Hello,

I was always under the impression that grapes, left to themselves,
will rot and turn into wine. However, a friend of mine recently told
me that wine must undergo a very specific fermentation process to make
it "alcoholic," if that's the right word.

The truth from the experts, please. Pointers to any pertinent info or
FAQs will be genuinely appreciated.

Thanks!

Mark > wrote in news:none-7773B9.13550128092004
@news.giganews.com:

> Hello,
>
> I was always under the impression that grapes, left to themselves,
> will rot and turn into wine. However, a friend of mine recently told
> me that wine must undergo a very specific fermentation process to make
> it "alcoholic," if that's the right word.
>
> The truth from the experts, please. Pointers to any pertinent info or
> FAQs will be genuinely appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>

naturally occuring yeasts will turn grape juice into "wine" naturally but
it takes skilland finesse to make the alcoholic juice into something that
we would call WINE!

In article >, jcoulter > wrote:

> Mark > wrote in news:none-7773B9.13550128092004
> @news.giganews.com:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was always under the impression that grapes, left to themselves,
> > will rot and turn into wine. However, a friend of mine recently told
> > me that wine must undergo a very specific fermentation process to make
> > it "alcoholic," if that's the right word.
> >
> > The truth from the experts, please. Pointers to any pertinent info or
> > FAQs will be genuinely appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> naturally occuring yeasts will turn grape juice into "wine" naturally but
> it takes skilland finesse to make the alcoholic juice into something that
> we would call WINE!

Thank you for the reply.

So I was correct. If one leaves grapes to themselves, they will
indeed become alcoholic wine. Would this wine at least be
edible?

Thanks again!

Mark > wrote in
:



>
> So I was correct. If one leaves grapes to themselves, they will
> indeed become alcoholic wine. Would this wine at least be
> edible?
>
> Thanks again!
>

having done this once or twice in extreme amature conditions I can only say
most likely not. It takes clean and careful attention to the process to
make a wine that can be drunk albeit one that is still a bit rough. To
produce really drinkable wine takes a deft hand. We have a few of those who
read this group perhaps they could chime in about now?

In article >, says
....
>
>In article >, jcoulter <225
stellarDROP
> wrote:
>
>> Mark > wrote in news:none-7773B9.13550128092004
>> @news.giganews.com:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I was always under the impression that grapes, left to themselves,
>> > will rot and turn into wine. However, a friend of mine recently told
>> > me that wine must undergo a very specific fermentation process to make
>> > it "alcoholic," if that's the right word.
>> >
>> > The truth from the experts, please. Pointers to any pertinent info or
>> > FAQs will be genuinely appreciated.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>>
>> naturally occuring yeasts will turn grape juice into "wine" naturally but
>> it takes skilland finesse to make the alcoholic juice into something that
>> we would call WINE!
>
>Thank you for the reply.
>
>So I was correct. If one leaves grapes to themselves, they will
>indeed become alcoholic wine. Would this wine at least be
>edible?
>
>Thanks again!

It should be. However, it is the juice from those grapes, and the sugar
content that reacts with the yeast, so just placing a bunch of grapes in a
container, and waiting, won't quite do it. If you have enough grapes, the
weight will extract some juice, and that will ferment. However, most grapes
are crushed to some degree to free the juice, which is then separated, as some
point, from the vegetable matter, and many, many decisions are made, regarding
the fermentation process.

Hunt

"Mark" wrote in message

> > I was always under the impression that grapes, left to
> > themselves, will rot and turn into wine.
> > However, a friend of mine recently told me that wine
> > must undergo a very specific fermentation process to make
> > it "alcoholic," if that's the right word.
> >
>> naturally occuring yeasts will turn grape juice into "wine" naturally but
>> it takes skill and finesse to make the alcoholic juice into something
>> that
>> we would call WINE!
>
> So I was correct. If one leaves grapes to themselves, they will
> indeed become alcoholic wine. Would this wine at least be
> edible?

No, I am sorry, your assumption is not correct.

Please read what was written - yeasts will convert the sugars [in grape
juice] into alcohol - however, that is a long way from "left to
themselves, grapes will rot and turn into wine".

Left to themselves (on the vine) grapes with either wither and/or rot - and
will certainly not miraculously convert to Ch. Latour.

Fermentation is an anaerobic process - that is the absence of oxygen.

