Can I ferment without the chemicals?

Winemaking Talk - Winemaking Forum

Help Support Winemaking Talk - Winemaking Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I am going to do some in depth research on this..
wonder what they did in the 20s and 30s and 40s..
may be a fun thing to read about....
 
Well, the fact is that wine has been made for eons without the addition of additives that we have today. They were simply not available. And the wine spoiled easily, was generally oxidized and probably the wine of yesteryear would not be palatable to us today. I am firmly convinced that if my great grandparents had the knowledge and preservatives we have today they would not make wine the way they did.
 
Pasteurization is non-selective in what it kills or inhibits. So like in milk once pasteurized, most I not all the beneficial vitamins and enzymes are also killed off. This is probably why pasteurized wine must take forever to age and mature - because there is very little of the beneficial enzymes left to do their job.

This discussion has brought up a question in my mind though. Would there be a cold temperature range that would inhibit the yeast from fermenting after back sweetening but allow it to still age and mature? Could you conceivably keep the wine in a temperature controlled wine cooler? This would be feasible only with smaller batches of wine I guess that don't have to be kept for X number of years?

Who knows what happened in the old days, if some of their brews spoiled and some not or if the temps they kept it was closer to what today's refrigeration is. After all today's room temp is not what it was way back when. So maybe the temps kept their wines from further fermentation and spoilage? Just a thought.
 
I do ntt mean to be argumentative but you can buy wines that cost tons of money that are 30,50,100 years old, how did they do it then that the wine is still drinkable today...that is what i want to know.
 
The problem with pasteurization is that the heating can damage the wine, however, if you must have it sweetened and you must not use sorbate ( I disagree) it would not be the worst option.. Just be careful not to burn yourself or have a bottle explode on you from the change in pressure caused by the heating.

Now, honestly, if you happend to have a few grams of cobalt-60 on hand... well then we would be talking business eh?
 
I do ntt mean to be argumentative but you can buy wines that cost tons of money that are 30,50,100 years old, how did they do it then that the wine is still drinkable today...that is what i want to know.

Honestly, much of this was luck. There's a great book that covers the history of winemaking called "Inventing Wine". I highly recommend it. Not only does it cover the history of the advances in wine but also the many many many failures over the years, and the documentation from people in those times about how bad wines used to be. The wines you describe are very very rare.
 
If the yeast alcohol tolerance is 14% when you reach that level there is no need to worry about sweeten and re fermenting. The yeast is dead. No need to sorbate. At 14% the wine will preserve itself if you keep it CLEAN you will be fine. That brings us to Oxidation. I leave a small amount of CO2 in wine and decant when open. Oaking and adding tannins will also help. Like I SAID I DO IT AND DONT MAKE BAD WINE OR MEAD
 
Some new thoughts and questions...

First a quick double check on fortification. Say I goof up and loose track of the numbers and am unsure of the actual ABV of my wine when fermentations stops after step feeding. According to the fortification calculator I am looking at, and my understanding of the theory, it actually may not matter.

If I fortify as I bottle into .75 liter bottles, using 93% spirits, and I want to boost the ABV by 1% I would add .01 liters to each bottle, If I wanted to bring the ABV up by 4% I would add .04 liters regardless if the wine was 8% or 18% ABV before fortification. Right?

That begs the question of how many percentage points to boost it to be very confident to have no bottle fermentation? I'm gonna guess a 1%-2% ABV boost would be enough. Another question for the research list.

Another thought that struck me as I was working on this example. If you were doing this, would it not be a good idea to put the spirit in the bottle first and swirl it around as a last minute final sanitize, then fill the bottle with the wine to the desired level? The plan is for those bottles to be nice and clean already anyway, but a free final alcohol bath cant hurt right?

Next I would like to go back to the pectin enzymes a bit. This got brought up in my intro thread but it seemed appropriate to discuss more here in the additives thread. Methanol is bad, but it cannot be eliminated. Methanol comes from pectins being eaten by the yeast. Pectin enzymes make the pectin more easily digestible for the yeast so using them will increase the methanol level. These levels may all be pretty low, but it seems to me that lower methanol levels are better from a safety standpoint, hands down. Thoughts?
 
Methanol is one of a host of alcohols normally produced during the fermentation of carbon-based compounds. An alcohol is basically a water atom (H20) with one of the hydrogen atoms replaced by a chain of carbons and their attached hydrogen atoms. Methanol (CH 3OH) is the simplest alcohol with a chain consisting of a carbon atom with three hydrogen atoms attached. Ethanol (CH3 CH2OH), the intoxicating ingredient in beer and other alcoholic beverages, has a chain that's twice as long.

Methanol can be distilled from fermented wood, so you may know it as wood alcohol. It's an ingredient in commercial products like antifreeze, glass cleaner, and paint thinners, but many people regularly drink other, more innocuous products that contain methanol. Methanol is found naturally in fruit juice and distilled spirits such as whiskey, wine, and beer. A typical glass of wine contains a small amount of methanol, from 0.0041 to 0.02 percent by volume. In comparison, the same glass will have about 10-15 percent ethanol. Methanol is much sweeter than ethanol, and even a small amount adds flavor to these beverages. This sweetness is what makes methanol attractive to use in an artificial sweetener.

