the number ranges from 0.55-0.60. (references available).
> Some reasons a The non-sugar solids which are part of the must's Brix,
> depend on the grape variety, growing region and state of maturity of the
> fruit. Less ripe grapes have higher non-sugar solids, and afford a lower
> alcohol/Brix ratio. Additionally, ethanol yield depends on fermentation
> temperature - higher temps lower yield - and evaporation of ethanol.
>
> Prior to making wine commercially, we started as home winemakers. We now
> do both as we are slightly daft. Thus I am able to lead two lives
> relative to winemaking. I am not actually recommending anything, but I am
> suggesting that all of this fretting about PA is more an intellectual
> exercise than a practical reality for many winemakers - both professional
> home and professional commercial (I believe that anyone who takes
> winemaking seriously is, or at least can be, a professional.)
>
> While home winemakers may like to know the alcohol content of a wine they
> are making, it makes little difference in the scheme of things, vis-a-vis
> taxes, labels, etc. If a wine is 13%, 14,% or 15.5% alcohol, great as
> long as the wine is balanced, and a good example of that particular
> varietal. Commercial operations are different in that they must know the
> alcohol content in order to calculate taxes, make labels, and be ready for
> any site visit from those folks who take these things seriously - state
> and federal agents. From that perspective, home and commercial winemakers
> are like the Chicken and Pig commenting about a ham and egg breakfast -
> one is interested, but the other is really involved, as the consequences
> are different for both.
>
> For those who must know the final alcohol content of their wine - or those
> who just want to know - there are at least 6 laboratory methods available
> to accomplish this. Ebulliometry (for wines with < 2% residual sugar
> corrective measures must also be taken), Gas Chromatography and
> Determination by Hydrometric Analysis (essentially distillation and
> measuring S. Gravity) are three are offered by many laboratories, and
> which are not necessarily expensive to have done.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry
>
>

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Thus I am able to lead two lives
> relative to winemaking. I am not actually recommending anything, but I
> am suggesting that all of this fretting about PA is more an intellectual
> exercise than a practical reality for many winemakers

VERY much agree.

> While home winemakers may like to know the alcohol content of a wine
> they are making, it makes little difference in the scheme of things,
> vis-a-vis taxes, labels, etc. If a wine is 13%, 14,% or 15.5% alcohol,
> great as long as the wine is balanced, and a good example of that
> particular varietal.

Agree again - excellent.

> For those who must know the final alcohol content of their wine - or
> those who just want to know - there are at least 6 laboratory methods
> available to accomplish this. Ebulliometry (for wines with < 2%
> residual sugar corrective measures must also be taken), Gas
> Chromatography and Determination by Hydrometric Analysis (essentially
> distillation and measuring S. Gravity) are three are offered by many
> laboratories, and which are not necessarily expensive to have done.

Well stated.
Excellent post.

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Thus I am able to lead two lives
> relative to winemaking. I am not actually recommending anything, but I
> am suggesting that all of this fretting about PA is more an intellectual
> exercise than a practical reality for many winemakers

VERY much agree.

> While home winemakers may like to know the alcohol content of a wine
> they are making, it makes little difference in the scheme of things,
> vis-a-vis taxes, labels, etc. If a wine is 13%, 14,% or 15.5% alcohol,
> great as long as the wine is balanced, and a good example of that
> particular varietal.

Agree again - excellent.

> For those who must know the final alcohol content of their wine - or
> those who just want to know - there are at least 6 laboratory methods
> available to accomplish this. Ebulliometry (for wines with < 2%
> residual sugar corrective measures must also be taken), Gas
> Chromatography and Determination by Hydrometric Analysis (essentially
> distillation and measuring S. Gravity) are three are offered by many
> laboratories, and which are not necessarily expensive to have done.

Well stated.
Excellent post.

Paul

Thank you.

In reading your comments I noticed that I inadvertently typed the "<"
character when discussing Ebulliometry.

That should have read ".....with >2% residual sugar corrective measures
must also be taken)....."

Sorry for any concerns this may have caused anyone.

Regards

Jerry






,
"Paul E. Lehmann" > wrote in message
...
> Jerry DeAngelis wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Thus I am able to lead two lives
>> relative to winemaking. I am not actually recommending anything, but
>> I
>> am suggesting that all of this fretting about PA is more an
>> intellectual
>> exercise than a practical reality for many winemakers
>
> VERY much agree.
>
>> While home winemakers may like to know the alcohol content of a wine
>> they are making, it makes little difference in the scheme of things,
>> vis-a-vis taxes, labels, etc. If a wine is 13%, 14,% or 15.5%
>> alcohol,
>> great as long as the wine is balanced, and a good example of that
>> particular varietal.
>
> Agree again - excellent.
>
>> For those who must know the final alcohol content of their wine - or
>> those who just want to know - there are at least 6 laboratory
>> methods
>> available to accomplish this. Ebulliometry (for wines with < 2%
>> residual sugar corrective measures must also be taken), Gas
>> Chromatography and Determination by Hydrometric Analysis
>> (essentially
>> distillation and measuring S. Gravity) are three are offered by many
>> laboratories, and which are not necessarily expensive to have done.
>
> Well stated.
> Excellent post.
>

Frederick

You are missing my point. In actuality, one can use any factor between
0.55 and 0.60 as that is the inherent, & absolute limitation of the
methodology. If one wants more accurate results, one needs have
samples analyzed in a laboratory.