Under certain conditions, grapes *could* be crushed, bringing juice into
contact with yeast on the grape skin, and ferment, but the result would
never be called *wine* under any stretch of the imagination.

Could this be consumed? Of course !

Would this be enjoyable - only to one who regularly enjoys rotten,
semi-fermented, oxidised fruit.

--

st.helier

Salut/Hi Mark,

I've just read through this thread, and although I hesitate to disagree with
Josh, (and I don't really) I think he's left you with slightly the wrong
impression.

le/on Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:55:01 -0400, tu disais/you said:-

>I was always under the impression that grapes, left to themselves,
>will rot and turn into wine.

Firstly, you describe two entirely different processes.

Left to themselves, grapes very probably WILL rot. If they do, they won't
turn into wine. (First process)

The rotting mass might just ferment a bit, since yeasts (the micro-organisms
responsible for turning sugar into alcohol) do occur naturally on grape
skins. (Second process).

However, a rotting oozing mess, with a low alcohol content, which is turning
vinegary almost as fast as it ferments, is a long way from wine.

The production of wine (as St Helier says) involves the deliberate
modification/interruption of the natural processes I described above. If
you are defining wine as the end result of any fermentation process that
contains alcohol, then you would have to include beer, bread and rum!
Clearly that definition won't do.

> However, a friend of mine recently told >me that wine must undergo a very specific fermentation process to make
>it "alcoholic," if that's the right word.

That's much closer to the truth, although as I said above, yeasts DO occur
naturally, and IF you were to pile up a load of grape bunches in a large vat
(especially if you were to crush them by stamping on them) you certainly
could get wine.

For a good description of the process, try almost any of Hugh Johnson's
books on wine. "The History of Wine" "Wine". Even the "World Atlas of Wine"
has some information.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Ian Hoare > wrote:

> Salut/Hi Mark,
>
> I've just read through this thread, and although I hesitate to disagree with
> Josh, (and I don't really) I think he's left you with slightly the wrong
> impression.
>
> le/on Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:55:01 -0400, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >I was always under the impression that grapes, left to themselves,
> >will rot and turn into wine.
>
> Firstly, you describe two entirely different processes.
>
> Left to themselves, grapes very probably WILL rot. If they do, they won't
> turn into wine. (First process)
>
> The rotting mass might just ferment a bit, since yeasts (the micro-organisms
> responsible for turning sugar into alcohol) do occur naturally on grape
> skins. (Second process).
>
> However, a rotting oozing mess, with a low alcohol content, which is turning
> vinegary almost as fast as it ferments, is a long way from wine.
>
> The production of wine (as St Helier says) involves the deliberate
> modification/interruption of the natural processes I described above. If
> you are defining wine as the end result of any fermentation process that
> contains alcohol, then you would have to include beer, bread and rum!
> Clearly that definition won't do.
>
> > However, a friend of mine recently told >me that wine must undergo a very
> > specific fermentation process to make
> >it "alcoholic," if that's the right word.
>
> That's much closer to the truth, although as I said above, yeasts DO occur
> naturally, and IF you were to pile up a load of grape bunches in a large vat
> (especially if you were to crush them by stamping on them) you certainly
> could get wine.
>
> For a good description of the process, try almost any of Hugh Johnson's
> books on wine. "The History of Wine" "Wine". Even the "World Atlas of Wine"
> has some information.

Thanks to all of you for your polite and informative replies. It's
nice to be able to ask a newbie question with having to undergo a
verbal lynching.

Just to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly: grapes left
to themselves may indeed eventually turn into some remote semblance of
an alcoholic beverage, but only in a purely legalistic definition,
because the end product would be nothing any sane human would dare
consume. Is that accurate?

Thanks again!

On 29 Sep 2004 01:00:16 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

>it is the juice from those grapes, and the sugar
>content that reacts with the yeast, so just placing a bunch of grapes in a
>container, and waiting, won't quite do it. If you have enough grapes, the
>weight will extract some juice, and that will ferment.

Hmmm. Except of course the standard practice in the Beaujolais Crus
is pretty much to chuck whole bunches of uncrushed grapes into a vat
and wait for the mass to ferment. The only nuances on this are,
AFAIK, to ensure a sterile vat in the first place to discourage the
action of batcteria, and to pump-over to get a good extraction of
colour.

