Adjusting PH in Wine with Acid Additions The 2012 Vintage When Central Valley makes a visit to Suisun and Napa. Ph and Acid adjustments just became a reality again.
I thought twice before writing this blog. The thought of the past still vivid in my mind was something I always hoped would remain there. But unfortunately this is not the case. Another reason not to write this blog is it conjures so many memories of the old winepress days and the endless arguments and subsequent banning and suspensions for discussions that in the moderators’ eyes got out of hand. Yes discussions of Acid and Ph for some reason became extraordinarily heated. I don’t think I have the energy to re-live them again. Nevertheless for the purpose of education and sharing of thoughts among serious Amateur Winemakers I decided to step in to what I hope is not a mine field. In any case if the bombs should go off my decision to go forward is based on many members of the Westchester Amateur Winemakers Club having no idea or experience dealing with a vintage such as the 2012 variety. So from that standpoint I hope this post will serve them well.
When Paul Gatti relayed to me in November of 2012 that the Tartaric Delivery Trucks were working overtime in Napa I chuckled. Our own 2012 Beckstoffer George the Third Cabernet Sauvignon at crush tested with a PH of 3.85. This reading was certainly much higher than the past 3 vintages. We did add a touch of tartaric to the must but very lightly and cautiously having learned of rising TA at the end of fermentation with grapes coming off the M&M Grape Cold Chain.
We documented all of ph of the varietals we made this year but it was only the George the Third where we added some tartaric at crush. Here are the PH results at Crush for the Varietals
Suisun Duet (Wooden Valley/ Koch) Cab Sav 3.53 24.5 9/26 Lower than others reported on Winepress
Wooden Valley Primitivo 3.75 24.5 9/26
Lanza Musto Sangiovese 3.3 25 10/7
Paso Robles Petite Verdot 3.67 22 10/14
Wooden Valley Petite Sirah 3.75 22 10/7 lower than other years that were colder but yet ripe
Wooden Valley Napa Gamay 3.45 22.5 10/28 very long hang time, ripe , a tad over cropped
Napa Beckstoffer Las Amigas Merlot 3.65 26.5 10/14 as expected from Beckstoffer
Napa Beckstoffer George the Third Cab Sav 3.85 26 10/20 typical as expected from Beckstoffer
So those were the numbers. Here are the numbers now post mlf:
Suisun Koch Cab Sav Suisun Duet (Wooden Valley/ Koch) Cab Sav Ph 3.7 TA .58
Woooden Valley Primitivo Ph 4.01-4.1 TA .46-.48
Lanza Musto Sangiovese not available at this time
Paso Robles Petite Verdot Ph 3.75 TA 55
Wooden Valley Petite Sirah Ph 3.81 TA 52
Napa Beckstoffer Las Amigas Merlot not available at this time
Napa Beckstoffer George the Third Cab Sav Ph 3.70 TA .58
Wooden Valley Napa Gamay Ph 3.18 TA .66
While we still need a few numbers to complete the list, these should be available shortly we can see we need to deal with the Primitivo among others going forward. I will leave the conversation for the time being at that. Comments please.
What is the treatment for the 2012 primitivo now that it has been racked and so2′d at 1/4 tsp per 5 gal ?
OK here goes! There are a few ways to approach this. We have 2 groups here when addressing the Primitivo. Those in the group with one 5 gallon carboy and those in the group with multiple carboys of Primitivo destined to be put in a barrel.
If I were in the first group I would raise the TA from .46 or .48 take your pick to .55. In order to do this you need to add 16.8 grams or 3.4 Teaspoons at 4.6 or 13.1 grams or 2.6 Teaspsoons at .48 to achieve .55. At this point I would measure the PH and see how much lower it ended up. I would taste it and decide if you think it can handle additional Tartaric Acid if there is need to lower the PH further.
If I were in the second group, those with multiple carboys of Primitivo I would follow the following strategy. Starting at .46 I would raise one carboy to .65 by adding 35.6 grams or 7.1 Teaspoons. If Starting at .48 use 32 grams or 6.3 Teaspoons of Tartaric Acid. I then would measure the PH to see the results of the addition and taste to see if the wine is overly acidic to taste. If so it will be blended back anyway and any additions to the remaining carboys can be made and adjusted accordingly.
If I were in the first group I would pay attention to the results of the second group.
If you are not in favor of the above you can drive yourself nuts and make 375ml sample bottles with varying acid additions and test the ph and taste all of them to find the amount acid addition you can live with whether it is ph or taste that drives your decision. Personally, I do not have the patience for that.