Regards

Jerry


"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
...
> Jerry
>
> Does your triple scale hydrometer have a PA scale on it ? If so, do
> the
> PA numbers that appear there use the 0.57 conversion factor that you
> recommend ? If so, where can I get one ?? TIA
>
> Frederick

Frederick

You are missing my point. In actuality, one can use any factor between
0.55 and 0.60 as that is the inherent, & absolute limitation of the
methodology. If one wants more accurate results, one needs have
samples analyzed in a laboratory.

Regards

Jerry


"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
...
> Jerry
>
> Does your triple scale hydrometer have a PA scale on it ? If so, do
> the
> PA numbers that appear there use the 0.57 conversion factor that you
> recommend ? If so, where can I get one ?? TIA
>
> Frederick

Jerry

Obviously, your hydrometer is the same as everyone else's. At this
particular moment in time I feel intolerably frustrated. First you come to
this group and arrogate it upon yourself to make a sweeping condemnation
of everything most of us are doing, and then turn right around and say
that you know a better way of doing those same things. You tell us that
making estimates is impossible and then tell us that 0.57 will give us
_better_ estimates. You recommend 0.57 in spite of the fact that 0.55
has been an industry standard for as long as I can remember (and I am
an_old_man) and,_most_of the literature is based on this standard.

We already know that this stuff ain't rocket science and that what we are
doing is making "estimates". If you truly believe that such estimates are
"useless", I suggest that you live by that philosophy and stop making and
using them. But please allow the rest of us to go on doing things the way
we have always done them. We already understand that 0.55 gives us
conservative estimates because all of the literature tells us that. But if
rubber is ever going to meet the road and give us some traction here,
we are going to have to agree on using some kind of standard numbers
and definitions for our terminology. Like it or not, our hydrometers tell
us what that standard currently is. When a newbie who is using a triple
scale hydrometer asks a question, DON'T give them an answer that
contradicts the standard that they are using. It's like speaking in a
foreign
language that they don't understand and only leads to confusion !!

You are free to do things any way you like, but I reserve that same right
for myself and everyone else.

To the others that may be reading this that don't use lab reports,
it is_my_advice that you go right on using your triple scale hydrometers
and _believe_ what they tell you because that is the best tool that is
available to us for practicing our craft. For goodness sake !!
Even_kit_instructions recommend using one.


While I am at this, let me make some comments about your wines. Every
novice soon discovers that "hot" (high alcohol) wines are_not_desirable.
And most "professionals" understand full well the problems encountered
with high alcohol ferments. Seems odd that a person with both experience
and a degree might not know this. You seem to have fallen victim to the
current hype and bull chips that "27 is the new 24". High BRIX grapes
are cheap for a reason. They_don't_make good wine and they cause all
kinds of problems in production !! Unfortunately, you are now finding
this out the hard way and are in the process of reinventing the wheel
(so to speak). The reason you decided not to do MLF on that high
alcohol wine is because you_can't_ !! The commercially available
MLB can't tolerate that much alcohol and strains that could are
_not_desirable and no one in their right mind would risk infecting
a entire winery with an undesirable bug.

At this point you are kinda stuck with your own creations. I think you
may encounter problems in marketing some of them. Customers may
not be very "savvy" about wine, but they_do_know what they do and
don't like.

Let me try to save you some time and anguish. Don't pass "go". Go
directly back to the old "24" rule. I think you will find that all of your
"rocket fuel" and MLF problems will magically disappear. If you play
with the numbers a bit I think you will find that 24 produces about the
upper end of what MLB is really comfortable living with (another
"estimate" of course). I'm sure that you will find that "good" grapes are
far more expensive because a lot of "pros" will be trying to outbid
each other to get their hands on them. It's just part of the cost of doing
business.

I have no diplomas to wave in the air. My only qualification is long
experience. Every one has a right to their own opinion and I am only
expressing mine. I will therefore request: No flames please. HTH

Frederick



"Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Frederick
>
> You are missing my point. In actuality, one can use any factor between
> 0.55 and 0.60 as that is the inherent, & absolute limitation of the
> methodology. If one wants more accurate results, one needs have samples
> analyzed in a laboratory.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry
>
>
> "frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jerry
>>
>> Does your triple scale hydrometer have a PA scale on it ? If so, do the
>> PA numbers that appear there use the 0.57 conversion factor that you
>> recommend ? If so, where can I get one ?? TIA
>>
>> Frederick
>
>

Jerry

Obviously, your hydrometer is the same as everyone else's. At this
particular moment in time I feel intolerably frustrated. First you come to
this group and arrogate it upon yourself to make a sweeping condemnation
of everything most of us are doing, and then turn right around and say
that you know a better way of doing those same things. You tell us that
making estimates is impossible and then tell us that 0.57 will give us
_better_ estimates. You recommend 0.57 in spite of the fact that 0.55
has been an industry standard for as long as I can remember (and I am
an_old_man) and,_most_of the literature is based on this standard.

