# adjusting TA prior to MLF



## spinelli01 (Mar 25, 2013)

I would like to get your opinion on adjusting TA prior to MLF. I bought 7 gallons of frozen must (sangiovese), which had a low TA (5.4). I adjusted the TA prior to primary fermentation. Fermentation is now complete, and I will be pressing tonight. My numbers from testing last night are as follows

pH 3.51
TA 4.6

I plan on going through an MLF, which I know will lower the TA. Should I adjust TA prior to MLF? I feel that I should so the pH doesn't get too high and I end up with a problem. I also plan on testing after press to see if any of my numbers adjust during the pressing process. What are your thoughts?

Thanks!!


----------



## ShawnDTurner (Mar 25, 2013)

that seems low for a wine that is known for it High acidity. I would adjust before malo.


----------



## spinelli01 (Mar 25, 2013)

would you have any concerns about over correcting the pH and it ends up being too low for MLF? Is there enough of a buffer in wine that it would be very difficult to over correct the pH?


----------



## ShawnDTurner (Mar 25, 2013)

I would not over correct before MLF. I would make a near adjustment, so small increment. Wineries often make adjustment knowning that they will be going through MLF so they will not have to make huge adjustments once complete.


----------



## spinelli01 (Mar 25, 2013)

That makes sense. You hate to risk spoilage from a high pH. I will go ahead and make an adjustment. I think I may adjust for pH instead of TA and see how it goes. You add less tartaric acid for pH adjustments. Would you agree?


----------



## blazerpb (Mar 25, 2013)

Just my opinion but 3.5 PH is pretty good for Sangiovese. If you adjusted the TA prior to fermentation then I would wait until MLF completion and test again. Also give the wine a taste you may want to leave it alone if it tastes good.


----------



## robie (Mar 25, 2013)

Yes, the PH will rise during MLF. You can go either way, though.

The acid for a Sangiovese should be a little higher, if you intend to pair it with food. Italian wines are made for pairing, so they tend to have a little higher acid.

You can adjust before MLF, but you have to be careful. If you get the 
PH too low, you will end up having to use a special, low PH MLB, which you likely will have to special order.

When adjusting TA (anytime!!!), always calculate how much acid to add, then add ONLY HALF that amount. The formulas are just not that reliable, considering that each batch of wine is so very different from any other. This way you can adjust, then test and possibly adjust again.

In your case, you should not even attempt that second test/adjustment. Lower the PH just a little, then start the MLF.

After MLF and stabilizing, adjust the acid again by taste, as long as the PH ends up in a good range for protection.


----------



## ibglowin (Mar 25, 2013)

My $0.02 but I would let it ride and see what you have post MLF. If your not careful you gonna over shoot and end up with a pH of 3.3 or something then risk a too low pH for successful MLF.


----------



## spinelli01 (Mar 26, 2013)

I took everyone's advice




. After pressing, my pH increased to 3.6 and my TA decreased to 3.9, so I decided to add 1/3 of the amount of Tartaric acid calculated. It raised the TA to 4.35 and decreased the pH to 3.48. At this point, I am not touching it and will begin MLF tomorrow. I tasted it after the addition, and the taste was much better. A little more depth to it - actually pretty good! Can't wait to take it through MLF. This was a frozen bucket of must from M&M. Pretty happy with it. Thanks for the advice!!!


----------



## blazerpb (Mar 26, 2013)

Please correct me if I am wrong but the best time to check PH is at crushing (Or in your case with frozen juice just prior to pitching yeast) and after MLF. CO2 gas from the fermentation will throw off the pH reading. Even though you have pressed there still may be CO2 gas which can throw off your readings.


----------



## ibglowin (Mar 26, 2013)

Pressing will pretty much blow off all the CO2 guaranteed. Ideally yes, you want to make your additions upfront and prior to fermentation. Sometimes the best laid plans of mice and men do not work out so you make the additions later on and as best you can. Not optimal but with time the wine will come together either way.


----------



## robie (Mar 26, 2013)

ibglowin said:


> Pressing will pretty much blow off all the CO2 guaranteed. Ideally yes, you want to make your additions upfront and prior to fermentation. Sometimes the best laid plans of mice and men do not work out so you make the additions later on and as best you can. Not optimal but with time the wine will come together either way.



