2nd Annual M.A.N.E. Event

[Johnd]

Paul I think there’s 2 ways to look at it.
The way you’ve already described— wine contact with the oak doesn’t change regardless of size. The oak should not fade at different rates.

And the other — an 8 gal barrel for example. Assuming 1 week per gallon on 1st run— and doubling every subsequent batch.
The barrel would oak 2 batches in 6 months and x3 after 14 months total. 3 batches seems to be the accepted MAX amount of batches a barrel can oak in spite of only going 14 months.
But with a full 53gal barrel — batch #1 at 1year. Batch #2 at 20-24 months. 2 batches and already at 3 year mark and might be oaked out by then.
Obviously it’s understood not all wine needs same amount of oak— and not all barrels give it at same rate.
And even tho it defies logic- the smaller barrels are said to go neutral after about 3 runs—- this is how I understood it to be at least.

As a general statement, those time frames are pretty much what my barrels have exhibited, the five 6 gallons were neutral at 18 months, the 12 gallon about the same time frame.

My 30 gallon French oak barrel has had wine in it for close to a year, and I can't detect the slightest hint of oak in the wine yet. I'd planned on leaving it in for a year, but now am starting to expand the time horizon to include maybe two years.........

 

[sour_grapes]

Well, I admit that I only have theoretical musings on the subject, not experience. I am still cogitating on this. At this point, I am trying to think if there is a way to reconcile these reported observations and the mechanism of oaking.

 

[Ajmassa]

As a general statement, those time frames are pretty much what my barrels have exhibited, the five 6 gallons were neutral at 18 months, the 12 gallon about the same time frame.

My 30 gallon French oak barrel has had wine in it for close to a year, and I can't detect the slightest hint of oak in the wine yet. I'd planned on leaving it in for a year, but now am starting to expand the time horizon to include maybe two years.........

There’s pretty big variable with yours too though. The 6’s are Hungarian and the 30 is French. Good things take time!
As a side note : I think I’ve sworn off American oak completely. Was sampling some of my wine ready for bottling which I used American spirals on. And was drinking a Rodney Strong 2015 Cab while doing it. The American oak spiral taste isn’t necessarily bad to me- but just tasted too much like boring old American blah oak. I assume American barrels give similar taste. A Smokey oak that’s not very complex.
And while tasting the Rodney Strong it had noticeable oak- but also so much more going on. Very complex. A vanilla/peppery spice to it. So much more pleasant on the palate and nose.
Keep in mind these are just my own opinions. And I don’t even know what barrels were used- or if American barrels are that similar to spirals.
But then I remembered JohnT gave me some stave segments when I met up with him. I went ahead and opened the Tupperware container I put em in— and sure as shit the oak segments had a very similar complex aroma to that Rodney Strong Cab. I believe they were French. And for the hell of it— That Rodney Strong clocked in at .993 SG and 3.6 ph lol.

 

[Johnd]

Well, I admit that I only have theoretical musings on the subject, not experience. I am still cogitating on this. At this point, I am trying to think if there is a way to reconcile these reported observations and the mechanism of oaking.

The problem is, no two barrels are exactly the same, but should be relatively close with trees from the same area, if one could even determine that......... My current thoughts about barrels have led me to a point where time is immaterial and I just oak the wine til I like it. Barrels that have had two wines in them always get adjuncts added to the mix. Regardless of whether oak flavors are imparted, every wine that's been through a barrel is substantially smoother, rounder, and more enjoyable than its glass stored counterpart.

