When I woke up the next morning, though, I discovered that my explosion-prevention strategy had a slight flaw.

I woke up to this:

Strawberries. Everywhere.

Turns out some strawberry pulp had made its way up the necks of the growlers and lodged itself into the airlock, producing a plug of strawberry slop. Eventually, the pressure built up inside and popped the stoppers, sending sweet, sticky strawberry pulp everywhere within about a 5-foot radius of my fermentation area (read: the kitchen counter). It almost hit the ceiling, as did Sarah when we woke up at 7 am to find strawberry slurry everywhere. The cap from one of the airlocks was later found on the other side of my apartment.

It turned out that I didn’t lose too much juice, so I cleaned everything up the best I could (luckily the walls and cabinets are white, so a little bleach worked nicely) and set the airlocks back in to continue fermentation, which, not surprisingly, was proceeding vigorously. Check out the bubblage in the video (you may have to tilt your head 90 degrees left to get the full effect). I sound a bit stoned, but I’m really just in awe of science.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki7jS4w8J9w]

By the way, fermentation comes from the Latin fervere, meaning “to boil”. Looking at a fermentation in progress, it’s not surprising that the Romans would think that’s what was going on. And I guess that technically, CO2 is escaping the surface tension of the liquid, so I guess in a way it is boiling… but I digress.

Science!
When Jean-Claude Antoine Chaptal discovered the relationship between sugar and CO2 in a fermentation, he solved a very big problem in Champagne. Knowing the exact amount of sugar to add to a secondary fermentation saved many, many bottles from exploding. So how much CO2 is generated from the sugar in a fermenation? Remember high school chemistry? No? Well buckle up because you’re going back to Mr. Burcik’s class.

OK, remember our master chemical reaction of fermentation?

sugar (C₆H₁₂O₆) –> 2 CO₂ + 2 alcohol (C₂H₅OH)

That means for every molecule of sugar turned into alcohol, 2 molecules of CO2 form and escape from the liquid in the form of carbon dioxide gas. Let’s say that I had been really dumb and sealed the vessels completely instead of allowing for the CO2 to bubble out. Also, for simplicity, let’s neglect the CO2 dissolving in the wine in the container (that gets complicated), and assume that CO2 is an ideal gas (not a great assumption but we’re not teaching thermodynamics here…yet). Some of these values are what we engineers call “engineering estimates”.

***Warning: Chemistry and Math ahead. If you just want to know if the thing will explode or not, skip to the bottom***

Anyway, our must is at 23 Brix, which means that in one growler, there is about 345 g of sugar (1.5 kg of must).

345 g sugar is 1.9 moles (glucose is 180 g/mol), so we will produce 3.8 moles of CO2 in the growler. Not so bad right?

Remember the ideal gas law? At standard temperature and pressure, 1 mole of gas takes up 22.4 L of space. Well, inside this vessel, the pressure will be anything but standard, and the temperature is 25C, not 0C. A little PV = nRT and we find that this gas wants to take up about 96 L when it is confined to about 2 L of growler. That means the pressure in there will go up to about 48 atmospheres. That’s about 20 times more pressure than in car tires.

If the container were at 48 atm and suddenly failed, the energy contained in the resulting adiabatic explosion would be V*ΔP = 2 L * (48 atm – 1 atm [atmospheric pressure]) = 9.5 kJ, which is the equivalent of 2.2 grams of TNT. That may not sound like much, but after searching some sites that in retrospect are only quasi-legal, I found out what 2 grams of flash powder (more or less equivalent to TNT in explosive energy, Vermeij et al., “Morphology and composition of pyrotechnic residues formed at different levels of confinement”, Forensic Science International, 2009) can do.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVF8SdSR4mo]

(Note: I am not dumb enough to have actually done this. There are lots of explosion videos on YouTube, though, and it’s not really that suprising.)

The bottom line is be careful with fermentations! I’m not saying don’t try this at home, (in fact, I hope I’m encouraging it!) but don’t seal off your fermentation, whatever you do! The growler would probably have broken around 4-5 atm anyway, so I wouldn’t have to worry about an M-80 (~2.5 g TNT equivalent) going off in the kitchen. In either case, though, I’d have a much bigger mess.

Extra credit: Using the above calculations, how much pressure does a fermenting champagne bottle get up to? Hint: secondary fermentations in 750 mL bottles are usually dosed with about 20 g of sugar.

                          

Forget Listerine, Devil's Springs is 160 proof, enough to sterilize pretty much anything. Also, don't take a sip by accident. Your face might melt right off.

