We had a serious flood in the area where my old family home and our wine cellar are located. The result, about 10-inches of water flooded the cellar for a couple of days and the wines located on the lowest shelf were submerged. They were well-corked and, in my opinion, ought to be fine, but I would appreciate hearing your opinion. I don't want to lose about 3 cases of wine unless absolutely necessary.
Flooded Wine Safe?
- Thread starter smokegrub
- Start date
Help Support Winemaking Talk - Winemaking Forum:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2009
- Messages
- 20,302
- Reaction score
- 2,223
I agree with Wade. Remove the shrink wraps if you use them and spray them with k-meta.
Worst case if you are "REALLY" worried is to: remove foil, spray tops with Kmeta, remove and discard old corks, then re-cork bottles. This may be overkill and unnecessary in some opinions, but what matters is that you are comfortable in the end.
Bartman
Senior Member
I know it's better to be safe than sorry, but what is the point of sanitizing the outside of the corks? The wine is on the inside, of course, so the only part that need to be sanitized needs to be the inside of the cork and bottle, right? If the wine was contaminated by the flooding, then the corks must not have sealed well enough, and they probably oxidizing anyway. Either they survived the flood or they didn't, and nothing done afterwards can change that, the way I see it. Spraying the outside of the cork just seems like a waste of k-meta solution.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2009
- Messages
- 20,302
- Reaction score
- 2,223
Bart, I think the point here is peace of mind knowing you did something just in case. For the few pennies it would cost to spray them you know your preventing any bacteria that could possibly be there. If you saw some mold starting to grow on the outside of your bottle from high humidity you know it can't go through the glass but you would wipe it off anyways wouldn't you?
Bartman
Senior Member
runningwolf said:
Certainly, if the bottles are dirty or are sitting in floodwater, I would take action to correct what I could on the outside, but only because it looks gross. Spraying the tops of the corks is pointless, unless you are soaking the corks in k-meta for an extended period (with the intention that the k-meta gets through the cork - an odd approach anyway). Wipe down the bottles and store 'em away - if the corks sealed the wine off, then great; if they didn't and the floodwater reached the wine inside, then it's ruined. I simply don't see any other possible outcomes, and spraying k-meta on the corks wouldn't change the the outcome.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am trying to see if I am missing something about what K-meta can do for you.
Some of the flood water could have been absorbed (ever so slightly) into the top of the cork, depending on how long the bottle set in the flood water. It would take many months for its results to reach the wine, itself.
I think spraying the outside of the cork would kill any contamination still setting on the outside of the cork. Also, the Kmeta would be absorbed into the cork to some degree. When the old cork is removed and replaced, nothing evil would be left on the rim of the bottle.
Most likely the wine is fine, as the corks were likely sealed. It's just the "thought" of some contamination having been absorbed into the cork close to the wine and remaining there for many months to come, still growing until the bottle is opened.
It's just a precaution, not rocket science. The person is abviously concerned about drinking a wine that was once under some pretty nasty gunk. I don't blame them. The Kmeta would kill anything trying to grow at the top around the rim of the cork.
I think spraying the outside of the cork would kill any contamination still setting on the outside of the cork. Also, the Kmeta would be absorbed into the cork to some degree. When the old cork is removed and replaced, nothing evil would be left on the rim of the bottle.
Most likely the wine is fine, as the corks were likely sealed. It's just the "thought" of some contamination having been absorbed into the cork close to the wine and remaining there for many months to come, still growing until the bottle is opened.
It's just a precaution, not rocket science. The person is abviously concerned about drinking a wine that was once under some pretty nasty gunk. I don't blame them. The Kmeta would kill anything trying to grow at the top around the rim of the cork.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2009
- Messages
- 20,302
- Reaction score
- 2,223
Smoke, don't take any chances and due to Haz Mat regulations it will be hard to dispose of them. I suggest splitting the batch in two. Send half to Wade and the other half to me. We will dispose of properly,I guarantee! I will even send you pictures of the properly disposed (consumed) procedure.
intoxicating
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with the just to be safe group. I would wash the outsides, dip them in Kmeta, cork end first, to clean off that end of the bottle, then remove the old corks and re-cork. That way the corks don't have a chance to grow any nasty fur. Corks allow for a limited amount of transfer, so if they soaked up enough of the swamp water, it could eventually work its way into the good stuff over a period of months or a year.
I don't have my corker. corks or kmeta at this location so I will dip the bottles in clorox and inspect before we leave. If anything appears questionable I will bring the corker here in a month and recork. Thanks for the feedback.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 15,188
- Reaction score
- 1,213
Chlorine (Clorox) can lead to cork taint with real cork so like Wade said don't go the chlorox route!
Bartman
Senior Member
I am finally beginning to understand what the concern is - that some contaminated floodwater soaked into the corks (while it was temporarily submerged) and that floodwater will work its way through the cork into the wine, like a heat-seeking missile relentlessly chasing its target.
But the physics don't work, do they? The pressure exerted by the floodwater pushed the floodwater into the cork while submerged, but once the greater pressure of being underwater was removed, then the path of least resistance would be back out of the cork into the atmosphere, rather than deeper into the cork, which would be far denser than the atmospheric pressure. So, the contaminated floodwater would evaporate back out the top of the cork, where it came in, leaving behind (potentially) some dried up contamination/bacteria at or near the outer portion of the cork.
If that is the scenario we are all imagining, then I think re-corking is unnecessary (although not necessarily pointless), unless you expect the bottles to get wet/flooded periodically to where the bacteria may have the opportunity to get deeper into the cork, especially if you plan on aging this wine for 20 years. Otherwise, forget about it and drink it when you're ready. Uncorking and re-corking exposes the wine to more bacteria and other contaminants as well as oxidation, with certainty, than the potential of contamination from being underwater for a short time, possibly, but probably not, contaminating it.
At most, I would uncork the bottle you believe to be the most likely to be contaminated and look to see how far the cork is discolored, and go from there. Until you look at it, everything else is just speculation and theory.
But the physics don't work, do they? The pressure exerted by the floodwater pushed the floodwater into the cork while submerged, but once the greater pressure of being underwater was removed, then the path of least resistance would be back out of the cork into the atmosphere, rather than deeper into the cork, which would be far denser than the atmospheric pressure. So, the contaminated floodwater would evaporate back out the top of the cork, where it came in, leaving behind (potentially) some dried up contamination/bacteria at or near the outer portion of the cork.
If that is the scenario we are all imagining, then I think re-corking is unnecessary (although not necessarily pointless), unless you expect the bottles to get wet/flooded periodically to where the bacteria may have the opportunity to get deeper into the cork, especially if you plan on aging this wine for 20 years. Otherwise, forget about it and drink it when you're ready. Uncorking and re-corking exposes the wine to more bacteria and other contaminants as well as oxidation, with certainty, than the potential of contamination from being underwater for a short time, possibly, but probably not, contaminating it.
At most, I would uncork the bottle you believe to be the most likely to be contaminated and look to see how far the cork is discolored, and go from there. Until you look at it, everything else is just speculation and theory.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2009
- Messages
- 20,302
- Reaction score
- 2,223
Bart could you please repeat what you just said but a little slower this time so we could comment further on this subject..ROFLMAO
Ditto!runningwolf said:Bart could you please repeat what you just said but a little slower this time so we could comment further on this subject..ROFLMAO
Bart if anything physics aside (please, oh please physics aside), its nothing just to wash and sanitize the bottles and recork just to have peace of mind. Sometimes it does nothing more then make you feel better even if its not necessary. If it was me I would clean and recork just to make sure the wine is alright. After all who knows what was in that water.
Similar threads
