- Apr 25, 2013
- Reaction score
That's not what he said. I took it to mean that yeast needs 10mg/L for healthy fermentation, you already have 5mg/L at crush, the yeast needs 5mg/L more, "little additional," to complete a health fermentation. You might cut him some slack; he's a research scientist and physicist by training, and influential enough to have a wine competition named after him. That doesn't make him right, but he's not some slacker commenting on a Facebook post.So yeast needs 10 milligrams to be healthy, but it only then needs 5 milligrams to "complete fermentation". So at 5 mg there is enough O2 to complete fermentation, but the yeast will not be health?
I quoted him. That was exactly what he said.That's not what he said.
And I indicated how someone else, who is not you, might take it to mean something else. That was my point by poor didactics. It allowed too much interpretation due to ambiguity. And equally, even if you don't think it is ambiguous, does not mean everyone agrees with you. All this then adds to a potential for individual confusion. And thus is potentially a disservice.I took it to mean
If he was, as just one example an auto mechanic as his day job but a brilliant amateur wine maker, your point to cut him some slack would have merit. But if he is a research scientist he should know the proper way to write even a white paper, so as to provide and show the source of real facts and knowledge with even some generic source citations -- the authors citation of himself at the barest minimum (because not everyone may circulate around his elite circle). Citations also allow for an appropriate baseline for debate. So he should know better and even more reasons why I will then absolutely not cut him any slack. He is writing something that even a beginner will read. It should still be properly referenced and not just dispensed as dogma just because he has a "wine competition named after him"**.You might cut him some slack; he's a research scientist and physicist by training, and influential enough to have a wine competition named after him.
Thanks for sharing this. Seems like my “theory” of o2 tolerance during aging from early exposure holds some water after all.Step into the oxygen black hole if you like. There is a lot of good information here. There are so many factors involved, this is why general wine making procedures have been adopted over the years, and long before the technology became available to make these kind of measurements. This is interesting to me, and may be interesting to some or may turn off others, but really we just want to make wine we like.
That’s kinda my point. To not put too much worry into it. I don’t get into all the specifics either. Or references. Life’s too short. My mindset has always been open ferments, and to not fear o2. And I believe part of that PowerPoint got into the idea I had that early exposure to o2 during fermentation benefits the wine later on— making it less susceptible to browning from o2 exposure during aging.It put me to sleep. I'm happy with my plastic bucket full of yeast gasping for oxygen. I did not know they were suffering and I doubt they are aware either. I just want to make wine, not write papers. Sounds ultra simplistic, I know. But, the reality is there is very little we in our micro wineries can do to change. Add O2? How much is good? How much is too much? How much will the instruments to measure it cost? I just follow the good practices I learned here...stir daily, then airlock, watch the head space, bottle and store as best I can. I like the results.
But....I've never been a numbers guy.
Stickman & Mismost - I agree. Such reports are great for those looking for the newest fine details of how to make wine and have limitless time and funds to 'perfect' their methods.
Unfortunately most of us simply need clear and SIMPLE guidance on the do's and don'ts of wine making. Investing another $100.00 or more to read how much oxygen is in my wine is pointless to me and most home hobby wine makers. Fine for those making 50 gallons of wine at a whack and commercial wineries. For the rest of us give us the plain and simple facts, tips, guides that we can apply day-to-day.
Here's a similar practical example from my days in the military. The manufacturers of a fighter jet and a munitions company sent engineers to airbases to work side-by-side with the guys and gals who service fighters and load munitions. I believe it was called Project Blue Suit and here are 2 examples:
Engineer - "Son - according to the tech manual you should be opening this door to access that engine adjustment point."
Airman - "Yes sir, but I can't get my tool in that door as easily and safely from THAT door but I can do it from here and it takes fewer fasteners to remove and replace this panel because I can do this other adjustment too.
Engineer - Scratches his head and then steps away to make a phone call - telling the tech manual folks to fix that tech manual.
Engineer from Munitions Company - "Well how's it going today? Any problems arming and loading these bombs?"
Munitions Loader Airman - "Well no problems sir but one thing makes our job difficult in keeping track of the fuses for these bombs. You see sir the bombs come on pallets with 10 to a pallet. BUT the fuses come in boxes of 12. Every time we arm up these jets we have fuses left over and the numbers don't match up to the bombs left on a pallet. We have to account for all of them and it's a real pain."
Engineer from Munitions Company - Steps away and makes a phone call to the plant and loudly makes it known that the packaging and shipping of their bombs and fuses has to change NOW.
It's all about practical steps. You can give me all the technical info you want but if it's not in practical terms I can use... It's not likely to do anything but frustrate me. Sometimes practical application of scientific facts is impractical or so difficult as to make the job ugly. AND if the real world impact of it all isn't really critical, maybe it's not THAT important. Tell me how long is too long to leave a wine in a fermentation bucket once it finishes fermenting. Give me numbers and methods I can use. Give me solutions when you tell me there is a problem. Give me Risks vs Benefits so I can make a realistic choice best for me.
Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field. (Dwight D. Eisenhower)
Well said, AJ. Yes, lots of people here are not the target audience for some of these documents. Doesn't mean that nobody here is!Why go so far out of your way to make a point that it’s not practical info for small scale makers? Thats already understood. But that DOESNT MEAN ITS NOT BENEFICIAL TO KNOW** —and certainly no harm in discussing.
I don’t have the means for many things in winemaking- but still find it interesting.
And many people do make large volumes or own small wineries on WMT. Maybe this info helps them. Maybe they know some comparable techniques that could help us smaller scale makers. Who knows?!
But instead of discussing the findings and potential techniques we could do—-we are discussing why the info isn’t relevant? Or trying to poke holes in a report’s references or math- but not the subject itself? Why? This is a damn winemaking forum!
If I don’t find a thread’s topic to be relevant for me, then I just simply skip over it