Before starting fermentation, I wanted to make sure that my fermentation was clean, and that means sterilizing. Most wineries would sterilize using steam or detergents and sanitizing agents. While these are available for homebrewers (B-Brite and C-Brite are common sanitizers), I chose a different method of sterilization. I usually use Devil’s Springs double strength vodka to make boilo, a family recipe for a hot beverage served around the holidays (I’ll probably post a recipe around that time), but in this case it has another use. It’s 80% alcohol (ethanol), which is slightly above the 70% ethanol we use in lab to sterlilze ad disinfect our benchtops. I put some of this into all the bottles, hoses, growlers, and airlocks I plan to use for fermentation. Usually before I add anything to the must (hydrometer, for example), it gets treatment with regular vodka. Ask any commercial winemaker and they will tell you that about 90% of their job is keeping things clean and sterile.

When I picked the fruit it had been raining for two weeks beforehand, leading to a lot of damaged and mushy fruit (i.e., growth of fungus). I also wanted to curb the growth of any bacteria or other microorganisms which would like to feast on my sugary must. So I added some sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide is an antimicrobial and antioxidant agent. The various forms of SO₂ are known as sulfites, and have been used in winemaking for thousands of years. Molecular SO2 is the actual antimicrobial agent and its concentration as free molecular SO2 depends on pH and several other factors. I can’t really measure the pH of my must at the moment so I took a suggestion from the Handbook of Enology (Ribereau-Gayon et al.), a famous winemaking textbook by many of the premier enologists in Bordeaux, and added about 40 ppm SO2 to the must (1/2 tsp of some of the 50 g/L SO2 that I swiped from my winemaking class. Don’t tell Ramón.)

I also added some tannin for color stabilization. Strawberries don’t contain that much tannin, and tannin helps to stabilize color in the long term by binding to color compounds called anthocyanins. In the long-term, co-pigmentation of tannins and anthocyanins stabilizes and contributes to color. Will the 1/2 tsp of {tannin} contribute? Probably not, since this wine probably won’t be around long enough for many co-pigmentation reactions to occur. It’s worth a shot, though, and the tannin may contribute some {astringency}, which I fear untreated wine may lack. The must certainly isn’t too astringent.

Another addition I made was Fermax, a yeast nutrient containing diammonium phosphate, which provides nitrogen to the fermentation. Nitrogen is an essential component to a fermentation because yeast need it to make amino acids, which are the building blocks of the proteins and enzymes the yeast need to manufacture in order to grow.

The last task was to get the yeast ready for their delicious meal. I got out my packet of Lalvin EC-1118 yeast (enough for 5 gallons) and sprinkled out a small portion of the packet. EC 1118 is a yeast isolated from the Champagne region* and for various reasons is the yeast of choice for ciders and fruit wines, as well as for sparklers. The yeast comes dehydrated and needs about 15 minutes in luke-warm water to rehydrate and reanimate. To make it as nice as possible for the yeast, I also warmed up the must by floating the mixing bowl I was storing everything in in warm water while the yeast were rehydrating. After 15 minutes, the yeast went into the strawberry must. I poured the mix into two growlers and attached the airlocks (filled with rum). Let the fermentation begin!

By the way, I obtained most of my supplies for this endeavor (yeast, Fermax, pectinase, sorbate, tannin, hydrometer) from the Ithaca Beer Company, which has many resources for home winemaking and brewing, includiny carboys, malt, recipes, hops, and lots of other accessories.

Science!
In most cases, the yeast used to ferment grape juice into wine is Saccharomyces cerevisiae. EC1118 is actually a strain of Saccharomyces bayanus, a very closely related yeast. S. bayanus and its cousin S. pastorianus are often used in brewing. In reality, though, S. cerevisiae, bayanus, and pastorianus are so closely related that their taxonomies have varied. At first, bayanus was believed to be a subspecies of cerevisiae. Nowadays, they are largely considered a species complex, and the difference between them seems largely academic. (Raineri et al., “Saccharomyces sensu stricto: Systematics, Genetic Diversity and Evolution”, Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 2003)

                          

Hydrometer, zoomed-in

The next day it was time to take some measurements. I squeezed the pulp in a hop bag to get straight juice out into a graduated cylinder. I suppose you don’t need a graduated cylinder but the amount you measure has to be deep enough to fit a hydrometer. The hydrometer, pictured right, correlates density of the mixture to height, which is related to the amount of stuff dissolved in there. The density can be converted to Brix (named after Herr Brix, reputed to have invented the hydrometer and the formula which converts specific gravity (i.e., density) to percent sugar), which is a measure of soluble solids per 100g of solution, or more simply, percent sugar. A reading of 20 degrees Brix corresponds to 20 grams of dissolved solids per 100 g of solution.