I agree with Mike. Not much CO2 can be left after pressing. 

Upfront adjustments are much better and can help insure the best possible good happens during fermentation. Balance! Adjustments after the wine is stabilized is more about taste and protection. I say "protection" because if the PH is too high, it can shorten the life of the wine and require larger doses of SO2 to get the necessary protection. Other than the protection issue, it should be all about the taste.


----------



## joea132 (Mar 26, 2013)

It also depends when you crush. If you crush at a higher brix level you may have significant CO2. Just being devil's advocate.


----------



## spinelli01 (Mar 27, 2013)

The Brix was zero at press when I took the sample. The reason I took the sample was to make sure the environment was ideal for MLF.

I know there are a few time points when it is recommended to start MLF (simultaneously with yeast: at a Brix of 5; and after primary fermentation is complete). I chose to start MLF after primary fermentation because I read some discussions on the bacteria metabolizing sugar instead of malic acid, which can cause problems in the wine. My plan is to pitch MLBs with optimalo. 

Any thoughts on this issue from the more experienced wine makers out there?


----------



## ibglowin (Mar 27, 2013)

Keep it warm but not too warm. 65-70 is really the sweet spot for MLB. Watch for the tiny bubble ring at the top to form.


----------



## robie (Mar 27, 2013)

joea132 said:


> It also depends when you crush. If you crush at a higher brix level you may have significant CO2. Just being devil's advocate.



I assume you mean press, instead of crush.
Yes, some wine makers press at different points in the process, based on factors such as the amount of tannins. If one pesses before fermentation is completed, certainly there will be a new buildup of CO2.


----------



## robie (Mar 27, 2013)

spinelli01 said:


> I know there are a few time points when it is recommended to start MLF (simultaneously with yeast: at a Brix of 5; and after primary fermentation is complete). I chose to start MLF after primary fermentation because I read some discussions on the bacteria metabolizing sugar instead of malic acid, which can cause problems in the wine. My plan is to pitch MLBs with optimalo.
> 
> Any thoughts on this issue from the more experienced wine makers out there?



I think the MLB will only eat other food besides the malic acid in significant quantity, if they run out of malic acid. This is a good reason to test for when MLF is completed so one can immediately kill the MLB with a good dose of SO2. MLB eating other things besides malo can create off flavors.

There are several circumstances that can affect when a wine maker will start MLF. I'll give just a couple.

Because one usually can't add SO2 after alcohol fermentation and before MLF is completed, it can result in the wine being unprotected for long periods of time, as some MLF's can take 6 t 8 weeks to complete. If the quality of the grapes are a little suspect to start with, even though an initial, dose of Kmeta should have been added before alcohol fermentation, the wine is more susceptible to spoilage because of the long MLF. In this case the wine maker may choose to start the MLF while alcohol fermentation is still going.

MLF creates a buttery flavor in the wine because MLF produces a chemical - diacetyl. This buttery flavor generally is more favorable in whites than in reds. Some consider it a flaw in reds. Alcohol fermentation tends to remove the diacetly, so for reds, if MLF is started before alcohol fermentation is completed, the wine should end up with less diacetyl.

Using similar logic for whites, starting MLF after all alcohol fermentation is completed should result is more diacetyl in the finished white wine.

Special added nutrients just for the MLB is less necessary if alcohol fermentation is still underway.


----------



## spinelli01 (Mar 27, 2013)

Interesting about the diacetyl in reds. I thought the majority of reds were put through MLF and only a few whites.

You gave me an idea though. I can order the exact same frozen must, and start MLF at a Brix of 5 for the second wine. Then compare the two finished wines.

What is nice about ordering frozen must is it lessons the risk of native yeast or bacteria begining fermentation. The supplier recommends not adding SO2 at all if MLF is going to be initiated. I added about 10 ppm anyway to be safe. To be perfectly honest, this is only my 3 batch of wine but I do read and research it as much as possible (without being fired from my real job)! It is slightly addicting!


----------



## GreginND (Mar 27, 2013)

Think of a big buttery chardonnay. That butter comes from MLF.


----------



## ShawnDTurner (Mar 27, 2013)

it depends on how much Malic is in the Wine, just because you go through MALO it does not ensure there is enough to produce diacetyl in levels that will be detected by our senses.