In all cases above allow 24-48 to test and taste after making an addition of Tartaric.
Well Primitivo being the worst offender, some of the other varietals listed above also need attention.
Waiting for my Tartaric Acid to be delivered and as part of group two I will jump in ASAP. Another of my concerns is going to be SO2 management. I have quickly learned to question the facts of everything I read about this hobby from the “experts”….Morewine has a pretty thorough article about SO2 management at http://morewinemaking.com/public/pdf/so2.pdf Of particlular interest to us this year is the increase in recomended SO2 for increased Ph. For example they speak about 40 PPM of So2 at a Ph of 3.5, but that goes up to 70 PPM at 3.8. If we can not get our Ph to move as fast as our TA we may also need to increase our SO2 for aging.
Comments??? And thanks!
1/4 tsp per 5 gallons is not enough so2 for a 4 ph Zinfandel (primitivo)
I’d go with 1/2 tsp if I didn’t have a way of testing so2 .
Then worry about tartaric.
Why didn’t you adjust the tartaric preferment on the ones over 3.7 ???
Zac I will answer you last question first. Beginning in 2007 I became gun shy about adding tartaric at the crush if the ph was below 3.8. My reasoning is without any chance of an accurate TA due to what I call the results of the M&M cold chain I prefer to get the ferment over and then look at the TA. Some might say some old habits die hard. But this has been my practice. Even as careful as Dan was this year he over shot. He can relay his experience about this. At 3.8 I make very cautious additions as you can see with the results of the GIII.
As for Bobby’s adding the 1/4 teaspoon, he is not alone. But I would approach the situation at this time a bit differently. Bobby having more than one carboy has the luxury to make some acid adjustments and by lowering the Ph he would need less So2. My thinking is he will rack again in the spring and if he can lower the PH now then in the spring he will need less So2 on the racking thereby reducing the total So2 added to the wine. So I think the first order of business is to get the Ph down.
@ Dave That is exactly right and you can see that Zac is recommending just that for Bobby. I think even though at this time the So2 levels are lower than required the wines are generally protected as they are in a colder environment for the next few months. This will protect them for now as we deal with the acid issue. But this is no reason to ignore or delay dealing with this.
By not adjusting tartaric preferment when it’s above 3.7 you face some issues.
Post fermentation acid additions are much less stable and the likelihood of unwanted tartrate salt precipitation is greatly increased , so you don’t get the benefit of the acid you add post ferment . Tannin stability is also reduced.
Colour is affected negatively when the ph is left high throughout the ferment.
The risk of microbial spoilage and va production during primary is increased at higher phs.
I’ve made wine from cold stored fruit , frozen must etc . Not sure what you mean by cold chain effect .
In this case this mystery effect didn’t seem to do much and you’ve had a typical post mlf ph shift and are facing a high ph .
You might want to run preferment TA and phs going forward and use both numbers to decide on your preferment adjustment additions or not additions.
Ie you could develop cut offs , ie 5.5 TA 3.7 but if the acid is lower ph higher make an addition.
What are you using to test TA? A well mixed warmed up sample and a vinmetica should be pretty accurate . It works for me with frozen or cold storage fruit.
Point one.. usually if you raise TA by .1 you will not experience any of the effects you mention. And since we are so close to good numbers with most of these caution seems prudent.
We have been ok with VA as we are usually not out of the ball park as you can see. However the Primitivo is a surprise for sure.
As far a Pre Ferment, my cutoff has been 3.8 I could certainly lower that to 3.7 going forward. This is something serious to consider. In any case your advise is sound.
I have tried a few methods of getting accurate pre ferment TA numbers, I have given up, including not only warming but employing a centrifuge. We could invest in the vinmetica 300 as opposed to the standard ph meter if you think that is more accurate.
Like I said in the post a virtual mine field. LOL But seriously I think the conversation is good for others to weigh and contemplate.
i am using the accuvin ta test kit however i have been contemplating the vinmetrica sc-300 it looks pretty sweet but the budget wont allow it at this time
my TA is on its way
The case Gene refers to is my Las Amigas Merlot. Pre-ferment numbers were: pH 3.47, TA .50…
Logistics necessitated me getting my grapes as frozen must.
I chased the TA, and added what I calculated to be 1/2 of what I calculated I would need to get to .60. As the ferment approached dry, my wine started to taste extremely tart.
Final numbers, post MLF- pH 3.2, TA .88
While I recognize I should have just left well enough alone with that 3.47 pH, I suspect now that my TA numbers were off due to acid being not in solution.