(NB: Brix is not necessarily a measurement of sugar, however, in a given {must}, 90-95% of dissolved solids are fermentable sugars. Others include non-fermentable sugars like arabinose and xylose, organic acids, polyphenols, etc. )

Hydrometry on the juice, with graduated cylinder for extra science-y goodness.

The strawberries came in at 7 Brix, which is 70g/kg and the must is about 2.88 kg (estimated from the density), so we’ve got about 202 g of sugar. If I were to ferment this as is, I’d have the alcoholic equivalent of strawberry light beer. We’re making wine here, not Arbor Mist. Let’s up the ante a little, shall we? More sugar means more alcohol.

Let’s say I want to chaptalize (i.e., add sugar to the must, named after Monsieur Chaptal, who discovered the relationship between sugar and alcohol in wine) up to 20 Brix. How much do I have to add? ALGEBRA!

202 + x (g sugar)
——————— = 0.2 (g/g); x= 467.5 g sugar
2880 + x (g total)

Unlike Alton Brown, I don’t have a scale in the kitchen, so I have to work with volume. According to sugartech.com , the density of bagged white sugar (sucrose) in 700g/L = 165 g/cup. So to get up to 20 we need 2 5/6 cups. Let’s make it an even 3.

From strawberry juice to strawberry syrup. I think I underestimated the volume.

I added 3 cups sugar. If this were Beaujolais, I’d be locked up. Just as a check, I took the Brix measurement again. Whoops, the final Brix was 26! I guess I underestimated my volume of must. Apparently I did, because when I filled up the growlers I had about 3 quarts instead of the gallon that I thought I had. I didn’t want too much headspace on the wine so I topped them up with some cherry juice (no preservatives…) I had on hand. After this addition, the final Brix reading was 23. Depending on what formula you use (and the yeast), that should lead to an ABV of 12-13%.

Science!
During fermentation, sugars such as glucose and fructose are converted into carbon dioxide and ethanol in the following reaction:
C₆H₁₂O₆ –> 2 C₂H₅OH + 2 CO₂
This means the theoretical yield for ethanol on a per mass basis is about 0.51 * sugar, or ~62% on a “by volume” basis. This doesn’t really happen and often the Brix to ABV conversion is more like 0.55. Why? Some of that sugar goes into yeast biomass, some of it becomes glycerol, and some alcohol is carried away by CO₂… More on CO₂ next time, when we prepare to start fermentation…

PS I know what you’re thinking… I added sucrose, which is C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁ ! That doesn’t fit into the formula! Luckily for me, yeast produce an enzyme known as invertase, which converts sucrose into its constituent monosaccharides, fructose and glucose, both of which are C₆H₁₂O₆ and both of which are easily consumible by yeast. It’s also what they add to chocolate-covered cherry cordials to make them all gooey on the inside. (The invertase breaks down the sucrose-saturated fondant into fructose and glucose.)

Bonus question: If I had 3 quarts of 26 Brix juice and added 1 quart of cherry juice to bring it to 23 Brix, what was the Brix of the cherry juice?

                          

(NB: Strawberries aren’t technically berries, they’re “accessory fruit“, since the edible part is not generated from the ovary of the plant, but surrounding tissue. Grapes, however, are berries.)

Harvest: I tried to pick fruit that wasn’t at all mooshy or damaged by mold, since molds often produce enzymes that do unsavory things to wine. For example, {botrytis} produces a lot of the enzyme laccase, which oxidizes polyphenols in fruit juice to make browning products, and unlike other polyphenol oxidases, is resistant to inhibition by sulfites. (Dewey et al., “Quantification of Botrytis and laccase in winegrapes”, AJEV, 2008). Avoiding soft fruit was difficult since it has rained here on and off for about the past two weeks. Also, strawberry plants are low to the ground and the leaves hold water like bowls, so it’s a pretty wet environment.

The destemmed fruit

Destemming: I manually destemmed all the berries, so as not to have stemmy, vegetal aromas like methoxypyrazines (bell pepper, peas) around.

Crush: This was the fun part. I crushed the berries with my (clean) hands, squishing them between my fingers. The hearts of the fruit are kind of hard, so eventually I switched over to a potato masher. What I ended up with was basically strawberry stew, with solid matter still pretty much outnumbering the straight-up juice. To rectify this, I added an enzyme called pectinase.

Pectin is a polymer of sugars, kind of like starch (amylose)

Enzyme treatment: Pectinase You’re probably familiar with pectin. It’s the powder you add to pretty much any cooked fruit to take it from fruit slop to jelly or jam. Pectin is a polysaccharide (bunch of sugar molecules bonded together) that is found in the cell walls of plants. Apples and citrus fruits have a lot of pectin, but grapes and strawberries also have some. Pectinase, a standard winemaking treatment to aid in {must} clarification, chops up the polymer into its constituent sugars, thinning out the liquid and aiding in separation.