We already know that this stuff ain't rocket science and that what we are
doing is making "estimates". If you truly believe that such estimates are
"useless", I suggest that you live by that philosophy and stop making and
using them. But please allow the rest of us to go on doing things the way
we have always done them. We already understand that 0.55 gives us
conservative estimates because all of the literature tells us that. But if
rubber is ever going to meet the road and give us some traction here,
we are going to have to agree on using some kind of standard numbers
and definitions for our terminology. Like it or not, our hydrometers tell
us what that standard currently is. When a newbie who is using a triple
scale hydrometer asks a question, DON'T give them an answer that
contradicts the standard that they are using. It's like speaking in a
foreign
language that they don't understand and only leads to confusion !!

You are free to do things any way you like, but I reserve that same right
for myself and everyone else.

To the others that may be reading this that don't use lab reports,
it is_my_advice that you go right on using your triple scale hydrometers
and _believe_ what they tell you because that is the best tool that is
available to us for practicing our craft. For goodness sake !!
Even_kit_instructions recommend using one.


While I am at this, let me make some comments about your wines. Every
novice soon discovers that "hot" (high alcohol) wines are_not_desirable.
And most "professionals" understand full well the problems encountered
with high alcohol ferments. Seems odd that a person with both experience
and a degree might not know this. You seem to have fallen victim to the
current hype and bull chips that "27 is the new 24". High BRIX grapes
are cheap for a reason. They_don't_make good wine and they cause all
kinds of problems in production !! Unfortunately, you are now finding
this out the hard way and are in the process of reinventing the wheel
(so to speak). The reason you decided not to do MLF on that high
alcohol wine is because you_can't_ !! The commercially available
MLB can't tolerate that much alcohol and strains that could are
_not_desirable and no one in their right mind would risk infecting
a entire winery with an undesirable bug.

At this point you are kinda stuck with your own creations. I think you
may encounter problems in marketing some of them. Customers may
not be very "savvy" about wine, but they_do_know what they do and
don't like.

Let me try to save you some time and anguish. Don't pass "go". Go
directly back to the old "24" rule. I think you will find that all of your
"rocket fuel" and MLF problems will magically disappear. If you play
with the numbers a bit I think you will find that 24 produces about the
upper end of what MLB is really comfortable living with (another
"estimate" of course). I'm sure that you will find that "good" grapes are
far more expensive because a lot of "pros" will be trying to outbid
each other to get their hands on them. It's just part of the cost of doing
business.

I have no diplomas to wave in the air. My only qualification is long
experience. Every one has a right to their own opinion and I am only
expressing mine. I will therefore request: No flames please. HTH

Frederick



"Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Frederick
>
> You are missing my point. In actuality, one can use any factor between
> 0.55 and 0.60 as that is the inherent, & absolute limitation of the
> methodology. If one wants more accurate results, one needs have samples
> analyzed in a laboratory.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry
>
>
> "frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jerry
>>
>> Does your triple scale hydrometer have a PA scale on it ? If so, do the
>> PA numbers that appear there use the 0.57 conversion factor that you
>> recommend ? If so, where can I get one ?? TIA
>>
>> Frederick
>
>

We've been over this several times, but I haven't seen your reply on my
last posts, so just briefly: The scale is one thing, the question how
to use the scale is another:

- my triple scale hydrometer instructions say to use the final gravity
to calculate PA;
- Jack's post from a while back also indicates his scale is meant to
use the final gravity;
- you mentioned Berry got his approach wrong too. I think this means he
uses the final gravity to calculate PA too.

So your three examples of scales that use 0.55 conversion factor
actually use a higher conversion factor. The 0.55 would apply if the
bottom of the scale was 1.000. If the final gravity is used as
indicated above, the conversion factor would be higher because the PA
calucated by this method is higher.

Pp

frederick ploegman wrote:
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear. I quite_literally_make no calculations
what-so-
> ever when doing sugar/alcohol management. All of my numbers are
> lifted_directly_from my multi-scale hydrometers. No calculations, no
> mistakes. If my hydrometers are right then I am right. If my
hydrometers
> are wrong then I am wrong. Doing it this way makes life very simple
for
> the "little guy". How about this. When you go to that symposium,
pick up
> a triple scale hydrometer. That way you can see what the "other
half" is
> using and it will be helpful when reading Berry since that is what he
used.
> Between now and then, visit Jack Keller's site. It is a very much
> modernized version of the kind of thing that Berry used to do. He
also
> uses the 0.55 conversion factor and the chart on his hydrometer page
> is a fair representation of the numbers you will find on that triple
scale
> hydrometer when you get it.
>

Thanks Jerry, that's basically what I was thinking, but at this point I
can't unfortunately influence when the grapes will be picked - don't
know if I mentioned it in the first post, but the Petit Sirah came in
at 31B and we diluted it with water to 26B. Other people who didn't or
who diluted it less had a bigger problem on their hand than we did -
stuck alcoholic fermentation that refuses to get started again.

