accuracy of initial readings
 

Measuring the SG and the TA of a fresh red must had always given me
problems. I presume that this is because the juice that floating on
the top isn't representative of the entire batch. I also imagine that
my SG readings are artifactually high due to suspended solids.

Does this make sense? Can I rely on a refractometer reading (assuming
that the must hasn't begun fermenting) and discount the initial SG
readings?

Also, an experienced winemaker told me that he ALWAYS pretreats his
fresh musts with sulfite before pitching his yeast a day later. He
says that it helps knock off the native yeasts and that he has more
control of the outcome. Is this a common practice? I tried it and
ultimately had no problem whatsoever with my MLF, so it seems like a
good idea.

Lee

accuracy of initial readings
 

Lee wrote:

> Measuring the SG and the TA of a fresh red must had always given me
> problems. I presume that this is because the juice that floating on
> the top isn't representative of the entire batch. I also imagine that
> my SG readings are artifactually high due to suspended solids.
>
> Does this make sense?

Yes
In my opinion, the refractometer is more precise than a hydrometer before
fermentation.

SG is important to track the rate of fermentation once it starts. After it
starts, the refractometer is of little use. If you want to know your SG
before the start of fermentaion, you can use a formulae that converts Brix
to SG.


> Can I rely on a refractometer reading (assuming
> that the must hasn't begun fermenting) and discount the initial SG
> readings?

Yes - or you can use a formulae that converts Brix to SG.

>
> Also, an experienced winemaker told me that he ALWAYS pretreats his
> fresh musts with sulfite before pitching his yeast a day later. He
> says that it helps knock off the native yeasts and that he has more
> control of the outcome. Is this a common practice?

Yes

> I tried it and
> ultimately had no problem whatsoever with my MLF, so it seems like a
> good idea.
>
> Lee

accuracy of initial readings
 

You should strain the must to remove the solids and you should make
sure your sample is reasonably well crushed; either device will be
affected by a sample that is not representative.

You can pre-sulfite but ther is a school of thought that whites do
better (come out lighter) if you don't.

Joe

accuracy of initial readings
 

You should strain the must to remove the solids and you should make
sure your sample is reasonably well crushed; either device will be
affected by a sample that is not representative.

You can pre-sulfite but ther is a school of thought that whites do
better (come out lighter) if you don't.

Joe

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You can pre-sulfite but ther is a school of thought that whites do
> better (come out lighter) if you don't.

Personally, I never add sulfite at crush to my Chardonnay. I keep it iced
down to prevent spontaneous fermentation until after cold soaking, pressing
and settling. The juice becomes decidedly brownish by that point.

That said, I wouldn't say my wines come out "lighter" (in color), but they
certainly show no sign of browning - even with extended aging. They are
typically golden with greenish highlights in their youth (after sulfiting),
lose the green with age and darken somewhat. A good deal of that color
comes from aging in new oak.

The no SO2 approach isn't for everyone, or even every batch of fruit. If I
had fruit with significant rot I wouldn't risk it - but I'm picky about what
I buy and who I buy it from. I try to avoid botrytis as well because I feel
that it has no place in classic Chardonnay.

One clear benefit of not sulfiting at crush is that the ML goes more
smoothly and easily, starting along with the primary and finishing up soon
thereafter.

Tom S

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

Tom S wrote:
> "Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > You can pre-sulfite but ther is a school of thought that whites do
> > better (come out lighter) if you don't.
>
> Personally, I never add sulfite at crush to my Chardonnay. I keep it iced
> down to prevent spontaneous fermentation until after cold soaking, pressing
> and settling. The juice becomes decidedly brownish by that point.
>
> That said, I wouldn't say my wines come out "lighter" (in color), but they
> certainly show no sign of browning - even with extended aging. They are
> typically golden with greenish highlights in their youth (after sulfiting),
> lose the green with age and darken somewhat. A good deal of that color
> comes from aging in new oak.
>
> The no SO2 approach isn't for everyone, or even every batch of fruit. If I
> had fruit with significant rot I wouldn't risk it - but I'm picky about what
> I buy and who I buy it from. I try to avoid botrytis as well because I feel
> that it has no place in classic Chardonnay.
>
> One clear benefit of not sulfiting at crush is that the ML goes more
> smoothly and easily, starting along with the primary and finishing up soon
> thereafter.
>
> Tom S

Tom, would you try this method on aromatic, lighter whites, say
Riesling?

