Yo we're going to Paris again for a little while

  • Thread starter Thread starter BJ
  • Start date Start date
There's a QUICK in the 3ème arrondissement that has less noxious burgers than all the other QUICKs. Let me look into it for you.

Seriously, the buns almost taste like buns instead of weird poofy flour-marshmallows.
 
Kadeau.jpg
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
implied acidulation
Click to expand...

Oh, I just can't.

Someone please step up to bat on this one?
Click to expand...

I think that what O is driving at here is that malic acid has more TA than lactic acid, so ML fermentation results in a lowering of the TA and a less pronounced increase in the pH. So, blocking ML is in effect a roundabout way of acidulating the wine, albeit one with lots of history and tradition on its side. Where I differ is the idea that inhibiting ML with a cold cellar results in its "rearing its bactericidal [sic] head" later on. I don't keep track of cellar practices enough to know which producers block ML via chemical intervention or filtration vs. cold cellars, but I'd hazard that I own several bottles of the latter product that show no signs of untoward bacterial activity.

Mark Lipton
 
No, no, I didn't mean that anyone actually blocks malo through cold cellars; that wouldn't make any sense.

I meant that if a producer happens to have very cold cellars, malo will not happen "naturally," so there is no intervention going on at this point. But it is a temporary state of affairs because the bacteria - if present, as they usually are with producers who don't douse the grapes and must with SO2 - will become active if there is enough malic acid for them to chomp after the wine is out in a higher temperature environment.

So, if you have a cold cellar and don't want to risk your wine refermenting in the bottle, you use sterile filtration (or SO2).

But in this case, the producer simply blocked malo to preserve acidity artificially (boo).
 
It's not splitting hairs; it's a very different situation. Imagine you had a stalk of bamboo that would grow if it was warm enough in your garden but not grow if it was too cool. If it remains short because it's too cold is one thing, and not the same is its being short because you cut it with a pruner.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
No, no, I didn't mean that anyone actually blocks malo through cold cellars; that wouldn't make any sense.

I meant that if a producer happens to have very cold cellars, malo will not happen "naturally," so there is no intervention going on at this point. But it is a temporary state of affairs because the bacteria - if present, as they usually are with producers who don't douse the grapes and must with SO2 - will become active if there is enough malic acid for them to chomp after the wine is out in a higher temperature environment.

So, if you have a cold cellar and don't want to risk your wine refermenting in the bottle, you use sterile filtration (or SO2).

But in this case, the producer simply blocked malo to preserve acidity artificially (boo).
Click to expand...

I am not convinced that ML refermentation happens all that easily and it's not the process that we usually refer to by refermentation (usually referring to yeasts either refermenting RS or Brettanomyces munching on other tasties). Others may have more information to bring to bear on this subject, but I'm not convinced by this assertion.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
It's not splitting hairs; it's a very different situation. Imagine you had a stalk of bamboo that would grow if it was warm enough in your garden but not grow if it was too cool. If it remains short because it's too cold is one thing, and not the same is its being short because you cut it with a pruner.
Click to expand...

The temperature sidebar is irrelevant to the boo. The boo is because they blocked the malo by artificial means.
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
No, no, I didn't mean that anyone actually blocks malo through cold cellars; that wouldn't make any sense.

I meant that if a producer happens to have very cold cellars, malo will not happen "naturally," so there is no intervention going on at this point. But it is a temporary state of affairs because the bacteria - if present, as they usually are with producers who don't douse the grapes and must with SO2 - will become active if there is enough malic acid for them to chomp after the wine is out in a higher temperature environment.

So, if you have a cold cellar and don't want to risk your wine refermenting in the bottle, you use sterile filtration (or SO2).

But in this case, the producer simply blocked malo to preserve acidity artificially (boo).
Click to expand...

I am not convinced that ML refermentation happens all that easily and it's not the process that we usually refer to by refermentation (usually referring to yeasts either refermenting RS or Brettanomyces munching on other tasties). Others may have more information to bring to bear on this subject, but I'm not convinced by this assertion.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about how easy or difficult it is, but since cold doesn't kill the malolactic bacteria, only makes them dormant, I don't see why there would be any difficulty in starting them up once the temperature rises.

Not sure who the "we" refers to in your sentence, but I understand the common usage of the word refermentation to include both types.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
No, no, I didn't mean that anyone actually blocks malo through cold cellars; that wouldn't make any sense.

I meant that if a producer happens to have very cold cellars, malo will not happen "naturally," so there is no intervention going on at this point. But it is a temporary state of affairs because the bacteria - if present, as they usually are with producers who don't douse the grapes and must with SO2 - will become active if there is enough malic acid for them to chomp after the wine is out in a higher temperature environment.

So, if you have a cold cellar and don't want to risk your wine refermenting in the bottle, you use sterile filtration (or SO2).

But in this case, the producer simply blocked malo to preserve acidity artificially (boo).
Click to expand...

I am not convinced that ML refermentation happens all that easily and it's not the process that we usually refer to by refermentation (usually referring to yeasts either refermenting RS or Brettanomyces munching on other tasties). Others may have more information to bring to bear on this subject, but I'm not convinced by this assertion.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about how easy or difficult it is, but since cold doesn't kill the malolactic bacteria, only makes them dormant, I don't see why there would be any difficulty in starting them up once the temperature rises.

Not sure who the "we" refers to in your sentence, but I understand the common usage of the word refermentation to include both types.
Click to expand...

Prof Lipton is correct, I believe, on both counts. Generally refermentation refers to yeast. Since no ML fermentation has occurred yet, it can't be a "re"-fermentation. If it went through partial ML fermentation, was bottled and then re-occurred in the bottle, I suppose you could use the term.

And no, it is not always easy to start it up when it gets a bit warmer.

I would not call a wine spoofed if it had been sterile filtered for yeast/bacterial stability.
 
I think I'm with Mark and mark. The topic is complicated, however, because ML bacteria come in wide variety and they take a wide variety of metabolic pathways depending on what's in their environment (e.g., which nutrients, which competitors).

Certainly, there is widespread fear among winemakers of MLF taking place after bottling and a correspondingly large number of people recommending lots of sulfite, sterile filtering, and/or making it happen on your own terms first.

Inducing it, however, is no picnic. As far as I can tell, this stage of a wine's life is like a game of pickup sticks... touch one thing and three others deviate, too.

The best short reading I found is the blog post at Wellington Vineyards.

The best long reading I found is, well, a bookshelf at Lallemand.
 
Thank you for the enlightening discussion, and semantic touché Mark E.

And Mark, while you are on the line, some follow up questions re: "I would not call a wine spoofed it had been sterile filtered for yeast/bacterial stability."

Would you find it equally acceptable if it had been sterile filtered for aesthetic reasons? Because that is the issue here.

Since yeast/bacterial stability is also used to justify the use of SO2 right after harvesting, in the must before inoculation, and/or when bottling, and you are presumably less sanguine about these, where do you draw the line? Where do the ends stop justifying the means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top