# Wild Fermentation Is the Sexiest, Least Understood Technique in Winemaking



## pgentile (Mar 1, 2018)

Going to have to try a wild ferment one of these days. 

"For the first few days of fermentation it’s the more dominant wild non-Saccharomyces species that dominates. This is the heart of the wild ferment: The yeasts produce interesting flavor compounds and textures, and begin the work of turning sugar into alcohol. But they aren’t able to tolerate high levels of alcohol, and by the time the levels creep up to around 4 percent, most of them die, leaving the way clear for the small populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to start doing their stuff. They take over and finish off."

https://vinepair.com/articles/wild-ferment-natural-wine/


----------



## jgmillr1 (Mar 1, 2018)

pgentile said:


> The yeasts produce interesting flavor compounds and textures...



Yeah, and not all of those are good either. There are lots of very good commercial yeast strains out there now. It's playing Russian roulette to go with wild yeasts.


----------



## JimInNJ (Mar 1, 2018)

Call me a prude, but I'm sticking with SO2, commercial yeast and safe sex.


----------



## NorCal (Mar 1, 2018)

I would really like to try that,. I'm paying $1,000 for 1,000 pounds of grapes to do a 60 gallon barrel and I'm just too chicken to risk it.


----------



## Johnd (Mar 1, 2018)

NorCal said:


> I would really like to try that,. I'm paying $1,000 for 1,000 pounds of grapes to do a 60 gallon barrel and I'm just too chicken to risk it.



I'm right there with you, want to do it, just too chicken. Maybe this fall, I'll set aside one bucket of must for a wild yeast ferment, press and rack down to a 3 gallon carboy if it doesn't get infected and rot............not too much ventured, not too much lost......


----------



## JimInNJ (Mar 1, 2018)

Wouldn't a lot have to do with the environment in which the grapes were grown? If they came from the heart of a traditional wine growing region, surrounded by traditionally managed vineyards as far as the wind could blow, I would expect them to have very different microbes on them than grapes grown in my suburban backyard.

"Accept No Unnecessary Risk."


----------



## GreginND (Mar 1, 2018)

JimInNJ said:


> Wouldn't a lot have to do with the environment in which the grapes were grown? If they came from the heart of a traditional wine growing region, surrounded by traditionally managed vineyards as far as the wind could blow, I would expect them to have very different microbes on them than grapes grown in my suburban backyard.



This. Exactly. Not being anywhere close to an area where wine has been made successfully for centuries, I would not risk natural flora to do the job.


----------



## mainshipfred (Mar 1, 2018)

I don't believe it takes that long for the cultured yeast to overtake the wild and the only way I'm aware to stop the wild is using S02. I'm starting to turn against pre fermentation additions of S02 so I think I'll let the wild buggers have their fun until the cultured ones take over.


----------



## Craiger (Mar 2, 2018)

pgentile said:


> Going to have to try a wild ferment one of these days.


I say go for it! Have fun! Maybe make a small batch if you're fearful of wasting too much time or money. But personally I don't think it will be a waste of time or money. That's the way I made wine for several years (and I always liked the results). I never had a batch go "bad." And that's the way my buddy's made it for almost 50 years (and he and I have always liked the results). And that's the way wine has been made for thousands of years!!

You might ask why I don't make it like that anymore, and why I started going the route of SO2 and commercial yeast. Only because I wanted to try something new. What's around that corner? What's over that next ridge? Let's go find out! It sounds like you're feeling that same way. You've probably been making it with SO2 and commercial yeast, and now your curious about natural fermentation. Give it a try! It'll be a new experience. You might like the results, and you might not. Only one way to find out. I'm sure in a few years, I'll get restless using commercial yeast and I'll go back to natural fermentation, and then I'll get tired of that and I'll go back to commercial yeast. What's great is there's no rule that says we HAVE to do one or the other.

Thanks for posting the link to the article!