I've got a question concerning Lysozyme. I routinely use it on my
whites and last year I also used it on 2 batches of reds (juice with
some Zin skins added). In both cases I got a huge amount of sediment
overall, with some still dropping out after a year of aging and 6 or
more rackings. Apart from the lysozyme, I also added some grape skin
concentrate to improve the colour, so I'd like to find out if it was
the lysozyme or the colouring or combination of the two that caused the
large amount of precipitate. In your experience, do you find that
lysozyme acts as a fining agent this way? It seems to me that it should
basically behave as egg whites, and the recommended dose for preventing
ML seems pretty substantial, so I'm wondering how well suited it is for
use in reds?

Thx,

Pp

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

> When we were faced with an MLF that stopped at 60% completion last
year,
> we allowed the wine to age in that condition, evaluated it for taste
and
> other sensory aspects, and decided that we actually liked it as it
was.
> We then used Lysozyme to kill things, fined and filtered the wine,
and
> bottled it. It is still aging at the moment, and will not be
available
> to drink for another 6-9 months or so.
>

Thanks Jerry, that's basically what I was thinking, but at this point I
can't unfortunately influence when the grapes will be picked - don't
know if I mentioned it in the first post, but the Petit Sirah came in
at 31B and we diluted it with water to 26B. Other people who didn't or
who diluted it less had a bigger problem on their hand than we did -
stuck alcoholic fermentation that refuses to get started again.

I've got a question concerning Lysozyme. I routinely use it on my
whites and last year I also used it on 2 batches of reds (juice with
some Zin skins added). In both cases I got a huge amount of sediment
overall, with some still dropping out after a year of aging and 6 or
more rackings. Apart from the lysozyme, I also added some grape skin
concentrate to improve the colour, so I'd like to find out if it was
the lysozyme or the colouring or combination of the two that caused the
large amount of precipitate. In your experience, do you find that
lysozyme acts as a fining agent this way? It seems to me that it should
basically behave as egg whites, and the recommended dose for preventing
ML seems pretty substantial, so I'm wondering how well suited it is for
use in reds?

Thx,

Pp

Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

> When we were faced with an MLF that stopped at 60% completion last
year,
> we allowed the wine to age in that condition, evaluated it for taste
and
> other sensory aspects, and decided that we actually liked it as it
was.
> We then used Lysozyme to kill things, fined and filtered the wine,
and
> bottled it. It is still aging at the moment, and will not be
available
> to drink for another 6-9 months or so.
>

Frederick

Obviously you have not read my posts carefully, but have decided to
react anyway. I have not pontificated in any way about whether one
should or should not do anything relative to hydrometer readings, etc..
I have simply stated that these are estimates, and if one wants correct
and accurate results that stand up to scrutiny, one needs to do lab
tests. Period!

I have commented on the fact that 0.55 or 0.56 05 0.57 , etc. are
numbers that give estimates. All of your ranting does not change that.

I have never said they are "useless" and I ask to not to put words in my
mouth. You may get away with that when addressing other members of this
group but not with me. (BTW I am probably as old or older than you.) I
have maintained all along that estimates are just that - estimates, and
all winemakers need to know that, even your proverbial newbie. Yes,
they - newbies - need to learn how to make and use their hydrometer
readings, but they should not be told that these readings are as
reliable as the atomic clock. That teaches nothing and only treats
newbies as people too stupid to think for themselves. I have been firm
on my belief that those selling wines need more accurate data than those
who make wine non-commercially.

Frederick - you cannot comment on my wines because you have never had
them, and know nothing about them. Some are high alcohol and some are
not. I have not fallen victim to anything. We pick at all sugar levels
and each grape varietal is considered individually. You ought to know
that. Furthermore you ought to know that in a large vineyard one has
many factors to consider when picking, and that includes the ability to
use the things you can control and deal with the things you cannot -
like the weather.

<snip>

>>The reason you decided not to do MLF on that high
>> alcohol wine is because you_can't_ !!

That is not true. We have just completed MLF on a 15.45% alcohol
Chardonnay. The newer strains of MLF bacteria will complete MLF at 15
and 16% alcohol. Last year all - I repeat all - of the red wines that I
made completed malolactic, except for a Pinot aged in Stainless Steel
that I decided to stop at 60% completion. Regarding your cheap high
Brix fruit comment, high Brix Pinot fruit sells around here for
$2100-3500/ton. Not bad prices. We do not have to go on the market
however as we grow all of our own grapes, and have total control of the
vineyards.

I am not finding anything out the hard way. I make my wines in the
style I want to make them.

<snip>

>> At this point you are kinda stuck with your own creations.

What creations are those exactly? I mentioned a Pinot Grigio that was
high in alcohol, and a small lot of Cabernet. The Pinot Grigio does not
undergo MLF by design. The 2 barrels of high alcohol Cabernet are 2.5
months old and are stored in a 63-65 degree F. facility, hardly MLD
friendly conditions. At this stage, MLF on this wine is not something I
am worried about.

Finally I have never "waved my diplomas in the air" as you contend. I
mentioned it making a point. What I have not done is call you a liar,
as you have done me. I have no intention of doing so, but I do wonder
why you feel you must do so.

Additionally, I have not just joined this News Group as you imply. I
have been around for a few years. I do not comment often. I decided to
comment about PA because as I followed that thread for months, I began
to feel that it was rather "over the top". I still do.

Regards

Jerry




..