----------



## GreginND (Mar 27, 2013)

That's true. Citric acid also produces diacetyl during MLF. The MLB strain also can impact the amount of diacetyl formation from malic acid.


----------



## robie (Mar 28, 2013)

ShawnDTurner said:


> it depends on how much Malic is in the Wine, just because you go through MALO it does not ensure there is enough to produce diacetyl in levels that will be detected by our senses.



Very true. An MLF is not even needed unless there is excess malic acid to be converted.


----------



## robie (Mar 28, 2013)

spinelli01 said:


> Interesting about the diacetyl in reds. I thought the majority of reds were put through MLF and only a few whites.
> 
> You gave me an idea though. I can order the exact same frozen must, and start MLF at a Brix of 5 for the second wine. Then compare the two finished wines.
> 
> What is nice about ordering frozen must is it lessons the risk of native yeast or bacteria begining fermentation. The supplier recommends not adding SO2 at all if MLF is going to be initiated. I added about 10 ppm anyway to be safe. To be perfectly honest, this is only my 3 batch of wine but I do read and research it as much as possible (without being fired from my real job)! It is slightly addicting!



Most of that pre-fermentation dose of SO2, if it is of the proper size) ends up being bound up (no longer considered free SO2) sometime before or during fermentation. If you did pre-dose properly, you should be OK to start MLF at the start of secondary.

I hope we are talking about fresh/frozen grape must and not kit wine must, as MLF should never be done on a kit wine.


----------



## joea132 (Mar 28, 2013)

robie said:


> I assume you mean press, instead of crush.
> Yes, some wine makers press at different points in the process, based on factors such as the amount of tannins. If one pesses before fermentation is completed, certainly there will be a new buildup of CO2.



Yeah I meant press, sorry!


----------



## spinelli01 (Mar 28, 2013)

I hope we are talking about fresh/frozen grape must and not kit wine must, as MLF should never be done on a kit wine.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Definitely a frozen grapes and not a kit.


----------



## wineman2013 (Mar 29, 2013)

robie said:


> Very true. An MLF is not even needed unless there is excess malic acid to be converted.



I would disagree with this , all red wines (except kits) should go through mlf to ensure microbial stability and eliminate the risk of spontaneous mlf occurring in the bottle ruining the wine . This is a very common fault at amateur wine comps and just as an important reason for doing mlf as acid reduction and flavour improvement.


----------



## wineman2013 (Mar 29, 2013)

Many of the modern MLB strains are actually selected to produce low levels of diactyl as this is undesirable in red wines , mbr vp 41 is one example 
http://www.lallemandwine.com/spip.php?rubrique33&id_mot=23&lang=en 

Something to note if working with mega acid hybrid and American reds and whites , you can drop the acid sharpness without your norton or seval blanc tasting like cheese! (Using so2 at crush and cofermenting MLB and yeast also reduce diactyl production) http://www.lallemandwine.com/spip.php?rubrique4<=fr&td=1&univ=23

It's actually pretty easy to do mlf and produce almost no diactyl , so buttery flavours are a stylistic choice you can have or not have at your discretion.
http://www.lallemandwine.com/IMG/pdf_Sensory_MLB_2007_-_USA_ENG.pdf

Some good UC Davis mlf info
http://lfbisson.ucdavis.edu/PDF/VEN124 Section 4.pdf


----------



## robie (Mar 29, 2013)

wineman2013 said:


> I would disagree with this , all red wines (except kits) should go through mlf to ensure microbial stability and eliminate the risk of spontaneous mlf occurring in the bottle ruining the wine . This is a very common fault at amateur wine comps and just as an important reason for doing mlf as acid reduction and flavour improvement.



I was not speaking specifically of reds. What I said is very true for a wine like a chardonnay. For Chardonnays, it depends on whether it is a clod climate .vs. hot climate grape. An MLF done correctly is never going to harm a wine, but it can be unnecessary. I say "done correctly is not going to harm..", because an MLF allowed to go too long or where the malic acid is very low to begin with and allowed to continue too long can harm the wine. The bacteria, if left too long, will start consuming and converting other than malic acid. The result can be considered a flaw at wine contests.