----------



## balatonwine (Mar 2, 2018)

pgentile said:


> "For the first few days of fermentation it’s the more dominant wild non-Saccharomyces species that dominates. This is the heart of the wild ferment: The yeasts produce interesting flavor compounds and textures, and begin the work of turning sugar into alcohol. But they aren’t able to tolerate high levels of alcohol, and by the time the levels creep up to around 4 percent, most of them die, leaving the way clear for the small populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to start doing their stuff. They take over and finish off."



It all sounds so easy.

I have tried it.

It isn't.

And to boot, after a massive renovation or our wine cellar and processing area, the wine from so called "wild fermenting" changed. I count that as anecdotal evidence that it is the built up of historical yeast in the cellar, not the "field", that is inoculating the must and mostly influencing the final wine. Which is why I really consider such wine making "feral yeast" wine making in those areas that have historically done this type of wine making and do so today successfully and consistently. After all, historical and cultural practices can also be considered part of terroir.

That being said, I have made some really nice wine without adding commercial yeast, and I have also made some great drain cleaner that way. So it varies. Meanwhile, the worst wine I made with commercial yeast was "meh", but it was still drinkable. But of course, that is just me. And I keep trying fermenting without packaged yeast. So not trying to discourage anyone from trying it.


----------



## balatonwine (Mar 2, 2018)

Error post. Meant to edit my last one -- but ended up with a new post.


----------



## pgentile (Mar 2, 2018)

balatonwine said:


> It all sounds so easy.
> 
> I have tried it.
> 
> ...



I would love to experiment some, but my wine operation is so micro I don't want to take the chance of a throw away batch, but maybe in the spring with the less expensive california grapes that are available.

After 5 years of non stop wine making though I would guess my cellar has a house yeast at this point. I have used the RC-212 strain mostly. But yeast once back in the wild, does it revert back to it's original strain/form like feral dogs and cats do after several generations?


----------



## pgentile (Mar 2, 2018)

mainshipfred said:


> I don't believe it takes that long for the cultured yeast to overtake the wild and the only way I'm aware to stop the wild is using S02. I'm starting to turn against pre fermentation additions of S02 so I think I'll let the wild buggers have their fun until the cultured ones take over.



If the non-saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast start to die off at 4% then yeah the saccharomyces or cultured take overs fairly quickly. So any batches that any of us have done without SO2 up front and I did a few early on, then they more than likely had wild yeasts early on in the ferment. Think I might forego SO2 upfront as well.


----------



## Scooter68 (Mar 2, 2018)

That's a high risk practice. You have no idea of the yeast/bacteria present so you have no idea of what it's good and bad results may be. Once it's done it's thing, you could be fighting a battle to save your wine from some nasty characteristics, that's why yeast strains were developed - so that known results could be obtained. Obviously some strains of yeast in the wild will work in higher alcohol levels, those were the strains used to develop the 'domesticated'yeasts we use now. Otherwise you are sort of playing cards and betting on the hand before you look at the cards you were dealt.


----------



## balatonwine (Mar 3, 2018)

pgentile said:


> After 5 years of non stop wine making though I would guess my cellar has a house yeast at this point.



I do not know the time frame needed. Not sure anyone knows for sure. But one author I read said that after about 100 years California wineries are *starting* to see a buildup of desirable yeast.....



pgentile said:


> I have used the RC-212 strain mostly. But yeast once back in the wild, does it revert back to it's original strain/form like feral dogs and cats do after several generations?



Feral dogs and cats have a change in behavior. Feral yeast would need a change in DNA to go back to a "wild state".


----------



## JimInNJ (Mar 3, 2018)

Yeast is very good at changing DNA. But probably has much more of an opportunity to do so out in the wild than in a basement.


----------



## Scooter68 (Mar 3, 2018)

Problem with a basement is that their can also be bacteria not just yeast. The K-meta should reduce the chances of wild yeast AND bacteria. I'd fear the unknown bacteria. And not all bacteria are killed by alcohol so the unknowns are the biggest risk - You don't know what you don't know. New house, Old House it doesn't really matter, most basements are not built or cared for the same as say your kitchen.


----------



## cgallamo (Mar 5, 2018)

JimInNJ said:


> Call me a prude, but I'm sticking with SO2, commercial yeast and safe sex.


