FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - How many gallons of wine to a grape vine?

In article >, wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article >, kenny
>> > wrote:
>>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 05:00:57 GMT, (Doug
>>>Miller) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, kenny
>>> > wrote:
>>>>>I would like to produce 200 gallons of wine each year and do
>>>>>it from my own grape vines.
>>>>
>>>Ya know I never really thought of it that way.
>>>I guess I am a little excessive compulsive in my hobbies.
>>>In one year I would make all the wine I need for the next 5
>>>years of course the next year I still have 200 gallons of
>>>wine to deal with.
>>
>> Not only the next year, but every year after that as well.
>>
>>>I will rethink what I really need to plant adjusted to what
>>>I think I will drink in a year.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Anything more than two glasses of wine per day is likely to be harmful to
>> health. At six ounces per glass, that's one bottle every two days, or 182
>> bottles in a year. At five bottles to the gallon, that's 36 gallons per
>> year.
>
>36 gallons per year PER PERSON.

He did say specifically that it was mostly for himself, with only a little bit
for other family members.
>
>If there are two of drinking age in the household then that means 72 gallons
>is required.

Only if both of them are drinking up to the limit of what is healthy, and the
OP has already indicated that is not the case. And it's still a *lot* less
than 200 gallons.
>
>Federal law allows 200 gallons of wine per household in which there are two
>or more adults of drinking age.
>
>Your 36 gallons assumes that all will be drunk in one year and does not
>allow for any to be aged for several years. Your 36 gallons also does not
>allow for wines that will not turn out to be all that great and may end up
>being used for cooking or to make vinegar.

It also allows for a pretty high rate of consumption. :-)

The bottom line is that it's not smart to produce significantly more than
you're going to consume, or it's going to go to waste. If consumption is at
the rate of only 30 to 40 gallons annually, but production is at 200 gallons,
it doesn't take very long to accumulate an enormous surplus.

If you want to be able to age it for several years, fine -- plant enough vines
to produce *one* year's worth of wine. Then for the next three years, buy
enough grapes to make enough wine for *two* years. By the time the vines start
producing substantial harvests, there will be three years' worth of wine
aging. Production will be at the same rate as consumption, but always three
years ahead.

>I would venture to bet that some of those who limit themselves to only two
>glasses of wine per day for health reasons see nothing at all wrong with
>drinking vast quantities of soda or other beverages that have a list of
>chemicals on the outside of the container with words they can not even
>pronounce.

Possibly so, but utterly irrelevant.
>
>Lighten up. If the fellow wants to make 200 gallons of wine a year, who are
>you to judge.

Lighten up yourself -- nothing I said was in the least bit judgemental. It
seemed to me that the OP hadn't thought things out all the way (and his
response to my post confirmed that). All I did was to point out that it may be
unwise to produce vastly larger quantities of wine than one is likely to
consume. Just because you're *allowed* to produce 200 gallons a year doesn't
mean that you *should*.

>If the feds have nothing better to do than count bottles of
>wine in your cellar and determine when it was made, this country is in
>worse shape than I thought.

True, but again irrelevant. The 200-gallon limit is quite a lot more wine than
one or two people are likely to consume in a year, so I very much doubt that
they expend much manpower looking for limit violations.