Fizzy wine problem

[dillybar]

In late 2011 I made three wines from juice buckets. All were Italian varieties from the same supplier. I fermented and bulk aged all three to the same schedule and added the same k-meta for stabilization. They all got a good dose of vacuum degas along with several months of bulk aging.

Now after bottling and about of year in the cellar I have some interesting sparkling wine results. The Amarone has a slight and consistent carbonation to it, I wouldn't call it ruined but its noticeable. The Barbera is normal. The Sangiovese is different from bottle to bottle. I have opened bottles that were completely without carbonation and some that are so full of fizz its like opening a can of soda and hearing the bubbles rise to the top.

I can understand variations from batch to batch even when using the same schedule. But I don't know why the variation bottle to bottle in the Sangiovese.

Mike

 

[TonyP]

The carbonation was probably the result of re-fermentation. Just a guess, but I suspect the "carbonation" seeped from some of the bottles - those with imperfect corks. In other words, you probably had fermentation and "carbonation" in all the bottles equally but some was removed.

 

[loumik]

In late 2011 I made three wines from juice buckets. All were Italian varieties from the same supplier. I fermented and bulk aged all three to the same schedule and added the same k-meta for stabilization. They all got a good dose of vacuum degas along with several months of bulk aging.

Now after bottling and about of year in the cellar I have some interesting sparkling wine results. The Amarone has a slight and consistent carbonation to it, I wouldn't call it ruined but its noticeable. The Barbera is normal. The Sangiovese is different from bottle to bottle. I have opened bottles that were completely without carbonation and some that are so full of fizz its like opening a can of soda and hearing the bubbles rise to the top.

I can understand variations from batch to batch even when using the same schedule. But I don't know why the variation bottle to bottle in the Sangiovese.

Mike[/QUOTE

I don't see any mention of you adding Pot. sorbate when you stabilized. If you missed this addition that would explain the refermentation.
LOUMIK

 

[BernardSmith]

Here's where my lack of experience kicks in. If the wine was refermenting would you not expect to find some bottle bombs (worse case) or corks that popped? I wonder if the problem is not in refermentation but in whether the wine was adequately degassed. If the wine contained gas when it was bottled, the corks may have been able to keep the gas trapped and some bottles may have had more and some less CO2 outgas before the corks were added.

 

[jimmyjames23]

Did you use potassium sorbate along with the k meta?

 

[dillybar]

I don't use sorbate normally on my juice buckets. I have done dozens of Chilean buckets the same way without these issues.

 

[jimmyjames23]

.

You're probably right about degassing.

 

[Turock]

How old were these wines when you bottled them? We bulk age in the carboy for at least 1 year. By that time, all the CO2 is gone from the wine. If you bottle around the 6 month mark, you risk having CO2 in your wine. I presume these were dry wines--no backsweetening done? If you sweeten at all, you have to use sorbate.

Fizzy wines are due to too much CO2 or sweetening and using old sorbate or no sorbate at all.. Just because you manually degassed, does not mean you got it all. That's why aging in the secondary to at least 9 months is better than manually degassing when doing non-kit wines.

 

[jswordy]

I'm with Turlock. My theory is that it's excess CO2. A referment surely would have busted a bottle or two or pushed out some corks. You can degas and remove it, or wait it out in the carboy.

On the other hand, a nice teaspoon of sugar in the bottom of a champagne bottle, unstabilized wine on top, and a champagne cork that is wire baled to the bottle top will make for a nice sparkling wine.

 

[dillybar]

No back sweeting, bulk aged more than three months but not more than six. I tend to agree on the residual CO2 theory but can't figure out why it varies so much between bottles in the same wine.

In any case I may try to rebottle this batch. Any thoughts or suggestions on the best method for this?

 

[jimmyjames23]

Open them up.

Pour them into a clean Demi

Add sorbate and k meta (stabilize)

Stir, vacuum degas 5 days.

Either let stand for rear king or filter and bottle.

 

[Turock]

I would get the wine back into a carboy and let it degass. It will probably be a couple months to degass naturally. I'm very much against manual degassing because of the introduction of oxygen. When you think it's done degassing, take a small sample in something like a test tube, put your finger over it and shake it to check for fizziness.