This is like sharing needles. If there was some huge advantage to the flavor profile I could get that would be one thing, but this is just so you can say you did it.


----------



## pgentile (Mar 5, 2018)

cgallamo said:


> but this is just so you can say you did it.


 You make this sound like it's parachuting or bunji jumping. People stick needles in their arms just to say they did it? It's just wine making. Some of us want to understand and learn by experimenting and experiencing. I have followed all the "so called' rules of modern wine making to ensure I have the best probability of making a decent wine. But the reason I want to experiment is to figure out for myself what rules or guidelines are "urban legends".


----------



## cgallamo (Mar 5, 2018)

pgentile said:


> You make this sound like it's parachuting or bunji jumping. People stick needles in their arms just to say they did it? It's just wine making. Some of us want to understand and learn by experimenting and experiencing. I have followed all the "so called' rules of modern wine making to ensure I have the best probability of making a decent wine. But the reason I want to experiment is to figure out for myself what rules or guidelines are "urban legends".


My bad - you are right. Did not mean to be insulting.


----------



## mainshipfred (Mar 5, 2018)

pgentile said:


> You make this sound like it's parachuting or bunji jumping. People stick needles in their arms just to say they did it? It's just wine making. Some of us want to understand and learn by experimenting and experiencing. I have followed all the "so called' rules of modern wine making to ensure I have the best probability of making a decent wine. But the reason I want to experiment is to figure out for myself what rules or guidelines are "urban legends".



Absolutely couldn't agree more. I like the urban legend analogy.


----------



## Scooter68 (Mar 5, 2018)

While comparing "sharing needles" to using wild yeast to ferment wine may be a little over the top, your subject line might likewise over the top. 

I Cannot imagine how using wild yeast could be 'sexy' (And I've been accused of having a very vivid imagination). 

And wild yeast is well understood. That precisely why 'domestic' yeasts were developed. Wine makers over many years have learned that using wild yeast is a risky process - This isn't like picking wild berries, because with very little learning one can recognize edible versus inedible berries. With wild yeast, you cannot even identify the yeast to know what is present without culturing it and a study of the yeast before starting a fermentation. 

Along with that you are also permitting bacteria into a high sugar/food source environment and hoping that as the fermentation progresses, those bacteria will be killed by the alcohol. Again unfortunately not all bacteria are killed by alcohol. 

This not to call your ideas dumb or irresponsible, but I would also not consider 'use' of wild yeast a proposition that should be considered highly desirable or low risk, especially in our world today where bacteria and viruses are mutating and becoming resistant to traditional treatments. Hitting a wine must with SO2 is a step taken for more than just the elimination of wild yeast, it's also a step taken to protect the wine just as we wash and sanitize our equipment and bottles before allowing them in contact with our wine.

Today I think home wine makers want not only to try something new but they want to make a good safe wine and be able to repeat that process again if they like their results. The latter could be pretty difficult with wild yeast.


----------



## Ajmassa (Mar 5, 2018)

Scooter68 said:


> While comparing "sharing needles" to using wild yeast to ferment wine may be a little over the top, your subject line might likewise over the top.
> I Cannot imagine how using wild yeast could be 'sexy' (And I've been accused of having a very vivid imagination).


 That’s just the title of the article quoted and posted. 
I’m pretty sure nobody is arguing any points here. And we all know the risks involved- which is why we don’t tend to do it. But reading an intriguing article gets you thinking. Sorta like wanting to join the Airforce after watching TopGun for the 1st time. To do it once on a juice pail or something would be interesting. 
Especially when your making many batches throughout the year- throwing caution to the wind on a juice pail or small grape batch just for the fun of it just to keep it interesting. For some reason those juice pails (ones which NO yeast is added) tend to take off on their own easily. My family made many pails without adding yeast. (Tho they didn’t check any levels at all either). 
If it stalls, has issues, or goes south? No biggie. Those risks are known. If it turns out successful? Then great. Gives an excuse to give it another go. Either way I don’t think anyone is looking to completely abandon commercial yeast.