Pp

I have used Lysozyme , but not extensively. I have used it in the Pinot
Noir I mentioned in another post as well as in Sauvignon Blanc. I will
most likely use it in a Viognier this year (a 2004 wine still in the
barrel) that I want to undergo only a partial malolactic fermentation.
To date, I have not had sediment in unusual amounts, nor have I had
problems with post Lysozyme fining and filtering.

Lysozyme does effect protein stability in white wines, and as you know
can precipitate lees in red wines. I have not yet seen anything about
why or how this happens chemically or physically. I imagine that data
is out there. I have not found it yet, and need to do more looking in
the literature. Typing "Lysozyme in Wine Making" into Google resulted
in 4230 hits. Much was source of same, but I imagine that somewhere in
these articles are important data. It this rain continues here in CA, I
may have a chance to read all of them!

Have you used Bentonite to deactivate and remove the Lysozyme after it
has done what you intended? Another thing that Scott Labs stresses is
the use of correct hydration procedures for maximum efficiency. They
do not discuss the effects of improper hydration other than to state
undissolved Lysozyme will not be as effective as when properly hydrated.
Here is their link to Lysozyme. Scott Labs' recommended rehydration
methodology is a pdf file within this article.

http://www.scottlaboratories.com/pro...ialcontrol.asp

Wine Maker Magazine had an article about Lysozyme a couple of years ago.
You may have already seen it, but if not here is a link:
http://winemakermag.com/feature/201.html

A colleague had flocking difficulties last year when he used it, and had
to filter more than he had hoped. He has been making wines for 35
years, and had not used it. I suggested he do so on this particular
wine. Now whenever I mention Lysozyme, he mutters a bit.

Sorry I could not be of more help.

Regards

Jerry

Jerry

Yes, this has gone completely over the top, and that is unfortunate.
I still have your original post. It contains the words: "...posts about
PA, alcohol content and other minutia are exercises in
"reductio ad absurdum". I will_gladly_bow out of these discussions
if you will answer the folks questions with something other than
these words !! GLADLY !!

I will try to keep this simple. The original question was: "How do I
calculate end alcohol when fermentation is complete?". This was being
asked by people that don't use lab tests. They_were_ using a triple scale
hydrometer for their frame of reference. The most often used example
was a 1090/990 ferment. Please answer this question for them.

The next question was: "I wish to make a dry (country) wine which will
have 12% alcohol in it when fermentation is complete. Where should I
set my original gravity?" Please answer this question for them.

Everything else flowed from these questions. Answer them and our
problem is solved. Your best estimates will be good enough.

Further comments interspersed:


"Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Frederick
>
> I have not pontificated in any way about whether one should or should not
> do anything relative to hydrometer readings, etc..

<snip>

> I have never said they are "useless" and I ask to not to put words in my
> mouth.

YOUR words we "...posts about PA, alcohol content and other
minutia are exercises in "reductio ad absurdum"..."

<snip>

> but they should not be told that these readings are as reliable as the
> atomic clock. That teaches nothing and only treats newbies as people too
> stupid to think for themselves. >

Now I will request that you not put words in _my_ mouth. The actual
numbers being used were only examples intended to demonstrate
methodology.

> Frederick - you cannot comment on my wines because you have never had
> them, and know nothing about them.

You are right and I apologize. Too many assumptions with too little info.

<snip>

>The newer strains of MLF bacteria will complete MLF at 15
> and 16% alcohol.

Folks have been asking this group for a reference to an MLB that
has an_initial_alcohol toxicity point of 15 or above. You would certainly
be helping them if you would post an on line source that provides
a detailed description. I would also be interested.

> <snip>

>
> What I have not done is call you a liar, as you have done me. I have no
> intention of doing so, but I do wonder why you feel you must do so.

If you feel that that is what I have done, then I will once again apologize.

<snip>

>I decided to
> comment about PA because as I followed that thread for months, I began to
> feel that it was rather "over the top". I still do.

I agree and I have proposed a solution. YOU answer those two questions
and get me off the hook. TIA

Frederick

Frederick

I will answer your questions and stay true to my comments, which
probably means you will disagree with me and the results or
recommendations.

1.) I never personally calculate end point alcohol using hydrometers,
but I do agree that many need/want to do that . I do use the
methodology afforded by Thermo Orion's Wine Master Micro
Voltage/Fluoride electrode technique. I use it at my home winemaker
operation, as it not accepted by the Feds as a commercial value, but it
is great for my own information. Relative to your 1090/990 example,
(the numbers are irrelevant ), if I used my hydrometer I would simply
have recorded the starting Brix, and the ending Brix, then used
Margolit's formula, which I have given in other posts. Please note that
I would use these methods, or recommend them for home winemakers only,
and I would stress that these are _estimates_ only. Furthermore, since
the research shows that the factor can be anything between 0.55 and
0.60, I would probably recommend that these numbers be used to estimate
a range of alcohol. I would in no case suggest that these numbers are
anything but estimates.

2.) I would once again use Margolit's formula, but calculate the
starting Brix. Thus 0.57B = 12 and B = 21.05 (Where B = Brix). Using
"your" number the results are 0.55B = 12 and B = 21.8. To be safe I
wild also calculate 0.60B = 12 and find that B = 20. Then I would use
my expertise as a viticulturalist and winemaker to determine if these
estimates would indeed allow me to end up with the wine I wanted.
Frankly I would pick at 22 Brix if the seeds were beginning to brown,
the skins were not too thick, and the varietal was one that lent itself
to being picked at this sugar level, paying special attention to whether
or not this was red or a white wine.