 

[Johnd]

There’s pretty big variable with yours too though. The 6’s are Hungarian and the 30 is French. Good things take time!
As a side note : I think I’ve sworn off American oak completely. Was sampling some of my wine ready for bottling which I used American spirals on. And was drinking a Rodney Strong 2015 Cab while doing it. The American oak spiral taste isn’t necessarily bad to me- but just tasted too much like boring old American blah oak. I assume American barrels give similar taste. A Smokey oak that’s not very complex.
And while tasting the Rodney Strong it had noticeable oak- but also so much more going on. Very complex. A vanilla/peppery spice to it. So much more pleasant on the palate and nose.
Keep in mind these are just my own opinions. And I don’t even know what barrels were used- or if American barrels are that similar to spirals.
But then I remembered JohnT gave me some stave segments when I met up with him. I went ahead and opened the Tupperware container I put em in— and sure as shit the oak segments had a very similar complex aroma to that Rodney Strong Cab. I believe they were French. And for the hell of it— That Rodney Strong clocked in at .993 SG and 3.6 ph lol.

Coolest barrel thing I've ever been a part of was this past spring at Del Dotto, in their reserve tasting cave. 9 or 10 barrels of wine, American, French, Hungarian oak, all had the EXACT same wine in there, all new barrels, same amount of time, but barrels were all different. It was like drinking different wines. The american oak barrel was quite good, but admittedly, I did like a french the best, but it was only one of the frenchies from a particular barrel company, some I didn't care for were french ones from different makers. The Hungarian was ok, but not my top. It was very eye opening.

 

[mainshipfred]

Well, I admit that I only have theoretical musings on the subject, not experience. I am still cogitating on this. At this point, I am trying to think if there is a way to reconcile these reported observations and the mechanism of oaking.

If anyone could do it my vote would be for you.

 

[Ajmassa]

One thing is certain with this winemaking hobby—- No matter how much knowledge you acquire, there is ALWAYS more to learn!

 

[pgentile]

I have zero knowledge with barrels, this link at morewine https://morewinemaking.com/articles/Oak_barrel_care_guide , down the page "using barrels" ,doesn't mention size and how long they give up oak, just that barrels go neutral after 3-4 years. Being that I'm getting one, I'm trying to understand some of this

So the oak a barrel is made of has a set limit on how much oakness it can give to wine it touches. If in small barrels wine takes on the oakness quicker because of increased surface area to wine volume, wouldn't the barrel be giving up the oak limit quicker as well?

I don't feel like doing any math right now or more searching, I'm at work, but does barrel interior surface area vs wine volume ratio stay proportionate with the scale of the barrel size? If it does not and the ratio gets less with size, than it could give up quicker with smaller barrels.

 

[sour_grapes]

Note: I am giving my response to this all according to "theoretical considerations" only, in hopes of clarifying how I view the mechanisms at play and the mathematical scaling relationships.

So the oak a barrel is made of has a set limit on how much oakness it can give to wine it touches. If in small barrels wine takes on the oakness quicker because of increased surface area to wine volume, wouldn't the barrel be giving up the oak limit quicker as well?

No (at least in theory). The wine "taking on oakiness faster" would be due to there being less wine to absorb the oak coming out, not because the oak comes out at a faster rate.

I don't feel like doing any math right now or more searching, I'm at work, but does barrel interior surface area vs wine volume ratio stay proportionate with the scale of the barrel size?

No, the ratio changes. See this nice post from @stickman :

View attachment 44596

I was playing around with the concept a few years ago and generated this very rough relationship. It is just using an average diameter to get the volume and calculating surface area as a cylinder. Close enough for my work at the time; I'm not sure it is worth going much further.
I made a correction, I only had one barrel head in the first calculation.

As I pointed out in the next post, his result are very close to what one would expect based on a simple dimensional analysis, namely, the surface-area-to-volume ratio scales as one divided by the cube root of the volume.

If it does not and the ratio gets less with size, than it could give up quicker with smaller barrels.

Why would it give it up quicker?

Edit: I was just checking a Wikipedia page, and learned that this relationship between surface area and volume was first noted by Galileo in 1638: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square–cube_law

 

[pgentile]

Note: I am giving my response to this all according to "theoretical considerations" only, in hopes of clarifying how I view the mechanisms at play and the mathematical scaling relationships.

Same here

No (at least in theory). The wine "taking on oakiness faster" would be due to there being less wine to absorb the oak coming out, not because the oak comes out at a faster rate.