----------



## mainshipfred (Mar 5, 2018)

Ajmassa5983 said:


> That’s just the title of the article quoted and posted.
> I’m pretty sure nobody is arguing any points here. And we all know the risks involved- which is why we don’t tend to do it. But reading an intriguing article gets you thinking. Sorta like wanting to join the Airforce after watching TopGun for the 1st time. To do it once on a juice pail or something would be interesting.
> Especially when your making many batches throughout the year- throwing caution to the wind on a juice pail or small grape batch just for the fun of it just to keep it interesting. For some reason those juice pails (ones which NO yeast is added) tend to take off on their own easily. My family made many pails without adding yeast. (Tho they didn’t check any levels at all either).
> If it stalls, has issues, or goes south? No biggie. Those risks are known. If it turns out successful? Then great. Gives an excuse to give it another go. Either way I don’t think anyone is looking to completely abandon commercial yeast.



AJ, you feeling OK, it appears you were choosing your words with caution. LOL But you are correct that the other posters thinking of giving it a try are not abandoning commercial yeasts and simply experimenting with the concept.


----------



## JimInNJ (Mar 5, 2018)

For anyone joining late, the question is: Which is more risky, spontaneous fermentation, or bungee jumping without a parachute while having unprotected sex with a partner who shares needles?


----------



## mainshipfred (Mar 5, 2018)

JimInNJ said:


> For anyone joining late, the question is: Which is more risky, spontaneous fermentation, or bungee jumping without a parachute while having unprotected sex with a partner who shares needles?



At least you understood the OP. LOL


----------



## pete1325 (Mar 5, 2018)

When I first started making wine (from grapes) with a bunch of Italian fellows we never added commercial yeast. It was all old school......picked up grapes on Saturday, crush/de-stem on Monday, leave in huge vats punching down the caps twice a day for a week and press on Sunday. Racked periodically and bulk aged for 6 month to a year. Never had a batch go bad. However, nowadays I add commercial yeast and MLB which I think in the end makes a better wine......at least that's what I've been told.


----------



## pgentile (Mar 5, 2018)

LOL, The title of my post was the title of the article referenced. I just wanted to discuss yeast both wild and tame.


----------



## mainshipfred (Mar 5, 2018)

pgentile said:


> LOL, The title of my post was the title of the article referenced. I just wanted to discuss yeast both wild and tame.



I'm still holding in laughs from @JimInNJ post. It would be too hard to explain it to others.


----------



## pgentile (Mar 5, 2018)

mainshipfred said:


> I'm still holding in laughs from @JimInNJ post. It would be too hard to explain it to others.



Cracked me up, but "bungee jumping without a parachute while having unprotected sex with a partner who shares needles" is whole other forum on a slightly different website.


----------



## Ajmassa (Mar 5, 2018)

JimInNJ said:


> For anyone joining late, the question is: Which is more risky, spontaneous fermentation, or bungee jumping without a parachute while having unprotected sex with a partner who shares needles?



True story. I once went “parachuting” without a bungee. With my future wife. Drank homemade wild yeast fermented “family red” wine that night. Followed by unprotected adult relations. 
The skydiving was intense and exhilarating. The sex was “hotel style” mind blowing. But the wine was mediocre at best. 
Given the chance I’d do it all again and not change a thing... except maybe toss my dad a packet of RC 212 this time.


----------



## ceeaton (Mar 5, 2018)

mainshipfred said:


> AJ, you feeling OK, it appears you were choosing your words with caution.


Fred, AJ's feeling better now!


----------



## Ajmassa (Mar 5, 2018)

I just piggybacked JimInNJ’s post. To be fair though I can’t blame that on the wild yeast since that old style has more variables. Aside from a packet of RC212, also needed would be a hydrometer, and a convo about gross lees and headspace. And so2. And aging.


----------



## JimInNJ (Mar 5, 2018)

Ajmassa5983 said:


> But the wine was mediocre at best.


He remembers the wine. In any other crowd that would probably be seen as odd.