I answered your question simply as an exercise. I would not use them as
anything but a guide. You may feel differently than I do about the
alcohol level in wines, and that is your right. But I ask, is there any
sensory difference between a 12 and a 12.25 or 12.5% wine? In my
opinion, not really. Thus I would never personally try, nor would I
suggest to anyone an absolute number. I would try to assist them to make
a wine between 12 and 12.5% alcohol. It would be incredibly arrogant of
me to state that I knew enough about the complex wine making process to
nail a specific % a priori.

I imagine that the inherent errors in estimating alcohol is why the
Feds allow a 1.5% variance for wines that test at 14% alcohol or more,
and 1% variance for wines that test for 14 % alcohol or less. Even they,
dunderheads that they can be at times, realize that these % are nothing
but estimates.

Regards

Jerry


"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
...
> Jerry
>
> Yes, this has gone completely over the top, and that is unfortunate.
> I still have your original post. It contains the words: "...posts
> about
> PA, alcohol content and other minutia are exercises in
> "reductio ad absurdum". I will_gladly_bow out of these discussions
> if you will answer the folks questions with something other than
> these words !! GLADLY !!
>
> I will try to keep this simple. The original question was: "How do I
> calculate end alcohol when fermentation is complete?". This was being
> asked by people that don't use lab tests. They_were_ using a triple
> scale
> hydrometer for their frame of reference. The most often used example
> was a 1090/990 ferment. Please answer this question for them.
>
> The next question was: "I wish to make a dry (country) wine which
> will
> have 12% alcohol in it when fermentation is complete. Where should I
> set my original gravity?" Please answer this question for them.
>
> Everything else flowed from these questions. Answer them and our
> problem is solved. Your best estimates will be good enough.
>
> Further comments interspersed:
>
>
> "Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Frederick
>>
>> I have not pontificated in any way about whether one should or should
>> not do anything relative to hydrometer readings, etc..
>
> <snip>
>
>> I have never said they are "useless" and I ask to not to put words in
>> my mouth.
>
> YOUR words we "...posts about PA, alcohol content and other
> minutia are exercises in "reductio ad absurdum"..."
>
> <snip>
>
>> but they should not be told that these readings are as reliable as
>> the atomic clock. That teaches nothing and only treats newbies as
>> people too stupid to think for themselves. >
>
> Now I will request that you not put words in _my_ mouth. The actual
> numbers being used were only examples intended to demonstrate
> methodology.
>
>> Frederick - you cannot comment on my wines because you have never had
>> them, and know nothing about them.
>
> You are right and I apologize. Too many assumptions with too little
> info.
>
> <snip>
>
> >The newer strains of MLF bacteria will complete MLF at 15
>> and 16% alcohol.
>
> Folks have been asking this group for a reference to an MLB that
> has an_initial_alcohol toxicity point of 15 or above. You would
> certainly
> be helping them if you would post an on line source that provides
> a detailed description. I would also be interested.
>
>> <snip>
>
>>
>> What I have not done is call you a liar, as you have done me. I
>> have no intention of doing so, but I do wonder why you feel you must
>> do so.
>
> If you feel that that is what I have done, then I will once again
> apologize.
>
> <snip>
>
> >I decided to
>> comment about PA because as I followed that thread for months, I
>> began to feel that it was rather "over the top". I still do.
>
> I agree and I have proposed a solution. YOU answer those two
> questions
> and get me off the hook. TIA
>
> Frederick
>
>

Pp

If it is not too much trouble, I would be interested in how your Petit
Syrah come out if you use lysozyme on it.

Rather than take up the News Group's space feel free to mail me at


Thank you

Regards

Jerry

> lysozyme on the Petit Sirah.
>
> Thx,
>

Pp

If it is not too much trouble, I would be interested in how your Petit
Syrah come out if you use lysozyme on it.

Rather than take up the News Group's space feel free to mail me at


Thank you

Regards

Jerry

> lysozyme on the Petit Sirah.
>
> Thx,
>

Jerry

Comments interspersed:


"Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> 1.) I never personally calculate end point alcohol using hydrometers, but
> I do agree that many need/want to do that .

For the great majority of winemakers, this is a need, not a want.

> Relative to your 1090/990 example, (the numbers are irrelevant ),

For those that use SG readings, such numbers and examples_are_
relevant.

> if I used my hydrometer I would simply have recorded the starting Brix,
> and the ending Brix, then used Margolit's formula, which I have given in
> other posts.

I am fully aware that this methodology is often used. Mostly by those
that work with fresh grapes. I have often said in this group that
all calculations are "fixed to the BRIX". And this is true no matter
which approach is adopted.

> Please note that I would use these methods, or recommend them for home
> winemakers only,

And I would recommend that each individual be allowed to choose
whichever methodology they feel best suites their needs.

> and I would stress that these are _estimates_ only.

And so would I. It is_you_that assume I was speaking in absolutes, in
spite of the fact that I told you that I was not.