Cold Soak: I actually neglected to pick up some yeast before I got started, so I decided to put the {must} in the refrigerator overnight. The purpose of this was two-fold. One, I didn’t want it to start fermenting with the natural yeasts (including undesirables like Kloeckera). Second, cold-soaking whole or crushed grapes has been shown to aid in extraction of anthocyanins (color compounds), adding some color to some wines (Gómez-Miguez et al., “Evolution of colour and anthocyanin composition of Syrah wines elaborated with pre-fermentative cold maceration”, Journal of Food Engineering, 2004), though the jury is still out on its effectiveness. It’s become clear to me that I am going to treat this like a red wine.

Up next: Starting fermentation….

                          

Another Cayuga East wine steps up to the palate

Appellation: New York
Variety: 100% Cabernet Franc
ABV: 12.9%
RS: dry
Price Point: $15
Notes:
Looks: very dark, with magenta around the edges
Nose: Smells great. Fruity. Dark fruity, actually. With blackberry and blueberry. Vanilla, cedar Alcohol features prominently on the nose as well.
Palate: Lot of acidity on the palate, with a whole lot of bitterness. Mid-palate a bit like a cardboard box. Decent {astringency} but almost non-existent finish. It’s like someone yelling “Surprise!” when the wrong person comes in the door. A lot of expectations built up on the nose. Take a sip, and all of a sudden it gets loud and obnoxious and then… silence.
Rating: Ok {tannin} structure, but the bitterness is a deal-killer for me.

The best way to evaluate color is to tilt your glass and hold the wine over white piece of paper, or in this case a long-overdue peer review.

I was really surprised by the amount of color on this wine. I initially suspected that some other grapes were blended in, but I emailed the winery and they replied that this wine is 100% estate-grown cabernet franc. This wine has a really fruity nose, but just does not deliver on the palate. In fact, it’s pretty bad on the palate.

*Science!

When red wine grapes come in from the vineyard, they are usually crushed and destemmed (in a machine called a crusher/destemmer, go figure) and then fermented along with their skins and seeds. Winemakers can keep the juice on the skins for varying amounts of time before starting fermentation (cold soak) to prolong skin contact and get a little more color in the wine. After fermentation, the wine that runs out of the tank without any pressing is known as the free run. Pressing the wine off the skins yields more wine, but also can extract some undesirable stuff. For example, the seeds and jacks (little pieces of stem) are usually still around (unless some seed removal took place during fermentation, more on that in a future post).

{Tannins} are polymeric chains of of polyphenols. The bitterness of these polymers tends to vary inversely with degree of polymerization (i.e., molecular weight). Tannins found in seeds and stems tend to be shorter chains (lower molecular weight) and more bitter-tasting than the longer-chained skin tannins. Need proof? Go chew on some grape skins, then break open a seed and chew on it.

Pressing can subject the grapes to high pressures (how high depends on the type of press) which can press on the remaining seeds as well as the skins. Press fractions are considerably higher in polyphenol content and higher in pH (due to potassium ions extracted from skins). There is a reason that hard press fractions are often set aside from the free run and first press fractions. Basically, harsh treatment at the press can result in bitter polyphenol groups being extracted from the skins and seeds, leading to an overall increase in bitterness in the wine. (Ref: Brossaud et al., “Bitterness and astringency of grape and wine polyphenols”, Aus. J. Grape Wine Res., 2001)

PS: Oak can contribute some bitterness as well but its tannins are a bit different form those in grapes.

My guess is that long extraction (in hopes of maximizing color) and harsh treatment on the press let some undesirable bitterness sneak in and ruin this wine.

                          

Old school cartoon Oriole looks happy about this wine, but he is dying inside.

Appellation: “American”, grapes are sourced from WA state.
Variety: Riesling
ABV: 11%
RS: 3%
Price Point $12
Notes:
Looks: Pale yellow, a bit darker than a typical riesling from NY would be.
Nose: On the nose it is definitely not a NYS riesling. Very floral, perfumey. A bit of fruit cocktail comes in as well, but the major player in this nose is sulfur dioxide, aka sulfites, which kind of smell like when you first light a match. Wow. It burns my nose.*
Palate: Brazen acidity. Like “yeah, I’m acidic, what are you gonna do about it, punk?” So much sulfur that I can taste it on the palate and all the fruit is gone. Sweet, acidic, sulfurous. Yikes. As it goes down it feels like it will give me heartburn the next day. Blech.

Rating: 1 cork Maybe I am just sensitive to it, but i definitely wouldn’t want any more of this.