I am also having trouble with my Lanza Sangio. These I got as grapes, cold, but not frozen, and I crushed them myself.
Pre-ferment numbers: pH 3.51, TA .52….didn’t succeed at MLF with Enoferm Alpha, and Zac’s super culture method. Other wines successfully underwnen MLF with the same culture.
Just took the post ferment, pre MLF numbers on the Sangio- pH 3.18, TA .75.
I did not add any tartaric to this must.
I am perplexed. Although it explains why I couldn’t get MLF going. BTW, I like the way the wine tastes.
While the Accuvin Malic Test Strips are excellent, the TA test strips are worthless.
Gene,Am I missing something?Why not make adjustments at crush?We always do and the end results have been great.Doe’s not matter Cv or the king.I would adust at crush.
Looks good to me Gene, what’s the concern? The Primitivo definitely needs to have the pH dropped but then the acid is crazy low so it shouldn’t be a problem. Some of the others probably need some acid to balance the flavor out so you will get a small drop in pH making them more stable. I know you hate it but trials really help dial everything in. I wouldn’t bother measuring TA on a finished wine since the number really has no bearing on what I’m going to do. I only add acid pre-ferment when the pH is over 3.7 or 3.8 since its a crap shoot, not knowing what the shift is going to be and what the wine is going to taste like. For red wines, I have never experienced any negative affects of adding acid after MLF. Just the opposite, no more over adds. I have only experienced late acid additions dropping out on white wines during cold stabilization so maybe this happens to reds in cold winter storage conditions. For color, I find higher pH wines usually give up color like there’s no tomorrow. For that matter, haven’t had a color issue in years regardless of pH.
One thing that would also be interesting Gene, would be to add Brix numbers to the above. I’ve had some really good grapes come in with lower Brix (22-24) and high pH. This can indicate long hang times in moderate weather since the grower wasn’t forced to pick because the sugar was too high. You get really rich flavor without to much alcohol. High sugar and high pH is usually a hot year/hot climate where they had to hang longer to get maturity. Or they were just building a bomb.
I totally agree with CRR and this is what I have been doing. If a pre ferment and consistent and repeatable value is pH 3.7 or 3.8 or above, I check TA and then scrutinize the taste. If flabby then I add a little Tartaric..like half of calculated amount to move .05 (half of needed amount to go from .50 to .55 for example.)
That is often enough to bring pH into much better zone. If not tart and pH is still high add the rest of the dose. 3.65 to 3.7 I stop unless it tastes flabby. I rather end up with a delicious wine than paint remover with an age-worthy pH. Bump the SO2 if you need to. I see many commercial Petite Sirah specs on websites at 3.7 to 3.8 and they age fine. Cabs, Petites, even heavy bodied Merlots have enough tanins usually that oxidation or especially microbes are infrequent with those pH levels.
I never sweat that issue. If addition is needed make sure it is stable on several testings for reasons of Cold Chain acid drop out or K+ shifts or whatever reasons, and it is better to add pre-ferment. Have never added post MLF as the only problems would have been if too tart and needed less(taste wise), but pH post ferment……..”it is what it is”
I will follow Gene’s suggestion for the Primitivo (I have one 5 gal. carboy),
the rest of the wines I am not planning on touching until I do some blending trials with the Las Amigas Merlot which I over-acidified, and Sangiovese which is naturally acidic.
In the meantime, I’ve hit them pretty hard with SO2.
This is a very helpful discussion for me. Live and learn. I’m one of those people who no matter how many times I read about OTHERS making a mistake, somehow I never quite get it until I do it myself. “OH…..NOW I see what they were talking about….”
I understand where you are all coming from.
I will stick with the greater volume of literature and my experience of acid adjustments done preferment being preferable .
The tartrate stability and colour reasons alone are reason enough to make me not change my practice and only do post fermentation acid adjustments if I am surprised by post mlf results or a huge potassium issue in the primary.
I am reminded of the Jackish Modern Winemaking book and his chapter on Acid. I must have read that 10 times in the past. I like to think of this entire affair as “The Art of Acid in Winemaking” Well for the discussion I think we have documented here the case which is helpful for less experienced guys to weigh and make decisions on. Let’s see how the additions work out as we go forward. Hopefully the potassium will play less of a role.
CRR’s comment about brix is worth noting at this was exactly that kind of year in Napa and Suisun. I have posted the brix to add to this discussion. I will add the strategy of blending 50/50 Wooden Valley and Koch Cab at crush worked to keep the notoriously high Koch Cab under control. This was my goal for doing it and it was a suggestion of Ron Lanza in terms of what his experience is in dealing and making Koch Cab.