> Furthermore, since the research shows that the factor can be anything
> between 0.55 and 0.60, I would probably recommend that these numbers be
> used to estimate a range of alcohol. I would in no case suggest that
> these numbers are anything but estimates.

The original question posed in this thread was what number he should
put on his label. The answers he received ranged from 12.1 to 15.3409.
The discussion then turned to the formulas found in various references.
It's pretty hard to discuss_formulas_without using numbers and examples !!


> Frankly I would pick at 22 Brix

And so would we all, _if_ we were dealing only with fresh grapes. Our
blackberries never get to 22 BRIX and neither do our rose petals. Thus,
we are forced to "create" our own musts, and things like sugar/alcohol
management assume a much greater importance for anyone that moves
beyond kits and recipes and begins to "design" their own ferments.

> It would be incredibly arrogant of me to state that I knew enough about
> the complex wine making process to nail a specific % a priori.

I agree. And I think it is incredibly arrogant of you to continue to insist
that
this is what I was doing even after I explained that this was not the case.
It was not then, it is not now, nor will it _ever_ be.

I think we can agree on one thing. It is long past time that we put an end
to this so the group can get back to it's usual high level of decorum. I
offered to withdraw from the discussion in this thread if you provided
answers. And, being a man of my word, I will do so now. I might
suggest that you answer the original poster's question, but that, of course,
as always, is entirely up to you.

Frederick

frederick ploegman wrote:

> Jerry
>
> Comments interspersed:
>
>
> "Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> 1.) I never personally calculate end point alcohol using hydrometers, but
>> I do agree that many need/want to do that .
>
> For the great majority of winemakers, this is a need, not a want.

Just my to put my two cents into this spirited debate.

I have been making wine for over 35 years now. Several years ago I
discovered the advantages of a refractometer. I believe this is a more
direct method of measuring the sugar content. I do not know of fruit
growers who depend on a hydrometer to determine sugar content. They use a
refractometer.

Now, I never depend on the hydrometer for starting numbers.
I only use the hydrometer to check on the progress of fermentation and to
determine if it is complete. In my opinion the beginning BRIX will give a
better estimate of the POTENTIAL ABV.

In my opinion it is not all that important if the finished wine is 12% ABV
or 13% ABV I am more interested in taste and balance. In my opinion the
beginning BRIX will give a better ESTIMATE of the POTENTIAL ABV.

I have designed recipes using the refractometer. One can get the sugar
content of any fruit with a refractometer. I would not depend on a
hydrometer for this purpose - nor do fruit growers.

Of course if one is dealing with other than pressed juice or liquids only,
then one must estimate the final yield of liquid juice. This is true
regardless of whether one is using a hydrometer or a refractometer. A
hydrometer will not tell you how much juice is going to be extracted during
the fermentation process. A refractometer will not tell you this either
but it WILL tell you a more precise value for the sugar content of the
fruit. Hopefully you will keep track of my much water you use in your
recipe and then at pressing you will know the volume of juice plus water
and be able to back calculate and tell how much juice was extracted. You
can then go back and make adjustments by either adding more sugar or using
a bit more water if necessary.

I believe that if one is hung up on the ABV of the final product - Send it
out to a lab.

If one is a beginner or can not afford a refractometer my advise is to just
be content to use ball park numbers and estimates based on the hydrometer.
In the long term it is not going to be that critical if other things are in
balance.

May I ask whether you make any deductions for TA and other non-sugar solids
or just take the readings of the refractometer as fermentable sugar? I am
considering to buy a refractometer, because I am beginning to get fed up
with the unreliable readings of the hydrometer.

Ed


"Paul E. Lehmann" > schreef in bericht
...
> frederick ploegman wrote:
>
>> Jerry
>>
>> Comments interspersed:
>>
>>
>> "Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> 1.) I never personally calculate end point alcohol using hydrometers,
>>> but
>>> I do agree that many need/want to do that .
>>
>> For the great majority of winemakers, this is a need, not a want.
>
> Just my to put my two cents into this spirited debate.
>
> I have been making wine for over 35 years now. Several years ago I
> discovered the advantages of a refractometer. I believe this is a more
> direct method of measuring the sugar content. I do not know of fruit
> growers who depend on a hydrometer to determine sugar content. They use a
> refractometer.
>
> Now, I never depend on the hydrometer for starting numbers.
> I only use the hydrometer to check on the progress of fermentation and to
> determine if it is complete. In my opinion the beginning BRIX will give a
> better estimate of the POTENTIAL ABV.
>
> In my opinion it is not all that important if the finished wine is 12% ABV
> or 13% ABV I am more interested in taste and balance. In my opinion the
> beginning BRIX will give a better ESTIMATE of the POTENTIAL ABV.
>
> I have designed recipes using the refractometer. One can get the sugar
> content of any fruit with a refractometer. I would not depend on a
> hydrometer for this purpose - nor do fruit growers.
>
> Of course if one is dealing with other than pressed juice or liquids only,
> then one must estimate the final yield of liquid juice. This is true
> regardless of whether one is using a hydrometer or a refractometer. A
> hydrometer will not tell you how much juice is going to be extracted
> during
> the fermentation process. A refractometer will not tell you this either
> but it WILL tell you a more precise value for the sugar content of the
> fruit. Hopefully you will keep track of my much water you use in your
> recipe and then at pressing you will know the volume of juice plus water
> and be able to back calculate and tell how much juice was extracted. You
> can then go back and make adjustments by either adding more sugar or using
> a bit more water if necessary.
>
> I believe that if one is hung up on the ABV of the final product - Send it
> out to a lab.
>
> If one is a beginner or can not afford a refractometer my advise is to
> just
> be content to use ball park numbers and estimates based on the hydrometer.
> In the long term it is not going to be that critical if other things are
> in
> balance.