I went to Baltimore this weekend for an a cappella reunion concert. While picking up some plonk for the afterparty (André anyone?) I decided to review some MD wine. Boordy Vineyards is the largest winery in Maryland, a state that could be considered an up and coming wine region. Unfortunately, I didn’t look carefully at the bottle and ended up grabbing a wine made with grapes grown in Washington state. When I was there I thought I remembered them mentioning riesling vines, but upon further research it was that they had torn them out. Oh, well.

I have toured the winery and it is one of those “party” wineries. It is a fun atmosphere and they give a pretty informative and fun tour. So if you’re between Baltimore and the PA line, I recommend that you stop by.

As for this wine, a little sugar can be used to cover up some faults, but the SO2 is so profound in this wine that not even the 3% RS could save it. Sometimes you find this sulfite heavy-handedness in Mosel rieslings, as well as occasionally here in the Finger Lakes. I would avoid this one, though the label is nice. It’s got a Baltimore oriole on it.

*Science!
Sulfur dioxide, commonly called “sulfites” on the label, is an antioxidant and antimicrobial agent that has been used for making wine pretty much since wine was first made. SO2 irritates your nose, causing a trigeminal response (see the Jameson post for further discussion of trigeminal response), a burning sensation in the nose. In certain individuals, it can irritate the lungs and cause an asthma-like response. This wine likely has lots of sulfites added because residual sugars can bind SO2, rendering it inactive. If a wine has high residual sugar, chances are it will have higher SO2 to curb microbial activity. Sulfites are the most important preservative and rest assured they will keep coming up again and again in this section.

Addendum:
I didn’t want to get into the whole equilibrium thing, but yes, sulfites exist as molecular SO2 (the actual antimicrobial agent), HSO3-, and SO3–. At wine pH (3.5 or so), most (~95%) of the SO2 will be found as HSO3-. This means that to have enough molecular SO2 for microbial stability, you need to add about 20x more (usually people use potassium metabisulfite). THEN molecular SO2 can associate with ketones and aldehydes, including sugars, so you’ve got to add even more! Problem is the legal limit (US) is 350 ppm (total, free and bound), and the detection threshold is 2 ppm as molecular. And if you have oxygen pickup on your bottling line, then you’ve probably already lost it all! My theory is that the reason this was so overwhelming was that it had a combination of high RS (better add more SO2!) and high acidity, so probably a lower pH (though not necessarily), so more of that extra SO2 was available as molecular, and more went up my nose. I see too much SO2 as a winemaking mistake and it really puts me off a wine. I even tried this a couple days later after it sat in the fridge for a while and it still had biting SO2.

Thanks to Vinogirl for her comment.

                          

Click to go to the Channing Daughters website

Appellation: Long Island
Varieties: Tocai Friulano 36%, Pinot Grigio 25%, Sauvignon Blanc 17%, Chardonnay 10.3%, Muscat Ottonel 9.5%, Viognier 1.2%, Malvasia Bianca 1%. Yeah, a bunch of grapes, so to speak.
ABV: 13%
Price Point: $40
Notes:
Looks: Bold, deep golden color with a tinge of orange, somewhat like Sauternes.
Nose: Floral, orangey Muscat-like nose, with lemon peel and pineapple, LOTS going on.
Palate: Unlike any white wine I’ve had. There is some {astringency} to it! Unripe honeydew shows up on the perfumey palate, which also reminds me of peach iced tea. Great {mouthfeel}. Full-bodied, complex, and beautifully balanced, this white drinks like a red. It’s really unique.
Rating: for an interesting aromatic white with panache.

Not everyone will like this wine, at least not at first. The muscat can be a bit overly perfumey for me. I’d also recommend having it at room temperature (cold can increase perception of bitterness and astringency, Ross and Weller, “Effect of serving temperature on the sensory attributes of red and white wines”, Journal of Sensory Studies, 2008, and if you don’t believe that, make some tea and try it hot, then put it in the refrigerator and try it cold). Basically, if you treat it like a red, this wine will do nicely. Its price and overall qualities make this more of a special occasion wine to me, but I believe it can function as more than just a curiosity in a wine sideshow. (Barker: Step right up! See the white wine fermented… on its own skins! Crowd: *gasp* Victorian ladies: *swoon*)

Channing Daughters is based on Long Island and uses grapes from both the North Fork and Hamptons. Perusal of the wine list on the website will quickly let you know that this winery is not about producing ordinary wines. This wine is no exception.

Check out the color!