Thx,

Pp

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

"pp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Tom, would you try this method on aromatic, lighter whites, say
> Riesling?

Maybe, if I wanted to make an Alsatian style Riesling. Those are typically
barrel fermented, and tend to be cold soaked prior to pressing IIRC. For
your standard German style Riesling you might want to avoid such treatments.

Tom S

accuracy of initial readings
 

Lee,

I learned from an experienced wine maker and have taken his advice ever
since that the 2 things that are most important before primary
fermentation kicks off are sulfite levels andph. The theory behind it
is you want to create an environment where the only bacteria living in
that must is the bacteria you add. When the ph is low and the sulfite
levels high only the engineered yeast will thrive. If that is the only
bacteria thiving it will over power any bacteria that starts to
activate as the sulfite levels drop when it starts blowing off during
fermentation. This type of method inhibits the formation of off odors
and flavors that can be caused by the bad bacteria. After fermentation
is done you'll need to cold stabilize to adjust the ph but your
fermantation will have benn as clean as you could have possibly made
it. It's worked for me and I use a good amount of tartaric acid but
it's worth it. This winemaker actually liked to have even reds start
out with a ph close to 3.0!!!! The fermentations do come out clean.


Bob

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

Tom,

How did that experiment with that new yeast turn out??? VL2??


Bob

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Tom,
>
> How did that experiment with that new yeast turn out??? VL2??

Good. VL2 is a low foaming strain with good alcohol tolerance and gave me
no stinky problems. I ran it side by side last year with CY3079 and didn't
find much difference between the two. The starting Brix was ~25°.

This year I reverted to Côte de Blancs, which I like for its intensely
yeasty aroma, low foaming and very slow speed. The problem with it is it
has a tendency to stick off-dry because of low alcohol tolerance, but my
starting Brix was only 23° and it's going to finish dry. As of tomorrow it
will have been fermenting for a month.

Tom S

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

So I guess it wasn't so good that you permanently switched. I gotta try
that Cote de Blancs stuff.

Bob

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> So I guess it wasn't so good that you permanently switched. I gotta try
> that Cote de Blancs stuff.

Different musts/juices may require different strains of yeast. Côte de
Blancs wouldn't have worked out last year. It would've stuck off-dry for
sure.

Tom S

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

Tom,

Good point. I didn't even think of that. BTW, it seems like the last 2
years the grapes I get from California have been unusually low in sugar
which doesn't mean unripe, just less ripe. I don't know where the
grapes I get come from but they don't seem to be as ripe as 4-5 years
ago.It may be the picking window. I don't know. How's the last 2
growing seasons been in your estimation???


Bob

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

> wrote in message
oups.com...
BTW, it seems like the last 2
> years the grapes I get from California have been unusually low in sugar
> which doesn't mean unripe, just less ripe. I don't know where the
> grapes I get come from but they don't seem to be as ripe as 4-5 years
> ago.It may be the picking window. I don't know. How's the last 2
> growing seasons been in your estimation???

Last year my fruit came in very ripe - and a point higher in Brix than
usual. This year the fruit looks perfect, and despite the late harvest was
a touch below normal Brix.

Tom S

No SO2 at crush (was accuracy of initial readings)
 

Tom S wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> BTW, it seems like the last 2
>
>>years the grapes I get from California have been unusually low in sugar
>>which doesn't mean unripe, just less ripe. I don't know where the
>>grapes I get come from but they don't seem to be as ripe as 4-5 years
>>ago.It may be the picking window. I don't know. How's the last 2
>>growing seasons been in your estimation???
>
>
> Last year my fruit came in very ripe - and a point higher in Brix than
> usual. This year the fruit looks perfect, and despite the late harvest was
> a touch below normal Brix.
>
> Tom S
>
>

The Sonoma County grapes were all over the Brix scale this year,
trending a little lower than last year. What was more noticable this
year was the acid came in low (heavenly long hang times). I'm still
harvesting zin in mid-November.

Gene