----------



## Scooter68 (Mar 5, 2018)

Ah Hah - A Media title - that splains it. Some author desperate for a title for his article and knew that anything with Sex in the title would capture some eyeballs. Sneaky media tricks.

I'll pass on anything involving bungees. Had a friend lose an eye when a bungee popped lose on a load, came over the top of the car roof and caught his eye. How's that for graphic violence?  (And way off topic.)

Understand, Now about those those needles...


----------



## Ajmassa (Apr 19, 2018)

I listen to this podcast once in a while. Native ferments were a topic recently and I was surprised to learn that it is not uncommon. The Napa winemaker- with YAN known and already knowing his grapes so well-said he’s able to carefully feed proper nutrients along the way to ensure a healthy and complete ferment to 14%. (Another episode he talks about wines over 14.12% or something brings the winery into a higher tax bracket) And adding cultured yeast is just an unnecessary step and expense. 
Much more risky for the homewinemaker- but still very interesting to hear him talk about native ferments with confidence. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast...th-jim-duane/id906249753?mt=2&i=1000384064128
(The episode about ph and TA is another great listen too)


----------



## BernardSmith (Apr 19, 2018)

Ajmassa5983 said:


> I listen to this podcast once in a while. Native ferments were a topic recently and I was surprised to learn that it is not uncommon. The Napa winemaker- with YAN known and already knowing his grapes so well-said he’s able to carefully feed proper nutrients along the way to ensure a healthy and complete ferment to 14%. (Another episode he talks about wines over 14.12% or something brings the winery into a higher tax bracket) And adding cultured yeast is just an unnecessary step and expense.
> Much more risky for the homewinemaker- but still very interesting to hear him talk about native ferments with confidence. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast...th-jim-duane/id906249753?mt=2&i=1000384064128
> (The episode about ph and TA is another great listen too)



Whoa Nelly! The risk to a home wine maker using indigenous yeast would seem to be so much less than the risk to a commercial winery. Worst case, we lose a few dollars and mark it up to "experience". The winery loses its income if it cannot sell its wine and worse, perhaps, its reputation, if it does sell it and customers pour it down the drain as undrinkable.


----------



## Ajmassa (Apr 19, 2018)

BernardSmith said:


> Whoa Nelly! The risk to a home wine maker using indigenous yeast would seem to be so much less than the risk to a commercial winery. Worst case, we lose a few dollars and mark it up to "experience". The winery loses its income if it cannot sell its wine and worse, perhaps, its reputation, if it does sell it and customers pour it down the drain as undrinkable.



I assume this winemaker, who’s worked at a few big name wineries, started doing native ferments at a place that was already doing it. So they are already ‘in the know’ as to what the natural yeast is capable of.


----------



## mainshipfred (Apr 19, 2018)

I'm sure they minimize the risk and as much as I hate to say it, I think they know more then us. LOL


----------



## 4score (Jun 29, 2018)

I have a twist to this thread. I have also been firmly in the camp of only using commercial yeasts. I've even further limited my commercial choice to Renaissance Andante, a carefully made breakthrough yeast that eliminates any possibility of H2S. So, getting to that point, why would I want to abandon this and try wild yeast? I was reading about this last year and just never did anything, but this year I'm tempted to try commercial non-saccharomyces yeast. Chr Hansen makes a few options here. The theory is that these yeasts will grow for 1 to 3 days, barely invoking any alcohol fermentation, but they are actively dominating any "wild" yeast strains and imparting their own characteristics that you may not be fully achieving with your regular fermentation yeast. They have three non-sacc yeast options; FrootZen is known for increasing the fruitiness characteristics and used often with whites - Concerto is known for amplifying red fruit or strawberry while manufacturing lactic acid to increase acidity and lower pH - Prelude is a heavy producer of polysaccharides and helps to promote fuller body and mouthfeel while imparting dark fruit character, like plum. Another bonus is that these non-sacc yeasts are also big oxygen scavengers and act as protection. You add them immediately upon crush and leave things for 1 to 3 days, the longer you wait before adding your normal yeast, supposedly the more pronounced the attributes. As your regular yeast takes off, they quickly overwhelm these non-sacc ones.