Unlike most white wines, which are pressed before fermentation, separating the juice from the skins, this wine is fermented ON the skins*, providing the somewhat rare experience of a white wine with noticeable tannin. I’m sure it also contributes to the fantastic color. (NB: Channing Daughters makes a few other whites with varying degrees of skin contact which I have not tried but would like to.)

For many readers, there are some unfamiliar grape varieties packed into this wine, likely because tocai fruilano and malvasia bianca are typically varieties grown in northern Italy. Lots of peoples’ wine varietal education starts with France: Bordeaux (merlot, cabernet, sauvignon blanc), Burgundy (pinot noir, chardonnay), Alsace (riesling, gewürztraminer, pinot gris). They then move on to California (all of the above, plus zinfandel), then the rest of the New World (Aussie shiraz, Argentine malbec, NZ sauvignon blanc, etc.) and sometimes never really make it to the “Italy” chapter of the book. At least this is the case with me. (NB: I’ve recently decided to add some Italian flair to my cellar, picking up a case including barbera, sangiovese, malvasia bianca, freisa, and others. Working on it…) I suppose one exception to this unfamiliarity is the ubiquity of pinot grigio, which may stem from consumers’ delight in saying “pinot grigio” out loud. Many FL producers will bottle a pinot gris/grigio.
It turns out that lots of great wines come out of Italy, along with lots of different grape varieties. Northeast Italy is a slightly cooler climate. It makes me wonder if there is a reason (beyond name recognition and marketing) that more Italian varieties aren’t grown in quantity in the Finger Lakes. Ventosa Vineyards does produce a tocai fruilano, which I have yet to try. They also have plantings of sangiovese, and of course, pinot grigio.

*Science!
This wine was fermented on the skins, allowing extraction of phenolic groups (e.g., tannin) that would normally stay behind in a typical white wine fermentation. White wines fermented on skins have been shown to have an antioxidant capacity similar to that of red wine (Ref: Furman et al., “White Wine with Red Wine-like Properties: Increased Extraction of Grape Skin Polyphenols Improves the Antioxidant Capacity of the Derived White Wine”, J. Ag. and Food Chem., 2001). So if you drink wine strictly for health reasons, you’ve got that going for you. Interestingly, while {tannin} extraction is somewhat dependent on the alcohol content of the fermentation, color will start showing up much sooner. This is why rosé wines (reds pressed off of skins, perhaps with brief skin contact) have some color, but not much noticeable astringency. (Cf. Monday’s entry, the Chateau Frank Blanc de Noirs, made from black grapes [pinot noir and pinot meunier], pressed gently such that little to no color escaped from the skins). Finally, (possibly just so this site gets more hits on google) skin contact can even increase levels of the wine media darling resveratrol, a molecule which in itself merits its own discussion at a later time (Ref: Darias-Martín et al., “Effect of skin contact on the antioxidant phenolics in white wine”, Food Chemistry, 2000).

                          

A cool spring afternoon with some bubbly. Click to visit the Dr. Frank website

Appelation: Finger Lakes Champagne (now, before you get all grumpy, let me assure you that this sparkling wine is legally allowed to be called “champagne” in the U.S., see this article for more details.)
Varietal: Pinot Noir 95% Pinot Meunier 5%
ABV: 11.1% (marked 12% on the bottle, but this data is from winemaker’s notes on the Dr. Frank website)
RS: 1%
Price Point: $30
Notes:
Looks: Faint yellow with lots of bubbles
Nose: Subtle fruit around. Later it gets mushroomy, earthy. What I thought of was our middle school pool. Not necessarily the chlorine smell, but the mix of locker room and warm humidity. Don’t misinterpret that, it’s a good thing, because swimming for gym class was the best gym class.
Palate: Wow. Rich {mouthfeel}, very full-bodied. A little bit of yeasty, bready aroma sneaking in on the palate. Acidity balances this wine nicely, and the touch of residual sugar smooths everything out. Very balanced, full-bodied, and complex. I really, really like this wine.
Rating: 4 corks

Lots of bottles. The crude cell phone pic does not really capture the sheer number of bottles. Click to enlarge

Keuka Lake makes its debut on Ithacork and comes out swinging! Dr. Konstantin Frank Vinifera Wine Cellars has become one of the most well-known wine producers in the Finger Lakes. This is likely due in part to the fact that they were the first to successfully make wine with {vinifera} grapes in the region. Also, they are darn good at it. In fact, when I arrived in Ithaca, one of the first names I heard in reference to wine in the Finger Lakes was Dr. Frank. I had the opportunity to tour the winery as part of a winemaking class at Cornell. On the tour, we were afforded a rare opportunity to see the cellars of Chateau Frank, the sparkling wine production house. A lovely elderly (but quite spry) woman, the wife of the late Willy Frank (Dr. Konstantin’s son) gave us the cellar tour and we were able to see bottles and bottles and bottles of sparkling wine at various stages of the famous Champagne process. You can read about it in the wikipedia link, but briefly, base wine is bottled with a dose of sugar and yeast and a secondary fermentation occurs in the bottle. The bottles are left on the yeast for a long time, usually on the order of years before the yeast is disgorged and the champagne is bottled. It was awesome. If you like this wine, or you like your bubbly a little sweeter, may I suggest the Célèbre crémant, made with riesling grapes! It is also fantastic.