For those of you knocking my test kit, I cannot raise my debt cieling at this time.
We get that Bobby lol but what were the results with the Accuvin Test kit on the Primitivo?
Its hard to post on this and not be long winded, sorry in advance. I think pretty much everyone starts out reading the book and following the directions of what perfect pH and TA they are supposed to see. I did this for several years and never seemed to get it right. The books all say to add pre-ferment but they also say lots of other things that IMO, are dumbed down information for home winemakers. And its a lot easier to tell someone how to do something analytically than by sensory instead. Anyway, if you are happy with the results of pre-ferment adds then great. But if not, consider doing it after. To be clear, what I was suggesting in my other post was to make small additions based on pH pre-fermentation using just enough to drop the pH to below 3.8 or so. Then fine tune afterward based on taste and a check to make sure your pH is not way off. On reds, I only use TA as a pre-harvest metric. I should also point out that I work with grapes from a signifigantly cooler region than the Napa Valley that usually has more natural acidity. Sure, Calistoga is just over the hill but its much warmer with less ocean influence. Oh, also my 3.7 pH Petite from 2007 is aging beautifully. Last time I checked, my ’03 Pinot at 3.7 was also fine from a aging perspective although not a very good wine (over-ripe fruit).
Dan I was going thru my wine log and my musto sanjo- 2011 preferment at crush ph 3.14 acid 1.3 adjusted with calcium carbonate. ph 3.38 acid down to .7 after adjustment Like Rock says we do all our adjustments preferment. brix was 25. Now my 2012 primativo 25.5 brix. ph was 3.65 brought the ph down a hair t0 3.55 did not do an acid test.
…Ok ,as far as the primitivo goes I have 29 gallons and I’m going to go with Gene’s suggestions on multiple carboys. dose one carboy and then test. All of it will be in the barrel in April and could readjust at that time. Still waiting for Genes tester. I have been told the the 2012 Napa Gamay has a sour or funny taste to it. I got to tell you I racked my 15 gallons the end of December and took a taste from one carboy 1/2 hour ago… DELICIOUS! and it will get better going into the barrel in April, not sour or any funky taste or smell.
Ill post my TA level when I get back to the lab,
Meantime after I raise my TA to a tolerable level is my 1/4 tsp of SO2 per 5 gal acceptable ?
Bobby your So2 amounts are determined by your PH So when you arrive at the final Ph after adding additional acid then you can really determine the amount of K meta to add.
Carmine I added above the crush dates. I am wondering since we have differences in our preferment measurements did you receive your grapes on the same dates?
Ahh
We will test your PH as soon as I get the new probes. Stand By Rock and Roll
Me thinks David buys a PH Meter and loses his mind. LOL Taste the Gamay DAVE!!!!!!
Gene I picked up my primitivo on 10/9 it was Lanza Musto yours is wooden valley is that the same ? The Lanza / musto Sanjo was from 2011 not 2012 I was just comparing my ph with Dan which almost matched a year latermine was preferment and his after fermentation
Thanks for the information, Carmine. TA 1.03!!
OK First there is no Lanza Musto Primitivo. It is all Wooden Valley from Lanza. The only Lanza Musto grapes at this time are the Sangiovese. So assume we received the same grapes.
Ok! Oh Boy let us not try to confuse the current conversation but for your information the Lanza Musto Sangiovese of 2011 at crush had a ph of 3.34 at 25 brix. on this end.
Gene…You’re a riot!!! So the Gamay actually tastes pretty good for a young wine. It clearly needs more time smooth out and a few months in a new French barrel will take care of that…(I am hoping). When I was starting this journey you told me “just do what we tell you and you’ll be fine”. Now I just have to figure out which “we” I am listening to, or you were referring to. The voices in my head are getting louder! And after reading for an hour on prepping a barrel and the variety of ways you all do that, I was convinced this thread would go down hill fast. That said, I am, as my wife refers to me a “professional hobbiest”, whatever that means. So I embrace these challenges with the enthusiasm of a teenaged boy with his first boner. As long as the end product is something I can drink and be merry about, I am all about the process. Hell what fun would it be if I just stared at perfect carboys all damn winter anyway!!!
And, to make matters worse, the Elephant in the Room: Do we trust our measurements? I have my Vinmetrica, and my little $200 pH meter, (with a new probe and fresh buffer solutions), and I’m still getting the occasional weird value.
I find that after about 5 pH tests, I have to give my pH meter a rest. Turn it off, and go do something else, or it just goes all over the map. The next day, I turn it on, calibrate it, and I’m getting believable readings for about 4 or 5 tests, and then it’s jumping around like a lunatic, and I’m getting frustrated, so I have to turn it off again and “rest” it.