So, it seems you can capture some of the positive "wild" attributes while still enjoying the protection of a controlled commercial yeast ferment. I'm thinking of trying this on a barrel of Cab-Franc this season, using the Prelude yeast before my normal Andante.


----------



## pgentile (Jun 29, 2018)

Had no idea any of these non-sacc yeasts were available commercially. FrootZen, Concerto and Prelude. Interesting.

So the process would be no k-meta, pitch Prelude after crush? Then 1 to 3 days pitch Andante or other sacc yeast? 

Any nutrients needed for Prelude or non-saccs? And what about MLF on the Cab Franc?

Will have to do some reading, but liking the sound of this.


----------



## sour_grapes (Jun 29, 2018)

Would you target only high-Brix must? If I am understanding this correctly, their spec sheet says you can lose up to ~3% ABV (or 6 Brix or 0.025 SG) to the non-AF yeasties.


----------



## sour_grapes (Jun 29, 2018)

I think I was misunderstanding it. I think it _does_ produce alcohol, but it just has a low tolerance.


----------



## 4score (Jun 29, 2018)

pgentile said:


> Had no idea any of these non-sacc yeasts were available commercially. FrootZen, Concerto and Prelude. Interesting.
> 
> So the process would be no k-meta, pitch Prelude after crush? Then 1 to 3 days pitch Andante or other sacc yeast?
> 
> ...


I'm not sure about the nutrient requirements....good question. I do know that it is "complementary" to MLF. And yes, this non-sacc yeast would take the place of the normal SO2 application at the front end. It's very intriguing isn't it?


----------



## 4score (Jun 29, 2018)

sour_grapes said:


> I think I was misunderstanding it. I think it _does_ produce alcohol, but it just has a low tolerance.


Correct....a one or two brix conversion but it dies quickly.


----------



## 4score (Jun 29, 2018)

Kind of dry....but still interesting:


----------



## pgentile (Jun 29, 2018)

4score said:


> I'm not sure about the nutrient requirements....good question. I do know that it is "complementary" to MLF. And yes, this non-sacc yeast would take the place of the normal SO2 application at the front end. It's very intriguing isn't it?



I have stopped doing the S02 up front the last several batches anyway to help MLF. I like the idea of influencing what takes hold early on in this way. Although someday I will do a wild ferment from start to finish.


----------



## Zintrigue (Jun 30, 2018)

I've had my fill of wild yeasts for one lifetime. I'll stick to lab developed yeasts that give me drinkable results and un-ruined equipment, thank you.


----------



## 4score (Jul 1, 2018)

Zintrigue said:


> I've had my fill of wild yeasts for one lifetime. I'll stick to lab developed yeasts that give me drinkable results and un-ruined equipment, thank you.


These non-sacc yeasts ARE lab developed.


----------



## mainshipfred (Jul 1, 2018)

I too find this intriguing but a little unclear. Do they consider the non sac lab produced yeasts wild or am I missing the point?


----------



## AkTom (Jul 1, 2018)

From the very little I know, it sounds like it’s a domesticated yeast. Developed in the lab. All yeast started out wild. That’s all I have for you. I need to get started on my first cup of coffee.


----------



## Zintrigue (Jul 1, 2018)

4score said:


> These non-sacc yeasts ARE lab developed.



Color me confused. Doesn't that make it *not* wild? I mean if it's lab developed then you're still getting your yeast from the pet store instead of picking up a stray and hoping it doesn't bite you.


----------



## pgentile (Jul 1, 2018)

Zintrigue said:


> Color me confused. Doesn't that make it *not* wild? I mean if it's lab developed then you're still getting your yeast from the pet store instead of picking up a stray and hoping it doesn't bite you.




Derived from the wild, isolated and bred, just like traditional yeast and MLB. So yeah not really wild anymore. But I like the concept. Although now I'm going to be doing 3 yeast/bacteria additions on most reds.