This wine is a great example of sparkling wine in the Finger Lakes. To make sparkling wine, winemakers usually start with base wines that are high in acid and relatively low in sugar, something that cool climates can produce without even trying. Even though sparkling wine is labor- and equipment-intensive, many of the sparkling wines I have had from the Finger Lakes (Lamoreaux Landing is another good bet) have been excellent. I think that sparkling wine has the potential to be huge in this region. One last note: to many people, sparkling wine is something only drunk on special occasions, celebrations, or hungover mornings with orange juice. I had this wine with a sub from Wegman’s, and I’ve previously been known to pair sparkling wine with Southern fried chicken. There is lots of great sparkling wine out there, and sometimes opening a bottle is cause enough to celebrate!

*Science!
Some of the rich mouthfeel that shows up in sparkling wines can be attributed to extended contact (aka tirage) with yeast lees (i.e., yeast cells). Over time, yeast cells will die and undergo cell lysis, or autolysis. Products of yeast autolysis include mannoproteins, which have been shown to increase perceived body and mouthfeel in wines (Ref: Alexandre and Guilloux-Benatier, “Yeast autolysis in sparkling wine – a review”, Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 2006). Basically, long periods of aging (in this case several years) will cause the dead yeast cells to break up, releasing nucleotides, enzymes, cell wall bits, and other insides into the wine. How long to age the wine on the lees and when to bottle is a winemaking decision, and according to winemaker Paul Brock (Lamoreaux), sparkling wine that is on the shelf is generally ready to drink, as all the aging has been done in the cellar.

                          

Sheldrake is one of my favorite wine producers on Cayuga Lake. They almost exclusively grow {vinifera} grapes and most of their wines are very good quality. Plus, they have a nice view of the lake, a nice tasting room, their staff are really knowledgeable. In fact, they keep a binder behind the counter with all of the winemaker’s notes on every wine that they have available to taste, including pH, total acidity, fermentation notes, types of oak used, and much more. Great for a wine geek like myself.

This particular chardonnay is fermented in all stainless steel with NO {malolactic fermentation} and never sees any oak, which allows the straight up aromas of the wine to shine. Don’t get me wrong, I like a big, oaky, buttery chardonnay, but I would rarely call it “refreshing” or “lively”.

Science!

Oenococcus oeni converts malic acid into lactic acid, "softening" a wine.

I guess this is as good a time as any to talk about malolactic fermentation. Malolactic bacteria, such as Oenococcus oeni (guess where it was first discovered) convert malic acid into lactic acid. What does that have to do with wine? The primary organic acids in wine are tartaric acid and malic acid. You may be familiar with malic acid, as it is the main acid in apples. Lactic acid is the main acid in yogurt. In fact, the Germans call malic acid Äpfelsäure and lactic acid Milchsäure (tartaric? Weinsäure, of course!). But we digress.

Warheads. Ridiculously sour.

Malic acid has two acidic protons (i.e., two hydrogen ions that like to leave the molecule). Lactic acid only has one acidic proton. Thus, for the same concentration of malic and lactic acid, malic will be perceived as harsher and more acidic. I have done this test with several different acids and it is not fun. In fact, remember Warheads candy? The candy with the super sour coating? Well, the coating is primarily malic acid. Wow, my mouth literally watered when I typed that as I was brought back to fifth-grade Warheads eating contests.

The point is that malolactic bacteria are often inoculated into wines after the primary alcoholic fermentation (yeast) to reduce the overall acidity of the wine.  Reducing acidity is not the only benefit of MLF, though.  It can help reduce {acetaldehyde} and release “trapped” aroma compounds enzymatically (Ref: Grimaldi et al., “Identification and Partial Characterization of Glycosidic Activities of Commercial Strains of the Lactic Acid Bacterium, Oenococcus oeni”, AJEV, 2000). A majority of reds undergo malolactic fermentation. Only some whites do, mostly chardonnay. The best way to determine whether or not your wine has undergone MLF is to try to detect a buttery aroma, like movie theater popcorn. This is the aroma compound diacetyl, produced by ML bacteria, which merits its own separate discussion.

