# Flooded Wine Safe?



## smokegrub (May 2, 2010)

We had a serious flood in the area where my old family home and our wine cellar are located. The result, about 10-inches of water flooded the cellar for a couple of days and the wines located on the lowest shelf were submerged. They were well-corked and, in my opinion, ought to be fine, but I would appreciate hearing your opinion. I don't want to lose about 3 cases of wine unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## Bert (May 2, 2010)

Just my opinion, but the cork holds wine in....I would think it would hold water out......GOOD LUCK


----------



## Wade E (May 2, 2010)

I would at least spray the top of the corks with a k-meta solution.


----------



## Runningwolf (May 2, 2010)

I agree with Wade. Remove the shrink wraps if you use them and spray them with k-meta.


----------



## robie (May 3, 2010)

Worst case if you are "REALLY" worried is to: remove foil, spray tops with Kmeta, remove and discard old corks, then re-cork bottles. This may be overkill and unnecessary in some opinions, but what matters is that you are comfortable in the end.


----------



## u01dtj6 (May 3, 2010)

I agree with DancerMan, although I would be tempted when recorking to pour some into a glass, smell it and taste a little to see if any got in. But definately spay something on the top of the corks with some sulfites.


----------



## Bartman (May 3, 2010)

I know it's better to be safe than sorry, but what is the point of sanitizing the outside of the corks? The wine is on the inside, of course, so the only part that need to be sanitized needs to be the inside of the cork and bottle, right? If the wine was contaminated by the flooding, then the corks must not have sealed well enough, and they probably oxidizing anyway. Either they survived the flood or they didn't, and nothing done afterwards can change that, the way I see it. Spraying the outside of the cork just seems like a waste of k-meta solution.


----------



## Runningwolf (May 3, 2010)

Bart, I think the point here is peace of mind knowing you did something just in case. For the few pennies it would cost to spray them you know your preventing any bacteria that could possibly be there. If you saw some mold starting to grow on the outside of your bottle from high humidity you know it can't go through the glass but you would wipe it off anyways wouldn't you?


----------



## Bartman (May 3, 2010)

runningwolf said:


> Bart, I think the point here is peace of mind knowing you did something just in case. For the few pennies it would cost to spray them you know your preventing any bacteria that could possibly be there. If you saw some mold starting to grow on the outside of your bottle from high humidity you know it can't go through the glass but you would wipe it off anyways wouldn't you?



Certainly, if the bottles are dirty or are sitting in floodwater, I would take action to correct what I could on the outside, but only because it looks gross. Spraying the tops of the corks is pointless, unless you are soaking the corks in k-meta for an extended period (with the intention that the k-meta gets through the cork - an odd approach anyway). Wipe down the bottles and store 'em away - if the corks sealed the wine off, then great; if they didn't and the floodwater reached the wine inside, then it's ruined. I simply don't see any other possible outcomes, and spraying k-meta on the corks wouldn't change the the outcome.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am trying to see if I am missing something about what K-meta can do for you.


----------



## robie (May 3, 2010)

Some of the flood water could have been absorbed (ever so slightly) into the top of the cork, depending on how long the bottle set in the flood water. It would take many months for its results to reach the wine, itself.

I think spraying the outside of the cork would kill any contamination still setting on the outside of the cork. Also, the Kmeta would be absorbed into the cork to some degree. When the old cork is removed and replaced, nothing evil would be left on the rim of the bottle.

Most likely the wine is fine, as the corks were likely sealed. It's just the "thought" of some contamination having been absorbed into the cork close to the wine and remaining there for many months to come, still growing until the bottle is opened.


It's just a precaution, not rocket science. The person is abviously concerned about drinking a wine that was once under some pretty nasty gunk. I don't blame them. The Kmeta would kill anything trying to grow at the top around the rim of the cork.


----------



## vcasey (May 3, 2010)

Smoke, I would just recork them. It will give you a chance to replace possibly contaminated corks, but more importantly it will give you piece of mind that your wine made it through the floods. 
Good luck.


----------



## Runningwolf (May 3, 2010)

Smoke, don't take any chances and due to Haz Mat regulations it will be hard to dispose of them. I suggest splitting the batch in two. Send half to Wade and the other half to me. We will dispose of properly,I guarantee! I will even send you pictures of the properly disposed (consumed) procedure.


----------



## Wade E (May 3, 2010)

My thinking was just to try and kill any bacteria that the cork could have been exposed to before it takes control over the top of the cork and thats why I said minimally, but cork replacement s a better solution.


----------



## intoxicating (May 3, 2010)

I agree with the just to be safe group. I would wash the outsides, dip them in Kmeta, cork end first, to clean off that end of the bottle, then remove the old corks and re-cork. That way the corks don't have a chance to grow any nasty fur. Corks allow for a limited amount of transfer, so if they soaked up enough of the swamp water, it could eventually work its way into the good stuff over a period of months or a year.