All alcohols are toxic to some degree, but the dark side of methanol lies in the metabolites produced during its breakdown in the body. The same set of enzymes digest both methanol and ethanol. This stepwise degradation eventually yields the final products of carbon dioxide and water. The process prevents ethanol from building up to toxic levels in the body. But the small difference in the structures of the ethanol and methanol molecules means that the intermediate steps of the same process turn methanol into compounds that are far more dangerous than methanol itself!

In the first enzymatic reaction, methanol is broken down into formaldehyde. If you've ever dissected a frog in biology class, you may have witnessed one of the many uses of this chemical. Formaldehyde reacts with the amino acids in proteins. Proteins are chains of amino acids that fold to form very unique structures. The way these chains fold gives proteins the proper shape and the flexibility to interact with other molecules. Formaldehyde diffuses into tissues and cells where it forms crosslinks between different amino acids. The protein is stuck rigidly in whatever conformation it was in and is no longer able to carry out any reactions! This property makes formaldehyde useful for a number of chemical processes that fix things in a particular state
 
Methanol is one of a host of alcohols normally produced during the fermentation of carbon-based compounds. SNIP

Then there is this from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

Methanol has a high toxicity in humans. If as little as 10 mL of pure methanol is ingested, for example, it can break down into formic acid, which can cause permanent blindness by destruction of the optic nerve, and 30 mL is potentially fatal,[18] although the median lethal dose is typically 100 mL (4 fl oz) (i.e. 1–2 mL/kg body weight of pure methanol[19]). Reference dose for methanol is 0.5 mg/kg/day.[20] Toxic effects take hours to start, and effective antidotes can often prevent permanent damage.[18] Because of its similarities in both appearance and odor to ethanol (the alcohol in beverages), it is difficult to differentiate between the two (such is also the case with denatured alcohol). However, there are cases of methanol resistance, such as that of Mike Malloy, who was the victim of a failed murder attempt by methanol in the early 1930s.[21]

Methanol is toxic by two mechanisms. First, methanol (whether it enters the body by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin) can be fatal due to its CNS depressant properties in the same manner as ethanol poisoning. Second, in a process of toxication, it is metabolized to formic acid (which is present as the formate ion) via formaldehyde in a process initiated by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver.[22] Methanol is converted to formaldehyde via alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and formaldehyde is converted to formic acid (formate) via aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH). The conversion to formate via ALDH proceeds completely, with no detectable formaldehyde remaining.[23] Formate is toxic because it inhibits mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase, causing the symptoms of hypoxia at the cellular level, and also causing metabolic acidosis, among a variety of other metabolic disturbances.[24]

Methanol = toxic = the less ingested the better. Seems quite straightforward to me.

If you plan or fortifying I would fortify the whole batch and not the individual bottles.

Why? It seems that doing it per bottle allows for more exact control of the mixture. It would also allow for more easy experimenting with the fortification %.

Do one bottle with no fort, 1 at 1% boost, 1 at 2% boost etc. Let them sit for a few weeks and then have a tasting party to compare them.
 
Fortifying the whole batch is the best way to get consistency for each bottle.
 
Fortifying the whole batch is the best way to get consistency for each bottle.

That makes sense. And I guess if I think ahead and properly mark up containers ahead of time I will know how much is in the container within a fairly small fraction of a liter.

Dealing with less than a liter at a time tiny variations in measurement of the spirits could make for a noticeable difference between batches.

You convinced me. At least for batches after I figure out how much I want to fortify.

Any thought about how many ABV% points to add? The yeast strains i'm looking at using are rated up to 16% to 18% So I think i'd be sort of surprised to see any wild yeasts that can keep up at that level so I'm just looking for a little insurance to keep the cast yeast from restarting.

I'm still thinking about the pasteurization thing too, but probably more of a bottle/vat style like the beer guys do it. Seems simple and effective.
 
I would fortify so that your ABV is at least 3% higher than that of the yeast supposed max tolerance. You need to fortify based on your ABV at the end of fermentation.
 
Yes, I've seen yeasts that were rated to go to 18% actually go to 20%. Didn't know the 3% rule, but that does jive with my experience..
 
3% sounds like a good jumping off point. Maybe I'll bottle half to pasteurize and fortify the rest and compare the results. Man I can't wait to get started.

My bottle collection has begun already. Soon I'll have something to fill them with besides dreams.
 
A good question that I'll give a two part answer to.

First, I'm a Californian child of the 60's and 70's though I don't eat vegan or even organic religiously like some do, I still do my best to eat the more natural or organic products when I can. If I have a choice to use chemicals or use an alternative route, so long as the alternative works comparably well, I will choose the non chemical option.

Second, I'm pretty sure that at some point the chemicals were the alternative and not the norm, and the techniques to do these things without the chemicals are out there. I'm not looking to do it halfway, I'm just looking to do it differently, do it old school if you will. If it takes a little more work, a little more time, I'm OK with that.

But in the end I'm not gonna compromise on safety, that is a given.

I thought I was gonna get away without commenting on this thread, but NOOOOO!

Read this....

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/DS.jsp?sk=29143

Be sure to look at the CALIFORNIA stats at bottom.

And you are worried about chemicals? Then don't make or consume wine, period, is my advice. (Commercial wineries were actually filtering wines through ASBESTOS until the mid-80s.)

Oh yeah, let's not forget my other fav, the MSDS for the chemical we are creating!

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9923956
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top