                          

Left to right: 2007, 2002, 2004 December Harvest, 2004 January Harvest

From youngest to oldest:

Sleek, stylish bottle on the 2007

Sheldrake Point 2007 Riesling Ice Wine
Varietal: Riesling
ABV: 12.6%
Residual Sugar: 16.5% (165 g/L)
Appelation: Finger Lakes
Price point: $65 for 375 mL (half-bottle)
The 2007 looks pretty much like any normal riesling would, pale yellow in color, though noticeably thicker in the glass on swirling. It also smells like a Finger Lakes riesling, with characteristic light floral and citrus notes. Also, it’s got a little stonefruit (I wrote “peach”) and pineapple thrown in there. On the palate, lively acidity stands up to the considerable sweetness very well, for a very fresh, zingy feeling. Lemon and lime join the party on the palate, kind of like Sprite. (Interestingly, all of these wines have quite a bit more sugar than Sprite [~110 g/L]). Really great, and not just for dessert. This {well-balanced} wine plays nicely with blue cheese and walnuts, and would likely compliment spicy foods (e.g., Thai or Indian) pretty well.
Rating: 3.5 corks

Sheldrake Point 2004 December Harvest Riesling Ice Wine
Varietal: Riesling
ABV: 12.8%
Residual Sugar:15.5%
Appelation: Finger Lakes
Price point: $90 for 375 mL
This wine was bit more golden in color. Muted fruit aromas compared to the 2007 give way to more honeyed character in this one. I imagine the honey character also comes psychologically as a result of the increased viscosity of the wine. It’s also got a long finish.
Rating: 2.5 corks

Sheldrake Point 2004 January Harvest Riesling Ice Wine
Varietal: Riesling (grapes from 2003 season harvested in January 2004)
ABV: 12.2%
Residual Sugar: 19.5%
Appelation: Finger Lakes
Price point: $100 for 375 mL
The apparent crown jewel of the tasting, this wine was served at a Governor’s Ball at the White House in 2006.

Kerosene? In my Riesling? It's more likely than you think.

The label says 2004 but the grapes were from the 2003 vintage and harvested in January 2004, so for all intents and purposes, this is a 2003.  It’s starting to show its age. It’s just beginning to develop the aroma of “petrol” (a nice way of saying “kerosene”).*  This aroma is common in older rieslings and found especially in German rieslings (probably because many German rieslings will not be released for years after bottling, while FL wines usually come out ASAP.)  I have to say that the petrol is not a bad thing in this wine, and in fact it adds an interesting layer of complexity. I also noted some citrus peel in addition to peach aromas.
Rating: 2.5 corks

Sheldrake Point 2002 Riesling Ice Wine
Varietal: Riesling
ABV: 11.5%
Residual Sugar: 20%
Appelation: Finger Lakes
Price point: $70 for 375 mL
The oldest and darkest of the bunch, with its deep gold color, is on the verge of browning. I noticed two things right away on the nose. First, a whole lot more of the petrol character than the 2003. Secondly, and unfortunately, this wine is a bit {oxidized}. In all fairness, it’s possible that I got a bad bottle. However, I actually got a re-pour (for an errant fuzz in the glass), and the wine remained the same. If the whole lot of wine tastes like this, they really shouldn’t be selling it for $70, or maybe even at all.
Rating: 1 cork

Overall, I enjoyed the tasting. The wines were served to small groups (in this case, me and 5 friends) so it was like a private tasting. The host was informative but a bit blabby. At a certain point I just wanted some quiet so I could taste the wine. Others, though, got a lot out of it. I still find ice wine in general a bit pricey for me. And though they went out of their way to pair with some non-dessert foods, I’m not sure I would crack a $65 half bottle to down with dinner. For me, I’ll leave it as an appetizer or dessert, both of which it’s perfectly suited for.

*Science!
Ice wine is usually made by leaving the grapes on the vine until winter.  When cold temperatures come around (~15-18 F, according to the tasting room manager), the frozen grapes (the ones that haven’t {rotted} or been eaten by deer or just fallen off the vine) are picked and immediately pressed. Out in the cold, most of the water inside the grapes will freeze, but a more concentrated solution of sugars and acids will not, producing {must} with very high sugar and high acidity.  The resulting juice is fermented (though usually not without difficulty), leaving a wine with a normal amount of alcohol for a wine (~12% abv) and high residual sugar. The labor-intensive process justifies the high price, as it is a pain in the butt to pick in sub-freezing temperatures, crush solid grapes, and ferment juice that is so high in sugar that yeast have a hard time surviving due to osmotic stress (Ref: Erasmus et al., “Genome-wide expression analyses: Metabolic adaptation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to high sugar stress”, FEMS Yeast Res., 2003.)