The Vinmetrica works great, although I can’t hear the “beep”…I have to look at the panel and look at the syringe at the same time. But it’s consistent, and easy.
Well with 3 ph meters coming in between 4.01 to 4.10 I would say in this case we have a problem we can believe in. But to the point of the meter. I have a Valley Vintner Desktop Model they no longer sell. Dave has the Milwaukee unit they sell it is brand new. Well I received my 5 years ago , it must be that long ago, It came with a green sealed probe. Out of the box it was broken. They replaced it and then at that time learned they also sold a glass refillable probe. I purchased that as well. The green probe lasted about a year or so and then the numbers started bouncing around making calibration a chore. I then put the glass refillable probe in service. It was rock solid on calibration. So much so 5 days could go by and the unit needed no additional calibration. This probe lasted at least 3 years without issue until last week when it started to exhibit the same bouncing you talk of. Since these probes have a BNC connector ( a video connector) they can be used in any of the meters that use that type of connector that Valley Vintner sells. So if you have a cheap green plastic probe I suggest you replace it with the glass refillable type Even Dave’s Milwaukee Unit came with the Green Plastic Probe.
I have the desktop model from Valley Vintner, and replaced the sealed probe with the refillable probe last winter. It generally works well, but it’s always nice to get confirmation from others.
Sometimes I feel like the clowns that run my local government. They get a harebrained idea, and have a study done, and the study says “this is a bad idea, don’t do it”, so they have another study that confirms the first study, and they just keep doing it until they get one study that says “good idea! This should work.” and then they go ahead with their harebrained ideas.
So I keep taking measurements until I get the one I like. (just kidding, I hope)..
You illustrate exactly why I resist testing at all costs. LOL I figure if freekin Lanza and Beckstoffer grow the dam things I should be able to drink a Martini without worrying about all this crap. Yes I am drinking a Martini and I am about to reload. No more posts from me tonight no matter how tempting they may be. Go ahead challenge Marty see it you have the mustard.
I’m drinking Manhattans tonight. I never read what Marty posts anyway.
Couldn’t agree with u more Dan Lo
Now that is very tempting
The comment about the clowns in the government
Sure Bob you can always make wine with Guy LOL !
FYI New Probes are scheduled to arrive on Monday. Relax Dudes.
OH !! Sorry Bob LOL!
I knew I could get Marty and Gene back posting. You don’t get banned from all of those forums by being able to turn the other cheek.
BTW, I’m going downstairs now to make three blends in 375 mm bottles:
1:2, 1:1, and 2:1 ratios of GIII, and Las Amigas…in a couple of days I’ll taste and take pH numbers.
At the end of the day you have to recognize and appreciate when you are friends with a sick bastard like yourself.
Hey Gene,The Primitivo is Lanza Musto if you go to Lanza Musto Primitivo harvest you will see the 36lb boxes we received.At least thats what the sticker says on them.
Rocco maybe they ran out of labels. I know that Frank has a few interests in other varietals that have been recently planted for Lanza Musto but the only Lanza Musto Collaboration which has been harvested is the Sangiovese. I will ask Ron or Frank about that. Also I did send a message to Ron about the Ph of the Primitivo and he responded saying he would have Rick give me a call.
Probes due to arrive Monday however trying to arrange some testing on Sunday. Hopefully Dave can make it and bring his new Meter. Anthony is coming with the vinmetrica so we can do some So2 testing too.
Sounds like a party
10 Am Sunday all are invited!
Rocco I spoke to Frank and you are correct. It seems when they planted the acres for the Sangiovese Project they also planted some Primitivo. I was not aware of this. So your Primitivo is truly Lanza Musto while ours is Wooden Valley it could be Scarlet Ranch. Do you have any numbers for this in 2012?
Carmine has his numbers in his post above as they were his grapes and the best darn grapes they had on the dock absalutly fantastic and numbers were right on.Wish I bought some.25.5 brix 3.65ph
sorry rocco maybe next year kid
Allright…armed with a bottle of tartaric and some fresh calibration solution Thursday first carboy of Primitivo was 4.11 Ph and I will go with my original TA of .48 from last week. I added 4 tsp of tartaric. Purposely adding less than I need to check results…first time doing this.
Saturday 3.95 Ph .58 TA. Still tasting a bit flabby, added another 3 tsp of acid.
More to come, see you tomorrow if you are coming out to play!
