The Joy of Crush

[Boatboy24]

Got this link earlier today. A good summary of the process, the anticipation of getting new grapes going, and the joy of finally getting through press and that first racking.

https://www.thecapitalgrille.com/ev...learnmore_rd:97f26c8faff54f6ca9af608be3816580

 

[Obbnw]

What about us poor bastards who grow our own grapes?

For us the crush ends a long season of worry. Heat, cold, hail, drought, floods, wind, bugs, critters, disease, trimming.....

Really it is a relief to get the grapes picked.

 

[Nebbiolo020]

What about us poor bastards who grow our own grapes?

For us the crush ends a long season of worry. Heat, cold, hail, drought, floods, wind, bugs, critters, disease, trimming.....

Really it is a relief to get the grapes picked.

At work our grapes are coming in late everyone around us has picked but we just aren’t seeing numbers we want, Grenache is at 26 brix and ph of 3.20 and TA of 0.48. Starting to get worried because the ph is really bad and it hasn’t moved much so might be a year of just bad grapes.

 

[ibglowin]

you in the Edna Valley?

At work our grapes are coming in late everyone around us has picked but we just aren’t seeing numbers we want, Grenache is at 26 brix and ph of 3.20 and TA of 0.48. Starting to get worried because the ph is really bad and it hasn’t moved much so might be a year of just bad grapes.

 

[balatonwine]

Grenache is at 26 brix and ph of 3.20 and TA of 0.48.

Rule of thumb is to harvest when TA goes below 6, regardless of what pH is doing.

From the °Brix:TA ratio, ideal is from 30:1 to 35:1. Yours have a ratio of 54:1 which is very out of balance.

Also by the °Brix x pH^2 your grapes have a score of 266 which is close to the recommended score of 260 for a red grape.

From the "numbers" there is no reason not to harvest. In fact, IMHO, you should really have harvested sooner from the TA value.

Hope this helps.

 

[balatonwine]

the joy of finally getting through press and that first racking.

As someone who grows grapes, of many varietals, getting through the final harvest and pressing (still underway) and first racking (today for grapes harvested last month) has more a sense of relief. Relief that the primary went okay, and relief from all the work leading up to and including the harvest.....

Joy comes when I open the first bottle of this year's vintage.

 

[Nebbiolo020]

Rule of thumb is to harvest when TA goes below 6, regardless of what pH is doing.

From the °Brix:TA ratio, ideal is from 30:1 to 35:1. Yours have a ratio of 54:1 which is very out of balance.

Also by the °Brix x pH^2 your grapes have a score of 266 which is close to the recommended score of 260 for a red grape.

From the "numbers" there is no reason not to harvest. In fact, IMHO, you should really have harvested sooner from the TA value.

Hope this helps.

It’s a commercial winery and my boss thinks that basically we need to let ph go up a bit and then pick, and adjust if necessary. He really wants a ph of at least 3.50 to pick them.

 

[balatonwine]

It’s a commercial winery and my boss thinks that basically we need to let ph go up a bit and then pick, and adjust if necessary. He really wants a ph of at least 3.50 to pick them.

Each must make decisions when to pick.

But, IMHO, this is a difficult year, and expecting ideal numbers this year from the field might make later adjustments problematic at best, and a very artificial wine at least (IMHO, the amount of chemical adjustment to each wine should be on the label for consumers to know what exactly they are buying).

Focusing only on pH is also IMHO very narrow. More is happening in those grapes than just pH.

The idea of a "vintage" is maybe better to consider than trying to adjust one's way out of very not normal numbers this year, and other better signs of physiological ripeness when to consider harvest.

Again, all IMHO of course.

Hope this helps.

 

[Nebbiolo020]

Each must make decisions when to pick.

But, IMHO, this is a difficult year, and expecting ideal numbers this year from the field might make later adjustments problematic at best, and a very artificial wine at least (IMHO, the amount of chemical adjustment to each wine should be on the label for consumers to know what exactly they are buying).

Focusing only on pH is also IMHO very narrow. More is happening in those grapes than just pH.

The idea of a "vintage" is maybe better to consider than trying to adjust one's way out of very not normal numbers this year, and other better signs of physiological ripeness when to consider harvest.

Again, all IMHO of course.

Hope this helps.

I’ve personally never been in favor of labeling any additions to wine except sulfites. My boss just has numbers for each varietal he likes to work with an adjusts all our wines if necessary Of course the primary factor is if the flavors and ripeness are where we want it we take the grapes and adjust the wine to where it needs to be. Flavors and aromas come first.