----------



## mainshipfred (Jul 1, 2018)

After doing some limited research it appears we may have taken @4score's OP out of context. Maybe because of the thread it is in but it really has nothing to do with wild or natural fermentation. I believe it has to do with known flavor profiles and enhancements that can be acheived by using engineered non sac yeast strains. I would considering using it but from what I can tell it is sold in 500g packages which I think would rule out the vast majority of us.


----------



## pgentile (Jul 1, 2018)

mainshipfred said:


> I would considering using it but from what I can tell it is sold in 500g packages which I think would rule out the vast majority of us.



Didn't explore the packaging aspect, but yes that would be prohibitive for most of us.


----------



## mainshipfred (Jul 1, 2018)

pgentile said:


> Derived from the wild, isolated and bred, just like traditional yeast and MLB. So yeah not really wild anymore. But I like the concept. Although now I'm going to be doing 3 yeast/bacteria additions on most reds.



I'm a firm believer in multiple yeasts but have yet to try multiple bacteria.


----------



## pgentile (Jul 1, 2018)

mainshipfred said:


> I'm a firm believer in multiple yeasts but have yet to try multiple bacteria.



What I mean by "3 yeast/bacteria additions on most reds" is something like: 1. non-sacc yeast at crush 2. Sacc yeast 24-48 after 3. MLB 24 -48 hours after sacc yeast.

I'm not adding so2 after crush anymore and until the Sacc yeast gets going, there has to be some type of wild yeast/bacteria going on. The non-sacc yeast would influence that part of the process. But as you state packaging size for the micro winery might not make economic sense.


----------



## mainshipfred (Jul 1, 2018)

pgentile said:


> What I mean by "3 yeast/bacteria additions on most reds" is something like: 1. non-sacc yeast at crush 2. Sacc yeast 24-48 after 3. MLB 24 -48 hours after sacc yeast.
> 
> I'm not adding so2 after crush anymore and until the Sacc yeast gets going, there has to be some type of wild yeast/bacteria going on. The non-sacc yeast would influence that part of the process. But as you state packaging size for the micro winery might not make economic sense.



I see, didn't read it that way. Since last fall I never used less then 3 different yeast in different buckets per batch (a bit more work). Not the same as non sac but I would think it is a similar concept.


----------



## Ajmassa (Jul 1, 2018)

mainshipfred said:


> I'm a firm believer in multiple yeasts but have yet to try multiple bacteria.



I wanted to use multiple bacteria this spring- but in the end it became a hassle. And more prep , more time, more equipment, more to keep organized, and more money spent. The natural sacc and multiple yeast/bacteria ideas are all awesome. But sometimes I can get carried away with all these ideas to experiment. 
I had fun fun playing with the d80/d254 combo. I cant wait to barrel age and blend. And experimenting with oak in primary and maybe an EM one day. Other than that I plan to keep it simple. Still a lot to learn. I just wanna make some wine that tastes good!. Winery is starting to look more like a mad scientists lab! This fall my plan is back to basics. No BS. Straight varietal. Maybe 2 yeasts again. But that’s it. My love for winemaking heavily outweighs the time I’m able to devote.


----------



## mainshipfred (Jul 1, 2018)

My love for winemaking heavily outweighs the time I’m able to devote. [/QUOTE] 

Don't forget you had a lot going on in the spring with your move. Plus I have a feeling you with find the time.


----------



## Ajmassa (Jul 1, 2018)

Well I’m the type who is never satisfied. And no matter what it is- i always want more, bigger, better, etc... Something tells me that this will be a lifelong balancing act.


----------



## Venatorscribe (Jul 2, 2018)

FYI, I occasionally have a batch take off on me during the pre-treatment phase before innoculating with yeast. And when that happens I knock it back with k-meta. But I have always wondered what would happen if I allowed it to do it's thing. So last summer I split out a few litres of self fermenting juice and let it go. At the time, I thought it was one of the more exciting things I'd done with my wine making in years. I'd lay in bed at night thinking about it's potential complex and full bodied characteristics. Will here we are - 12 months on - and I must report that it produced a very very ordinary wine. Absolutely nothing stunning about it. So - I shall continue to use my normal commercially available selection. But I am pleased I gave it a shot.


----------