Dave
I am hoping you reached .58 with the first addition. If we can go to .67 and like it we may have a chance with the ph ending up reasonable but certainly not great as it looks now. Something weird. Yesterday I brought the PH meter inside thinking it might be acting funny it was too cold. Anyway I as able to calibrate the ph at .7 with no problem it was solid as a rock but when I went to calibrate the .4 standard I could not get the reading to move off of 3.70 . So I tried an older probe and the same thing happened. Some how I think the meter could be bad and it is not the probe. Probes due tomorrow then I will know. I could be in the market for a new meter after all.
We start at 10 AM Tomorrow (Sunday)
Can it be your 4.0 standard???
if you haven’t you might just try changing the battery.
Considering just post MLF numbers in my question:
as far as being able to keep the wine from spoiling, what is the cutoff pH, above which you’d feel compelled to add acid?
Hey Dan,
If you go up to my post on January 15 there is a nice article on SO2 management and a sliding scale of free SO2 based on Ph level. Not sure if we can use it as the bible on the subject but it gives a good idea.
No it can’t be the standard because even if the standard was not 4.0 I still should be able to move the meter with the adjustment screw. The Meter is frozen at 3.70 I can only move the meter with the 7.0 adjustment screw. Wall Wart no battery. To answer Dan’s question,
In the Central Valley Days, this is funny because it reminds me of so many conversations and what we did, The ph could be high but for sure the TA was low. Without adding acid the wine would be very flabby. In those days it was a no brainer you added acid at crush and beyond. Our general rule back then was to adjust for a .67 -.70 TA at crush. As a result of this we often ended up with a decent PH even though truthfully we weren’t paying much attention to it in the first place. We made 2-3 1/4 tea spoon additions of K meta a rackings and our wines usually were between 3.6-3.8. Our wines were safe enough but we did cold stabilize since in some occasions we added quite a bit of acid. Things changed in many ways. We got better at understanding what we were doing LOL and the Suisun and Napa grapes by in large saved us a lot of trouble. So for the first time in a very long time we have a Primitivo at TA 4.8 and ph of 4.1. First we never assumed such a rise from crush. Second we are happy we have the room in the TA to raise it up without getting too tart. Considering all of this it looks to me as I said in the beginning about the 2 groups of guys a target of .65-70 TA and hopefully a Ph of 3.8 or better and not tart will be where we land. Failing that we Kmeta on the high side and plan on drinking early. In the case of the GIII a different set of concerns are in place. It is not as compelling from a spoilage view but if it can stand a bit of acid then it would be prudent to get the ph down further as this is a long aging wine. If you look at the list they all with the exception of the Gamay could use a little touch up that will increase safety and aging potential.
Anthony is working on getting an Spread Sheet Calculator to work on the Blog. W e should have it up by next week.
I wanted to add a comment to my post regarding TA. We, unlike the past, are not adjusting to a TA level. We are just using the TA as a guide post for additions and calculations in order to lower the PH. Taste is the guiding principle we will follow.
Hey Gene, isn’t there an equation for calculating pH? If not, let figure one out!
LOL, sorry, couldn’t help it.
I do want to point out that when discussing what the upper pH limit it is dependent on the wine. If you are >15% on this Primitivo and very dry (.2% or less RS), I think your wine is more stable than lower alcohol wines or wine with RS. In case, you could probably push it over 3.8. Got an Petite Sirah for blending? It would be perfect for a flabby Primitivo while possibly dropping pH.
Steve yes these guys do have some PS for blending but the numbers as you can see above are not that helpful. I also doubt we are > than 15% with the 24.5 starting point. But you bring up another factor actually two. Alcohol level and residual sugar are also factors on wine health we have not talked about. At least in this case we are dry as a bone. So that helps.
You laugh but Dave is new to all of this and last week he actually found that illusive formula on the internet. I can’t remember the site. I think they also talked about adding Malic and Citric.
I guess we need to Fact Check them too.
I’m a ONE CARBOY guy with the Primitivo. I added the 16.8 grams to the 5 gallons, and moved my pH to 3.86. It is not tasting too tart yet, but I don’t feel there is a lot of room. Given the original Brix and %ABV, where would you like to see the pH of this wine, for keeping it healthy?
Not too shabby at all. So what is the TA for curiosity? If you can go a tad more and are happy with the taste then go for it. As of now with the correct So2 amount you will have a 5-7 year wine is my experience.