 

[balatonwine]

I’ve personally never been in favor of labeling any additions to wine except sulfites.

For commercial wines, I am of the opinion that it may not be so much what the wine maker wants, but what the consumer should know.

All about transparency.

After all, the Chicago school of economic theory assumes a completely transparent set of information for all consumers to make completely informed decisions. A basis of free market economics. Hiding information breaks those economic theories.

So, if the consumer wants a wine that has been "adjusted", or not, in the cellar, they should be able to read that on each and every label. Why hide that? Afraid the consumer may not want an adjusted wine? Well... Tough. Then harvest when one does not need to adjust. And if necessary, make varietal wines, not adjusted wines. Or throw in a lot of marketing: "Not ideal grapes from the field this year, but our craftsmen wine makers are able to correct and enhance, with loving care, what nature could not do, to bring you the best wine possible, which we are sure you will enjoy in the most romantic and imitate evenings when you decant a bottle of our 2021 vintage. Remember... When you think of the finest of fine wine, think of ".....

.... cough ....

Do note: for the at home hobbyist, adjusting is a personal decision. I am only talking about any wines that are for retail sale to a consumer, who should be transparently and fully informed what is going on with their food and beverages, at every level, on the label so they can make informed decisions.

 

[Nebbiolo020]

For commercial wines, I am of the opinion that it may not be so much what the wine maker wants, but what the consumer should know.

All about transparency.

After all, the Chicago school of economic theory assumes a completely transparent set of information for all consumers to make completely informed decisions. A basis of free market economics. Hiding information breaks those economic theories.

So, if the consumer wants a wine that has been "adjusted", or not, in the cellar, they should be able to read that on each and every label. Why hide that? Afraid the consumer may not want an adjusted wine? Well... Tough. Then harvest when one does not need to adjust. And if necessary, make varietal wines, not adjusted wines. Or throw in a lot of marketing: "Not ideal grapes from the field this year, but our craftsmen wine makers are able to correct and enhance, with loving care, what nature could not do, to bring you the best wine possible, which we are sure you will enjoy in the most romantic and imitate evenings when you decant a bottle of our 2021 vintage. Remember... When you think of the finest of fine wine, think of ".....

.... cough ....

Do note: for the at home hobbyist, adjusting is a personal decision. I am only talking about any wines that are for retail sale to a consumer, who should be transparently and fully informed what is going on with their food and beverages, at every level, on the label so they can make informed decisions.

I don’t share that opinion, I’m of the opinion that the consumer doesn’t need to know because it’s not relevant and they may not understand or care and frankly if someone doesn’t buy a wine because of it that’s fine. It’s also not required by any government agencies so why put needless information on a label? If someone asks and sometimes people will come into the winery tasting room and ask we will tell them. But it’s not in my opinion necessary.
Again that is my personal opinion and I welcome others opinions on the matter.

 

[balatonwine]

I’m of the opinion that the consumer doesn’t need to know because it’s not relevant and they may not understand or care and frankly if someone doesn’t buy a wine because of it that’s fine.

Do you realize you are saying others do not need to know facts, and that you are declaring that what facts are available they should not know simply because you unilaterally decided they may not understand or "care".

Wow... Think about that for a minute. You are basically thinking for others, and making decisions for others, without their full knowledge. And in some manner insulting their intelligence. Consumers can only decide to buy or not buy based on fully transparent information, which you are openly stating you are willfully withholding unilaterally (i.e. only if "asked").

Ever hear of the cigarettes? Or worse, the micronite filter for cigarettes? Kent also did not think the consumers needed to know those were made from asbestos.

Above is an extreme counter example, simply to make a point. To assume others should not be informed is ridiculous. That is not IMHO, it is basic humanity and respect for others. And it should not take a government agency to make companies be respectful. But all too often, most are not. Which is why government starts making regulations. What a pity. We can do away with all government regulations if simply all companies simply were 100% transparent in what they do. And let the consumer decide for themselves.

What is IMHO is that companies or persons who are not transparent, may not be trusted or trustworthy, and may not deserve our business in general.

Side note: Care to state your company and an avatar of a real picture of yourself? Not needed of course. You have a full right to anonymity. But, even some minor level of transparency has value in a community.

 

[Obbnw]

As a cheap wine consumer I assume that they are all "adjusted" unless they specifically tell me otherwise.