One should test and monitor and MLF, anyway so this would never become a problem.


----------



## wineman2013 (Mar 30, 2013)

My understanding is Mlf should always go to completion , so I'm not sure what you mean by go on too long . Do you have a reference I could read? I'd like to know more.

From what ive read Partial mlf wines are not made by arresting mlf but by blending an mlf wine with an un mlfd wine and stabilizing.

Co fermentations used to be avoided because of the risk of va production but modern strains and the latest Lallmand research , (linked above ) indicate that this risk is minimal , even non existant . 

But the main reason for doing mlf on a Chardonnay isn't really an acid reduction thin , it's stylistic . White burgundy and Chablis are grown in the same climate , but one is wooded and mlfd and the other is clean and crisp . All other Chardonnays fall into one of these two styles.
Many warm climate California Chardonnays are mlfd , because some people like butter and wood . 

Sometimes hybrid and American white grapes with really high acid levels are mlfd and a low diactyl producer is used and complete mlf is done and sometimes CS is also done to further drop acid but we are talking about grapes with acid levels over 11g/l and not vinifera.


----------



## Inferno (Mar 31, 2013)

Thanks for the uc Davis and lallmand notes , excellent reading!

http://www.lallemandwine.com/spip.php?article743&lang=en

This one is very interesting.


Buttery aroma
Sequential inoculation with Beta, PN4 Eliminate as much as possible yeast lees Lower temperature during MLF
Quick stabilization with SO2 at end of MLF

Fruit driven-style
Co-inoculation with Beta, Alpha, VP41, new selection (upcoming)
Sequential with Lalvin 31, VP41, new selection (upcoming) Temperature during AF/MLF 18-20°C
Yeast lees contact
Delayed SO2 addition (minimum 1 week)

I would have thought leaving it on the lees and delaying so2 after mlf would have given you more butter not fruit . But lallmands research shows the opposite


----------



## robie (Apr 1, 2013)

wineman2013 said:


> My understanding is Mlf should always go to completion , so I'm not sure what you mean by go on too long . Do you have a reference I could read? I'd like to know more.
> 
> From what I've read Partial mlf wines are not made by arresting mlf but by blending an mlf wine with an un mlfd wine and stabilizing.
> 
> ...



I am not trying to be argumentative with you on this, just trying to present the subject from my own angle. I do very much enjoy your posts and sincerely hope they will continue; we need your experience. Just keep in mind that the majority of our form members are not UC Davis students, graduates, or professional wine makers. They are newbies (and home wine makers, like me), just trying to gain a little more experience.

You wrote:
_Many warm climate California Chardonnays are mlfd , because some people like butter and wood. _

That is my point when I say MLF is not always necessary ("required"). In this case, it is NOT necessary to do an MLF in order to bring down the malic acid, since that acid level is likely already going to be low in a warm climate chardonnay. In this case, since malo is likely a very large part of the already low amount of available acid, by reducing it further with an MLF, the wine can ("can", not "will always") become flabby and lifeless, due to the now even lower acid. Tartartic acid likely will need to be added to taste. I didn't say there were not other benefits or stylistic reasons for MLF. Stabilizing with an MLF to avoid future MLF in the bottle is certainly something to consider. (Honestly, I think this is something that is happening to some of our members, as reflected by some of the recent threads.)

You wrote:
_My understanding is Mlf should always go to completion , so I'm not sure what you mean by go on too long . Do you have a reference I could read? I'd like to know more._

I did not write that one should stop an MLF before it is completed. When MLF has converted the malic acid, the MLB should be killed/removed and not allowed to continue trying to consume/convert. One thing they will continue to convert is any residual sugar. If I remember correctly, citric acid is another, but don't quote me.

MLB are not always going to roll over and die just because there is no (more) malic acid to consume. If an MLF is allowed to continue past the point where the malic acid is extremely low or gone, the bacteria can and will start consuming and converting other substances. (I looked for the article from which I derived this fact but could not find it.)