You, and other posters here, are neglecting to mention that whole
grapes will ferment internally without the action of yeast. These
newbie questions are never as simple as they seem are they?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:07:35 -0400, Mark > wrote:

>Just to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly: grapes left
>to themselves may indeed eventually turn into some remote semblance of
>an alcoholic beverage, but only in a purely legalistic definition,
>because the end product would be nothing any sane human would dare
>consume. Is that accurate?

I think it depends what you mean by "left to themselves". I think if
you have clean conditions and good whole grapes you could be OK as far
as the fermentation is concerned. You would still have to press the
result, and clarify the liquid, before your "sane person" would drink
it.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:07:35 -0400, Mark > wrote:

>Just to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly: grapes left
>to themselves may indeed eventually turn into some remote semblance of
>an alcoholic beverage, but only in a purely legalistic definition,
>because the end product would be nothing any sane human would dare
>consume. Is that accurate?

I think it depends what you mean by "left to themselves". I think if
you have clean conditions and good whole grapes you could be OK as far
as the fermentation is concerned. You would still have to press the
result, and clarify the liquid, before your "sane person" would drink
it.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 10:38:42 +0100, Steve Slatcher
> wrote:

>Hmmm. Except of course the standard practice in the Beaujolais Crus
>is pretty much to chuck whole bunches of uncrushed grapes into a vat
>and wait for the mass to ferment. The only nuances on this are,
>AFAIK, to ensure a sterile vat in the first place to discourage the
>action of batcteria, and to pump-over to get a good extraction of
>colour.

Oh, and I guess it is important that the CO2 (given off by the
yeast-fermentation of the grapes that get crushed at the bottom) stays
in the vat to encourage the fermentation of (and presumably to prevent
bacterial infection in) those at the top.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Salut/Hi Mark,

le/on Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:07:35 -0400, tu disais/you said:-


>> > However, a friend of mine recently told >me that wine must undergo a very
>> > specific fermentation process to make
>> >it "alcoholic," if that's the right word.
>>
>> That's much closer to the truth, although as I said above, yeasts DO occur
>> naturally, and IF you were to pile up a load of grape bunches in a large vat
>> (especially if you were to crush them by stamping on them) you certainly
>> could get wine.
>>
>> For a good description of the process, try almost any of Hugh Johnson's
>> books on wine. "The History of Wine" "Wine". Even the "World Atlas of Wine"
>> has some information.
>
>Thanks to all of you for your polite and informative replies. It's
>nice to be able to ask a newbie question with having to undergo a
>verbal lynching.

In general, here in this NG, we all remember the time we were newbies, and
we all remember the help, encouragement and tasting opportunities more
experienced wine lovers gave us. However, we (I) can be short with people
who, under the guise - or more often the pretense - of being newbies, either
seek to provoke or to proselytize.

>Just to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly: grapes left
>to themselves may indeed eventually turn into some remote semblance of
>an alcoholic beverage, but only in a purely legalistic definition,
>because the end product would be nothing any sane human would dare
>consume. Is that accurate?

Nearly.

Left to themselves, they'll go to vinegar and thence to carbon dioxide and
water. If, about half way through, you were to press the mush, you would get
some liquid which contained some alcohol. Fermentation is but one (fairly
early) stage in the decomposition and decay of grapes. You have to
differentiate between the "end product", ie when the reacting mass reaches
relative stability (which will contain no alcohol) and the intermediate
stage, after most of the fermentation has taken place and before other
reactions have gone too far.

I get the impression you're engaged elsewhere with a discussion which may
just have theological overtones. A piece of advice. Fundamentalist theology
has no connection wth reason. NEVER engage in such arguments. A logical
system which defines and measures reality by the extent to which it conforms
to statements in any kind of religious book or religious "tradition", has no
connection with any rational process. You might as well try to discuss the
laws of thermodynamics with a tree. One could (using good fundamentalist
logic) make a perfectly good case to show that the hurricanes attacking
Florida are a warning to Jed Bush, and that the attacks against the USA are
a mark of God's anger over GW Bush's election. After all, that's just what
the Bible says happened to the Jews when they left the straight and narrow.

I don't believe that for a moment, but it is the sort of simplistic argument
that gets used by fundamentalists of all religions.

Bringing this back on topic, therefore, and condensing the answers. If it be
hypothetically true that the decomposition of grapes could, when interrupted
at exactly the right moment allow an alcoholic liquid to be extracted, a)
you couldn't call it wine, and b) it is only an early stage in a process
leading to the production of CO2 and water.
>Thanks again!

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website