Why would it give it up quicker?

Yah thinking through this, why would oak leech faster or slower due to volume? But could dilution of what the wine extracts from oak decrease in ratio to volume size? Thus resulting in small volumes getting to oak level desired quicker?

No, the ratio changes. See this nice post from @stickman :

Thanks for the link

As I pointed out in the next post, his result are very close to what one would expect based on a simple dimensional analysis, namely, the surface-area-to-volume ratio scales as one divided by the cube root of the volume.

if i'm being redundant on what was said earlier in the the thread I apologize, i'm at work and keep being pulled away from more important thing like this, and not sure I've kept up.

 

[sour_grapes]

Yeah thinking through this, why would oak leech faster or slower due to volume? But could dilution of what the wine extracts from oak decrease in ratio to volume size? Thus resulting in small volumes getting to oak level desired quicker?

Yes yes! Precisely my thinking.

if i'm being redundant on what was said earlier in the the thread I apologize, i'm at work and keep being pulled away from more important thing like this, and not sure I've kept up.

I apologize if that sounded like that; I was not saying that we covered that in this thread. I meant my next post in that previous thread that I linked to. No redundancy detected here!

 

[ceeaton]

You guys have collectively made my head hurt. I think I'm going to go upstairs and make some pizza and drink a beer and get rid of my headache.

 

[Ajmassa]

****FOR ALL THOSE INTERESTED in the Mid Atlantic Northeast Event*****

The last 15 posts are a perfect example of the type of conversation to expect at this meetup. So you better bring you ‘A’ game

 

[sour_grapes]

Nothing too new here, but I had the following image to share. Let's say I have two identical planks of wood, that I happened to have hewn from an oak tree in the the Zemplen forest. I tie rocks to them (to make them sink); I throw one into the local high school swimming pool, and I throw the other into a baby wading pool. Do you think they would become "neutral" at the same time, or at different times? What is your reasoning?

 

[heatherd]

Love it!!!!

 

[mainshipfred]

OK let's start here using round numbers and assumptions:
200 liter barrel has 6500 sq. in.
20 liter barrel has 1400 sq. in.
Assume the number of units of potential oak extration is equal to the number of sq. in.
The potential number of units of extraction per barrel for a 200 liter barrel is 6500/200 or 32.50 unit/gallon
The potential number of units of extraction per barrel for a 20 liter barrel is 1400/20 or 70.00 units/gallon
So for the sake of simplicity let's call 35 and 70 half or double depending on how you look at it.
Now when removing the wine from the smaller barrel once it reaches the 35 unit extraction level you only have 35 units left.
If the rate of extraction is a constant the timeframe for the extraction takes half the time for a smaller barrel. Thus becoming neutral sooner.

Boy I can't wait to see the responses. LOL

PS, @sour_grapes I'm still thinking about you pool scenario. Don't have anything yet.

 

[Boatboy24]

Is there water or some other liquid in either pool?

 

[mainshipfred]

Is there water or some other liquid in either pool?

I have to research the ph and acid of the other liquid.

 

[mainshipfred]

****FOR ALL THOSE INTERESTED in the Mid Atlantic Northeast Event*****

The last 15 posts are a perfect example of the type of conversation to expect at this meetup. So you better bring you ‘A’ game

And you can't bring your A game if you don't come. Time, date and place coming in a few months. Keep your calander open.

 

[pgentile]

If the rate of extraction is a constant the timeframe for the extraction takes half the time for a smaller barrel. Thus becoming neutral sooner.

It has to do more with what @Ajmassa5983 said in an earlier post. It's the number of batches that's getting you to neutral not time.

With the small volume barrel you reach your theoretical 35 units faster due to dilution to volume.

If you had a small barrel and a large barrel side by side and change out the wine when you hit your target dilution/units, but only refill the barrels with wine at the same time, they would more likely go neutral at the same time. But because the smaller barrel gets to the unit level quicker you are going to have new wine refills in shorter increments than the larger barrel, resulting it going neutral sooner.