This wine will taste a whole lot better without the CO2. In the future, be sure not to bottle so early. Non-kit wines need time in the carboy to degass and age up a bit. You can bottle whites earlier than reds--but be sure they are clear and degassed--we like waiting until at least 9 months. Reds should bulk age a year to be sure they are totally clear and have a little age on them--unless it's a big red like Cab or Pinot Noir. Those need a long aging time-frame.

 

[wineman2013]

I hate to disagree with everyone but This sounds like malolactic fermentation in the bottle . If the juice was not pasteurized it could contain wild MLB.

If your hydrometer told you the wine was dry before you bottled it and since you bulk aged it for 3-6 months , it's probably mlf.
The bacteria can come to life in the bottle as free so2 levels drop as the wine ages. And since free so2 levels drop at different rates in different bottles that explains the variation.

Mlf in the bottle typically produces less pressure than renewed alcoholic fermentation , so it won't push corks or blow up bottles but it can make things fizzy.

If this is the case , don't add sorbate . It will ruin the wine .

Do you have the ability to test via paper chromatography? If so test the most fizzy bottle and one from the same batch that is not fizzy . I bet you find lower Malic levels in the fizzy one

 

[dillybar]

Wineman, your explanation makes the most sense to me. I have a couple questions based on your theory.

I assume the best fix is still to degas and rebottle? If so do I risk further malo fermentation after rebottling?

On this batch or other buckets in the future if I don't do a malo fermentation how would I prevent it from happening in the bottle?

I don't have any testing equipment as I mainly do kits but perhaps it's time to invest.

Thanks everyone for your input and feedback.

Mike

 

[jimmyjames23]

Read this.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malolactic_fermentation#section_1

Does your wine have a tart green apple or grapefruit taste?

 

[wineman2013]

Green apple is what unmlf'd white wines will show since Malic acid is the primary acid in apples.
Red wine pretty much never shows apple flavours . In a white wine the more mlf progresses the less apple character it will have.

It's possible to put it all back in a carboy and let mlf Finnish , test for completion sulfite then re bottle .

I would probably just decant it using one of those aerator funnels and let it sit in the decanter for an hour or so , occasionally agitating it up in the decanter before drinking.

In the future innoculating all red wine (exept kits) with a MLB culture , letting mlf Finnish , test for completion , sulfite and age before bottleing would be best practice. All red grape wines (except kits) should go through mlf to ensure microbial stability .

If that's too much for you , buy pasteurized juice or stick with kits.

 

[Turock]

Bottling a juice bucket in 3 months after primary fermentation doesn't allow enough yeast cells to fall out of the wine. I personally don't think it's an MLF as juice buckets always have SO2 added to them.

 

[wineman2013]

So2 won't nessisarily kill MLB , it suppresses it and sometimes it can come back to life .
Sterile filtering and pasteurization are much more certain to lower the risk of mlf than so2 alone.

Lysozyme may be combined with so2 to add insurance against in bottle mlf .
http://morewinemaking.com/products/lysozyme.html?site_id=5
If so2 was 100% effective they wouldn't sell lysozyme

In this case , and the original poster can confirm , the wine tested dry at the end of ferment and was then aged for several months before bottleing . If the wine was dry , then there isn't any fuel for yeast to cause carbonation in the wine .

So was the wine dry when bottled?

If the answer is yes, then bacteria becomes the most likely candidate as this wine is carbonated not just gassy like a young kit.
We know there is a food source , Malic acid , what we don't know is the free so2 level of the wine currently , under 10ppm free so2 , mlf can start . And we don't know if the wines test positive for Malic.

This is why testing is critical , 50 bucks for a Malic testing kit so you can do paper chromatography and a vinmetica to test so2 levels and we'd have our solid answer .

In the absence of testing , if the wine was dry at bottleing , another form of fermentation caused the carbonation is the most reasonable explanation.

 

[Turock]

OK Wineman--I see what you're saying. He said he didn't sweeten so yep, he's probably got an MLF going on.

 

[dillybar]

Well I have learned a lot in this discussion, thanks for all the responses.

I measured sg at .992 at the end of fermentation. At that point I stabilized with 1/4tsp of K-meta. An additional dose at bottling with one racking during aging to remove sediment. Why, because that's what I've always done.

So I will be investing in some testing kits and consider doing mlf on my buckets in the future. Better to make specific additions based on data rather than past practice.

Mike