May I ask whether you make any deductions for TA and other non-sugar solids
or just take the readings of the refractometer as fermentable sugar? I am
considering to buy a refractometer, because I am beginning to get fed up
with the unreliable readings of the hydrometer.

Ed


"Paul E. Lehmann" > schreef in bericht
...
> frederick ploegman wrote:
>
>> Jerry
>>
>> Comments interspersed:
>>
>>
>> "Jerry DeAngelis" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> 1.) I never personally calculate end point alcohol using hydrometers,
>>> but
>>> I do agree that many need/want to do that .
>>
>> For the great majority of winemakers, this is a need, not a want.
>
> Just my to put my two cents into this spirited debate.
>
> I have been making wine for over 35 years now. Several years ago I
> discovered the advantages of a refractometer. I believe this is a more
> direct method of measuring the sugar content. I do not know of fruit
> growers who depend on a hydrometer to determine sugar content. They use a
> refractometer.
>
> Now, I never depend on the hydrometer for starting numbers.
> I only use the hydrometer to check on the progress of fermentation and to
> determine if it is complete. In my opinion the beginning BRIX will give a
> better estimate of the POTENTIAL ABV.
>
> In my opinion it is not all that important if the finished wine is 12% ABV
> or 13% ABV I am more interested in taste and balance. In my opinion the
> beginning BRIX will give a better ESTIMATE of the POTENTIAL ABV.
>
> I have designed recipes using the refractometer. One can get the sugar
> content of any fruit with a refractometer. I would not depend on a
> hydrometer for this purpose - nor do fruit growers.
>
> Of course if one is dealing with other than pressed juice or liquids only,
> then one must estimate the final yield of liquid juice. This is true
> regardless of whether one is using a hydrometer or a refractometer. A
> hydrometer will not tell you how much juice is going to be extracted
> during
> the fermentation process. A refractometer will not tell you this either
> but it WILL tell you a more precise value for the sugar content of the
> fruit. Hopefully you will keep track of my much water you use in your
> recipe and then at pressing you will know the volume of juice plus water
> and be able to back calculate and tell how much juice was extracted. You
> can then go back and make adjustments by either adding more sugar or using
> a bit more water if necessary.
>
> I believe that if one is hung up on the ABV of the final product - Send it
> out to a lab.
>
> If one is a beginner or can not afford a refractometer my advise is to
> just
> be content to use ball park numbers and estimates based on the hydrometer.
> In the long term it is not going to be that critical if other things are
> in
> balance.

de sik wrote:

> May I ask whether you make any deductions for TA and other non-sugar
> solids or just take the readings of the refractometer as fermentable
> sugar? I am considering to buy a refractometer, because I am beginning to
> get fed up with the unreliable readings of the hydrometer.
>
> Ed

No, I do not make any deductions for TA and other non-sugar solids from the
refractometer readings as I believe this to be insignificant. I do,
however measure pH - especially with reds and TA and pH with whites but I
do not use this information to adjust the refractometer readings.

I believe some winemakers tend to "Over Science" winemaking. Most of the
time getting in the right ball park is close enough. There are SO MANY
variables in Organic Chemistry - which is what wine making is all about -
that it is nearly impossible to compensate and or measure all the
variables. I am not saying that it is wrong to understand what you are
doing but there comes a point in which further knowledge does not
necessarily yield better results.

de sik wrote:

> May I ask whether you make any deductions for TA and other non-sugar
> solids or just take the readings of the refractometer as fermentable
> sugar? I am considering to buy a refractometer, because I am beginning to
> get fed up with the unreliable readings of the hydrometer.
>
> Ed

No, I do not make any deductions for TA and other non-sugar solids from the
refractometer readings as I believe this to be insignificant. I do,
however measure pH - especially with reds and TA and pH with whites but I
do not use this information to adjust the refractometer readings.

I believe some winemakers tend to "Over Science" winemaking. Most of the
time getting in the right ball park is close enough. There are SO MANY
variables in Organic Chemistry - which is what wine making is all about -
that it is nearly impossible to compensate and or measure all the
variables. I am not saying that it is wrong to understand what you are
doing but there comes a point in which further knowledge does not
necessarily yield better results.

"Paul E. Lehmann" > wrote
> I believe some winemakers tend to "Over Science" winemaking.

You said a mouthful. I have a bag in my supply bucket just for all the
little bottles of this and that that I never ever use, but can't bring
myself to throw out! LOL!
Bob<><

"Paul E. Lehmann" > wrote
> I believe some winemakers tend to "Over Science" winemaking.

You said a mouthful. I have a bag in my supply bucket just for all the
little bottles of this and that that I never ever use, but can't bring
myself to throw out! LOL!
Bob<><