That assumption may be an american thing since so much of what we can buy is so processed.

My philosophy was "I get what I get" but my grapes are typically high PH and last year some did go "bad". I adjusted PH on a couple of my ferments this year to see if it would make a difference.

Anyway back on topic, I've been pondering the "joy". For me the joy is the week before I pick, the gorgeous grapes just hanging the the autumn sun, all promise and potential. Getting a bottle that is drinkable is a relief. But I am not a supertaster or even close so the nuances of wine are beyond my comprehension.

 

[balatonwine]

As a cheap wine consumer I assume that they are all "adjusted" unless they specifically tell me otherwise.

Regarding "cheap" wine (which does not mean bad wine), not an unwise world view. But would it not be nice to know if that was "in fact" true?

FWIIW, I have no problem with adjusted wines. Many people roll eyes at "2 buck chuck" at Trader Joes. But, actually, for the price it is not always all that bad for a basic table wine. Not a great wine, but it is what it is.

My issue is trying to pass off an adjusted wine against a vintage. The adjusted wine may be "better" (or not), but is should be labeled for what it is. Let the consumer decided. The long hairs can decide to buy the "natural wine" and the technogeeks can buy the adjusted. But they should still be buying based in part on total transparency on what they are buying.

Side note: I have a pony tail, and an IT company. I am a long haired technogeek. So I can see both sides of the issue.

 

[Nebbiolo020]

As a cheap wine consumer I assume that they are all "adjusted" unless they specifically tell me otherwise.

That assumption may be an american thing since so much of what we can buy is so processed.

My philosophy was "I get what I get" but my grapes are typically high PH and last year some did go "bad". I adjusted PH on a couple of my ferments this year to see if it would make a difference.

Anyway back on topic, I've been pondering the "joy". For me the joy is the week before I pick, the gorgeous grapes just hanging the the autumn sun, all promise and potential. Getting a bottle that is drinkable is a relief. But I am not a supertaster or even close so the nuances of wine are beyond my comprehension.

Wines generally aren’t adjusted, but in regions that are hot what we do at work is remove some wine to concentrate the must and then add water and tartaric to water down the brix so it will ferment and tartaric to correct the ph that’s all we do. Nothing that needs to be mentioned.

 

[balatonwine]

Wines generally aren’t adjusted

Do you have data to prove that for commercial wines?

I can state that wines are generlly adjusted. Providing the same amount of proof you did (i.e. zero).

Given all the wineries existing, and doing things differently in each, I doubt that you can prove that statement.

Nor I can prove mine.

Ergo, both statements, till proven otherwise, are pretty useless.

But given statements above from a commercial wine employee, I tend to personally doubt yours more than mine. But that is simply IMHO.

Nothing that needs to be mentioned.

So if no adjustments, why not mention it if true? That is, why do not all commercial interests say "we did no adjustments". So simple. Else... maybe because they did....

And if they did... Maybe so what? Come up front with it. One can make a better wine with adjustment from a bad year, so why not admit it? But the consumer should know. So they can decide. That is a basis of neoclassical economics. Transparency is key. Else, hiding information is basically the same as lying.

Ergo, what needs "mention" is relative. And both an issue of law and opinion (and by extension ethics). Wine is required to label they require sulfites. By law. But laws do not always represent total ethical consumer reality. Your fresh potatoes probably do also contain sulfites, but do not require a label (potatoes are specially exempt -- because of politics). What is "legally" required to label, and what is actually in your food may be two very different issues.

Which is why statements like "not required by any government agencies" or "we follow all applicable laws" really are irrelevant in regards to greater social responsibility and public good. Such are PR terms and red flags to any thinking person as coming from companies interested only to entrench corporate self interest who may have something to hide.

Food which may contain sulfites (even if not labeled), Oregon State Extension:

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/additive/sulf_tbl.htm

 

[Sage]

I have a reasonably long association in the food industry. A long time ago but relevant to labeling. If you put it on (even if it's not required) sooner or later someone in "the gov" will notice and decide everyone should be doing it. Not a law, just a "ruling by the agency" involved.

If it's not a requirement..... Don't!!

 

[Boatboy24]

If it's not a requirement..... Don't!!

A good rule, and applies in my financial work when dealing with auditors. Give them exactly what they ask for and nothing more. Not that we're trying to hide anything, but why provide data that might create more lines of questioning (and more work)?

Although, I'm all for requiring full disclosure on food/drink labels. I think we have a right to know what we're buying/consuming.