Gene, I just remembered something about my Primitivo. After I added the the 16.8 grams, I racked it. There was quite a bit of lees. I topped the 5 gallon carboy with bit more than 750cc of a blend of ’12 Sangiovese (Lanza-Musto pH of3.3 ) and ’12 Lanza Syrah (pH of 3.87). The blend was made at pressing time, because I had some leftover of each to fill a container. The blend did successfully MLF, unlike my pure Sangio.
I wrote the topping up in my notes and on my carboy, but forgot that when I reported the effect of the tartaric addition.
So the drop in pH in that carboy is not entirely due to the tartaric addition.
I had a old vine zin one year and had a high ph 4 and I brought it down to much I think it came down to 3.6 after mlf. The wine tasted salty that was back in 2009. i opened a bottle the other night and it not tasting to bad now .What i’m trying to say don’t over do it with the tartaric acid because wine will taste salty. You can only mess around with mother nature so much before she turns around and
bights your ass.
Yes Carmine, I agree. I generally like higher pH wines over the lower pH wines. I would like to be able to keep them for a while, though.
One reason I’m hesitant to add much tartaric to the high pH wines I have is I have some acidic wines I want to blend with.
When blending, it doesn’t seem to take much 3.3 wine to bring down a 3.8, or 3.9 wine to where I’ll generally like it.
At least we are not having the conversation that goes like this,” My wine is 3.85 and I need to get it to 3.4 because I read that red wine should be at 3.4 What do I do?”
My assignment today is to get pH and SO2 levels on everything. I’ve made the first addition of SO2, but need to measure where I’m at now. I want to keep all my babies healthy until I get the Sangio MLF done, and make some blending decisions.
Oh, my other assignment is to watch some football.
oh shit i just realized what martyyule is lol
OK Here are the results of the Morning Testing Party. Armed with one the new self calibrating meters we tested the following as follows. Some of it ain’t pretty. And before revealing the results I think CRR is right in suggesting a bit of a touch up at crush if you are at a ph of 3.7.
Primitivo this morning 4.3 .48 ta
Koch Cab 4.0 .60ta (.58)
Sangiovese was not available for testing but
Koch Cab/Sangiovese 50/50% 3.78 .79ta (.72) draw your own conclusions on the Sangiovese numbers
GIII uugh! 4.0 .67ta (.62)
Las Amigas Merlot 3.8 .69ta (.64)
PV 4.2 .67ta (.62)
And the Bright Spot in the entire bunch!!!!!
Napa Gamay 3.4 80.ta (.75)
The TA numbers in parenthesizes are adjusted for using a weaker NAOH Solution.
Also as an aside I used my glass probe from my meter in question on the new meter and it was in exact agreement with the new probe. So, Its time for a new ph meter.
Let’s see what Dan comes up with.
You said What is Marty Yule , not who. Exactly Right! Bobby LOL
So OK, what I got out of todays testing was that I gotta drink 30 gallons of Primitivo and 5 gallons of Koch Cab with in the year. WHEW!. It’s a tough job BUT I’ll try. LOL.
Hello Tartaric!
Plus a whole lot a brachiole Al
rock on!
My numbers:
Primitivo: pH 3.86
p.Sirah 3.81
P. Verdot 3.78
Koch/Lanza Cab 3.72
I’m not screwing with TA numbers at this point. I just want my wine to not spoil, and it all tastes good. What you probably should know is that the only wine I added tartaric to is the Primitivo. All of the above wines are in 5 gallon carboys, from Gene, and all needed to be racked after MLF. When I topped them, I topped them with a blend (roughly 50-50) of 2012 Lanza Syrah/Lanza Musto Sangiovese.
The Syrah is high pH, 3.87, but the Sangio is around 3.3, so topping with that blend brought everything down to the numbers you see.
My plans for the above wines are to use them as blenders. I have some low pH Sangio, and my Las Amigas Merlot is 3.2 (still a mystery to me).
These accuvine test strips are not for testing TA in finished wine. Only for at crush test
Thanks Dan for the report. We will re confirm our numbers when the new PH meter arrives although I have really no reason to believe that Dave’s was off.
I did not know that Bobby. Generally test strips are useless except for the Accuvin Malic Strips. Even Color Change can be tricky especially in finished red wine. Using the Ph Meter to get TA is the best way.
So with 38 grams (7 tsps) of tartaric the first carboy of Primitivo is at 3.76 and .68. that is where it staying. Did the remaining carboys and made the adjustments to the rest of my wine based on my numbers today and what we did yesterday. Added a little Meta to keep things safe and am putting the meter away. Will test again before barreling and adjust if still needed.
Dave, How does it taste at 3.68?
3.76 and .68 are perfectly respectable numbers if you like the taste. This is great news and what I was hoping for. It really is following the typical Central Valley scenario.