----------



## smokegrub (May 3, 2010)

I don't have my corker. corks or kmeta at this location so I will dip the bottles in clorox and inspect before we leave. If anything appears questionable I will bring the corker here in a month and recork. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Wade E (May 3, 2010)

*DO NOT DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bleach and wine or corks do not mix!!!!!*


----------



## grapeman (May 4, 2010)

Chlorine (Clorox) can lead to cork taint with real cork so like Wade said don't go the chlorox route!


----------



## Bartman (May 4, 2010)

I am finally beginning to understand what the concern is - that some contaminated floodwater soaked into the corks (while it was temporarily submerged) and that floodwater will work its way through the cork into the wine, like a heat-seeking missile relentlessly chasing its target. 
But the physics don't work, do they? The pressure exerted by the floodwater pushed the floodwater into the cork while submerged, but once the greater pressure of being underwater was removed, then the path of least resistance would be back out of the cork into the atmosphere, rather than deeper into the cork, which would be far denser than the atmospheric pressure. So, the contaminated floodwater would evaporate back out the top of the cork, where it came in, leaving behind (potentially) some dried up contamination/bacteria at or near the outer portion of the cork. 

If that is the scenario we are all imagining, then I think re-corking is unnecessary (although not necessarily pointless), unless you expect the bottles to get wet/flooded periodically to where the bacteria may have the opportunity to get deeper into the cork, especially if you plan on aging this wine for 20 years. Otherwise, forget about it and drink it when you're ready. Uncorking and re-corking exposes the wine to more bacteria and other contaminants as well as oxidation, with certainty, than the potential of contamination from being underwater for a short time, possibly, but probably not, contaminating it.

At most, I would uncork the bottle you believe to be the most likely to be contaminated and look to see how far the cork is discolored, and go from there. Until you look at it, everything else is just speculation and theory.


----------



## Runningwolf (May 4, 2010)

Bart could you please repeat what you just said but a little slower this time so we could comment further on this subject..ROFLMAO


----------



## vcasey (May 4, 2010)

runningwolf said:


> Bart could you please repeat what you just said but a little slower this time so we could comment further on this subject..ROFLMAO


Ditto!

Bart if anything physics aside (please, oh please physics aside), its nothing just to wash and sanitize the bottles and recork just to have peace of mind. Sometimes it does nothing more then make you feel better even if its not necessary. If it was me I would clean and recork just to make sure the wine is alright. After all who knows what was in that water.


----------



## smokegrub (May 4, 2010)

Already dunked them in clorox before I read the most recent posts. Since they were only dipped and only the tip end of the cork was exposed I have little concern with taint from the clorox. It will evaporate in a very short time but it will sterilize the ends of the corks and keep any funk from growing there. Time will tell if I made a mistake. In the interim, I will make more wines. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Bartman (May 4, 2010)

Ya know, it's really easy to tell somebody else, off the cuff, to go to a lot of effort, just to be on the safe side, instead of analyzing the risks and probability of possible outcomes, and then figuring out what is truly necessary for _Smokegrub_ to feel comfortable with the level of risk involved. Looking back at Smokegrub's comments, he did not ask what labor-intensive measures he should undertake, believing there was little or no risk since the bottles were well-corked. I agree with his assessment, and encouraging him to expose his wine to new bacteria and oxygen by re-corking is not doing him any favors, IMHO. 

If the "solution" may create bigger issues than the original problem, what good is that?


----------



## Wade E (May 4, 2010)

What corks did you use for this batch, are they natural, partially synthetic or what? 
Bart, the water that these corks might have gotten in contact with could be loaded with feces and the such. Toilets and everything were backed up and overflowing into the streets with all the sewage. This is why I personally would sanitize the bottle and the top of the cork, remove those corks, probably re sulfite the wine and then bottle and cork again but thats me1


----------



## smokegrub (May 5, 2010)

Some of the corks were high quality natural others were synthetic.


----------



## vcasey (May 5, 2010)

wade said:


> What corks did you use for this batch, are they natural, partially synthetic or what?
> Bart, the water that these corks might have gotten in contact with could be loaded with feces and the such. Toilets and everything were backed up and overflowing into the streets with all the sewage. This is why I personally would sanitize the bottle and the top of the cork, remove those corks, probably re sulfite the wine and then bottle and cork again but thats me1



Boy I was thinking the same thing, just not worth getting sick over no matter how slim the chance. The ick factor is just to high for my tastes.


----------



## intoxicating (May 6, 2010)

If the synthetic corks were the elastopolymer and not agglomerate, then no worries I expect. Soap and water and the already applied clorox should be fine. But I would scrub the outsides of the bottles and corks with soap and water, and maybe even sulfite them just to get rid of the ick factor.


----------