I would say you should try an experiment for yourself. As in an environment where some wines are not given a stabilizing dose of added sulfites, do not rack or stabilize the wine after MLF is completed. Leave the MLB on the wine for, say, thee more months, again assuming the wine will survive not being sulfited. From the same batch, when MLF is completed, rack and remove the MLB (filter). Compare the resulting two wines to each other. Even Lallamand on page six of http://www.lallemandwine.us/pdf/article_state_of_art_ml.pdf says to filter the wine after MLF - _Significantly reduce bacteria from the system to avoid potential quality degradation_. . Of course this is partially because this will reduce the possibility of future MLF in the bottle.

I have enjoyed discussing this with you. If you want to continue this discussion, let's please take it off line to PM, as none of this is really beneficial to the original thread.


----------



## Inferno (Apr 1, 2013)

In the lallmand article , not adding so2 right away produces a more fruit driven wine with less butter . 
One of the substances the MLB eat after mlf appears to be diactyl , so maybe it can be a good thing , depending on what you want .


----------



## robie (Apr 2, 2013)

Inferno said:


> In the lallmand article , not adding so2 right away produces a more fruit driven wine with less butter .
> One of the substances the MLB eat after mlf appears to be diactyl , so maybe it can be a good thing , depending on what you want .



MLF produces diactyl. Alcohol fermentation reduces it.


----------



## GreginND (Apr 2, 2013)

robie said:


> MLF produces diactyl. Alcohol fermentation reduces it.



Actually both form diacetyl and both can possibly reduce it. Here is an interesting paper looking at diacetyl concentrations with EC1118 and that showed at least one strain of MLF bacteria can reduce dacetyl.

http://www.ajevonline.org/content/46/4/442.abstract


----------



## wineman2013 (Apr 3, 2013)

http://www.lallemandwine.com/IMG/pdf_WUP_1_-_2012_Diacetyl_-_USA.pdf

In the article inferno originally posted , mt01 is listed as a strain the produces no diactyl and vp41 a strain that is used by many home winemakers because of its direct inoculation ability , tolerance of so2 and adverse conditions and speed of completion is listed as a very low producer.

So if you don't want butter you could pick one of these , let mlf compete , let the wine sit for a couple more weeks to let fine lees contact and the still active mlb with no more malic to eat to metabolise any minor diactyl residue , add your delayed so2 and not have any butter show at all .
Truth be told I've used beta on red wines for years in sequential inoculation , even with New York grapes with high TA , 9g/l plus and even though beta is listed as a high producer , I've never tasted butter in a red wine when using it. However when used on Chardonnay , yes you can taste butter , but in a Chardonnay I'm doing mlf on , it's exactly what I wanted. 

The only red wines I've ever tasted with a notable diactyl flavour were American or hybrid grapes with acid levels over 13g/l that were inoculated post AF with a strong producer like beta. But many of these hybrids have kind of unusual flavours on their own , a little butter on that green fox didn't hurt any.

I guess the bottom line for me as a HOMEWINEMAKER is , if I don't want diactyl , I just order vp41 from more wine instead of beta . 
How easy is that? They are even the same price
Vp41 has so many advantages its been my default strain for 4 years anyway , even before I knew it was a very low producer of diactyl . 


And if you want a buttery Chardonnay , ferment with d47 (idealy in a new barrel , consider cubes) rack leaving as much lees behind as you can , into a carboy or tank when dry , add beta and optimalo . Let mlf go check its progress every two days with paper chromatography , as soon as its done gently rack it off the fine lees minimizing aeration , check the ph and get your so2 up where it should be ASAP.


Result!


----------



## blazerpb (Apr 3, 2013)

Thank You Wineman 2013. Finally something I can understand.


----------



## wineman2013 (Apr 3, 2013)

Thank you I'm glad you found my public comments of benefit . 

Steve


----------



## altavino (Nov 17, 2013)

scott labs has some guidelines supporting winemans post , how to maximize and on the second page minimising butter 

see here 
http://www.scottlab.com/uploads/documents/technical-documents/913/Managing Diacetyl.pdf


----------



## LoveTheWine (Nov 18, 2013)

blazerpb said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong but the best time to check PH is at crushing (Or in your case with frozen juice just prior to pitching yeast) and after MLF. CO2 gas from the fermentation will throw off the pH reading. Even though you have pressed there still may be CO2 gas which can throw off your readings.



I agree with this. One way to get around that problem is to take your sample and shake it up for a while to get the Co2 out and then do your PH test.


----------