It definately got better than when it was 4.1… Not sure how much better it can get with a touch more. Wouldn’t do that unless I tested smaller batches. We will see when barrel time comes. for now I think it is respectable for a new wine that has a long way to go.
wow dave what a difference!,
i added TA on sunday and upped the so2 by 1/8 tsp per 5 which makes that 3/8 total tsp per 5gal, i tasted it today and it seemed to have a bite to it but ill rely on another ph test.
Bobby you can’t add acid and So2 and taste! Give it a few days to decide. And stop smoking those cigars too!
yeah right away
Gene, I can’t believe you had any reservations about broaching this subject with us. I have found the discourse enlightening and amusing. Serious winemakers, who don’t take themselves too seriously. If only Malvena would add her insights.
Won’t it be fascinating in a few years to taste each other’s wines from this harvest!
Thanks again for the blog.
Thanks Dan and thanks to all who participated especially Zac and Steve, Carmine and Rocco adding their expertise. I think ,if you can wade through, it will provide an Amateur Winemaker some good insights and dispelling some myths regarding acid adjustments to wine. I am glad that Dan prompted me to start it. I am going to change the title so it will appear higher up on the page when searching on search engines.
So what myths should we take on now? Corks have always been an interesting subject? Give me a few days.
What is the deal so far with the primitivo after those adjustments?
Well Bobby if you go by Dave’s numbers you should be ok with 1/2 teaspoon total of K Meta for now. After the Spring racking you may want to test for S02 or if not touch it up another 1/4. If you are going in a Barrel you will have to probably re adjust when coming out prior to bottling. All should be fine. Although I think it will not get any better after 4 or 5 years..
I received the new PH Meter from Valley Vintner on Monday. Along with it was a personal calibration test results they performed before they shipped it. I also received all new PH buffer standards and NAOH from PI Wine. Armed and ready I spent this morning testing the wines. Here are my results and what I am going to do at this time to mitigate some of the issues. I was happy to find and as I suspected since we didn’t standardize the NOAH last time the TA were considerably lower making it easier for correcting. At least on paper.
Petite Verdot 3.96 TA .60 raising TA to .70
Gamay 3.50 TA .69 Doing nothing
GIII 4.00 TA .63 Raise TA to .70
Merlot 3.78 TA .67 Raise TA to .70
Super Tuscan 3.79 TA .75 Living with it for now taste in the spring.
Sangiovese NA
Duet Cab NA
based on the last tests we are averaging about a minus .05 on the TA
A word to those who have 2011 Sonoma Cab and 2010 GIII these wines need to be tested and based on what results I took today they will need some Tartaric.
Gene, keep us posted on what the tartaric additions do.
I did minimal tartaric additions pre-ferment on the Las Amigas, and the GIII, and the results were way more than I anticipated.
I wound up with some very acidic Las Amigas, and the GIII wound up in the 3.5 range (too lazy to get up and be more precise at the moment- enjoying a Manhattan, will post it if you desire)..
I would like to see what others got on the Lanza-Musto Sangiovese. I came in at 3.3, with an unsuccessful MLF. Haven’t heard anyone else having problems with it.
Interesting that some of the test results match my meter and others are close… Glad you got the new meter so we can have some checks and balances. Or as Dan says, keep testing until we like the results…
I am resisting testing again at this point… To Bobby’s question, I dropped the meter into one of the Primitivo carboys and the Ph was 3.76 post tartaric addition. HAve not tasted it again and will wait until it is ready for the barrel to do that and decide if more addtions are warranted.
Will work on getting Joey Rockland here this weekend so we can get some numbers on the Sangiovese and the Cab Duo.
Cheers!
Dave the most consistent and the most significant new results and predictable are the lower TA readings. Which indicate weaker NaOH solution originally and helpfully the new results create more room to move TA without affecting taste dramatically. Joey Rockland needs epinephrine are you kidding me? Good Luck.
BTW has anyone read Doyle’s Comment, a regular on winepress.us, about Winemaking Blogs. Hey Doyle stick it up your ass. When you devote the time and effort to create a blog then maybe you can talk. Otherwise you are just another lazy douche bag with an opinion on a forum among a bunch of assholes. I hope he enjoys the company.
For those of you married to Valley Vintner for reasonable priced PH Meters ( I have been one) think again …….http://www.amazon.com/Milwaukee-MW102-PH-Temperature-Meter/dp/B001DTNDME/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1360705532&sr=8-2&keywords=ph+meter+milwaukee
And free shipping too! Thanks Al Brush! for the tip