Chaptalization

[vinny]

A thread title, and a thread original post content can be different. The post content can allow more latitude.

Ergo, I replied to a subset in the original comment about how some wine making issues are "illegal". So the topic thread was about chaptalization, but the topic comment section was potentially far broader. And I took that view that generic legal issues in general were fair game to help explain the issue, and help explain other issues like why things are different for... example... Champaign. So your post was simply an extension of that legal complexity I was trying to describe.

But... and otherwise... I will leave it only to the OP to correct me for any transgression off topic. And if so corrected, will give a proper mea culpa. But only if and when to the OP. Others should not correct others off handly based on self opinion (but may justifiably get gleeful, proper, enormous, self satisfaction and many personal ego points if the OP corrects me -- if so well done).

Good luck with that, the amount of threads I derail around here.. I'm not one to judge anyone on where they steer the flow of conversation.

 

[balatonwine]

Good luck with that, the amount of threads I derail around here.. I'm not one to judge anyone on where they steer the flow of conversation.

Brilliant reply.

Wish I had your calm sense humor.

 

[winemaker81]

A thread title, and a thread original post content can be different. The post content can allow more latitude.

I was not chastising you. These discussions can be difficult as text provides no tone. It would be much easier over a glass or 3 of wine.

 

[vinny]

Brilliant reply.

Wish I had your calm sense humor.

The thing I really like about this forum is where the conversation goes. I often learn things I wasn't even considering, just 'cause the conversation wondered off a little, or someone chimed in with a different perspective.

It's great that no one is regulating the natural flow. We always get the OP answered, and sometimes even get back on topic.

 

[BigDaveK]

But... and otherwise... I will leave it only to the OP to correct me for any transgression off topic. And if so corrected, will give a proper mea culpa. But only if and when to the OP. Others should not correct others off handly based on self opinion (but may justifiably get gleeful, proper, enormous, self satisfaction and many personal ego points if the OP corrects me -- if so well done).

I don't think any OP ever thought, "I hope we don't go off topic!"
Very often the tangents are just as interesting (or more so) as the original topic so I say, who cares.
But then...I thought we're supposed to stray!

 

[mainshipfred]

I'm bringing this back because I found 2 different search answers. When chaptalizing wine is it the projected wine volume or the must volume. I'd have to lean toward wine volume but one of the articles said must volume. If wine volume it an assumption rather than an exact number.

 

[mainshipfred]

These are the 2 initial paragraphs.

When chaptalizing must, you should always calculate the sugar addition based on the must volume as that is the liquid you are adding the sugar to, not the final wine volume which will be less due to the fermentation process; essentially, you are adjusting the sugar concentration of the must before it becomes wine.

Featured snippet from the web​

Enter your expected wine volume, not your must volume. If you have no idea how much wine you will get, multiply your must amount by 65% as an estimate. Eg - 11.5 gallons of must will give you ~7.5 gallons of wine. This mainly applies to red wines, where the press will occur after fermentation.

 

[winemaker81]

I'm bringing this back because I found 2 different search answers.

It sounds like both methods attach the problem from different sides.

Thinking back, I recall using the expected volume of wine to guess the sugar, stirred REALLY well, and checked SG. If the SG was close to what I wanted.

 

[Raptor99]

When chaptalizing must, you should always calculate the sugar addition based on the must volume as that is the liquid you are adding the sugar to, not the final wine volume which will be less due to the fermentation process; essentially, you are adjusting the sugar concentration of the must before it becomes wine.

I usually calculate the added sugar based on the must volume. I want to bring the liquid currently in the fermenter to the correct SG.

I have wondered about the presence of fruit solids in the must. They are not really part of the liquid, so it would be helpful to exclude them from my calculations. If I wanted to be more precise, I would press the fruit to remove as much juice as possible, then calculate the added sugar based on the SG and volume of the liquid without the fruit solids. Then I would add the solids back in for primary fermentation.

But I don't want to go through that much trouble. I think that my method gives a result that is close enough.

 

[wineview]

I usually calculate the added sugar based on the must volume. I want to bring the liquid currently in the fermenter to the correct SG.

I have wondered about the presence of fruit solids in the must. They are not really part of the liquid, so it would be helpful to exclude them from my calculations. If I wanted to be more precise, I would press the fruit to remove as much juice as possible, then calculate the added sugar based on the SG and volume of the liquid without the fruit solids. Then I would add the solids back in for primary fermentation.

But I don't want to go through that much trouble. I think that my method gives a result that is close enough.

When you say calculating the sugar what are you calculating? I usually take a SG reading and let’s say it’s 1.090 and I want to raise it to 1.100. I slowly add simple syrup until I achieve that end. Specifically, what are you doing?

 

[Raptor99]

If you know the volume and the amount you want to increase the SG, you can calculate how much sugar to add. There's a calculator here: https://fermcalc.com/FermCalcJS.html Click on Sugar, then Chaptalization.

With your SG numbers, for one gallon you would need to add 119.23 g of sugar.

 

[winemaker81]

I think that my method gives a result that is close enough.

Any time there are significant solids, we are guessing. Regardless if we're guessing based upon the must volume or the guesstimated wine volume, we're guessing. Hopefully an educated guess, but as you said, close enough is close enough.

IME the hardest thing to explain to explain about winemaking is that we are dealing with both known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

I expect many folks will have a seriously hard time grokking that.

 

[Raptor99]

IME the hardest thing to explain to explain about winemaking is that we are dealing with both known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Yes. We need to be comfortable with not knowing everything, and be satisfied when it is "close enough." As has been said many times before, wine making is both an art and a science.

 

[David Violante]

I just had a case of significant solids (cough - too much pectic enzyme - cough) and the hydrometer stuck wherever you put it. I used FermCalc for the approximate calculations based on total must volume and my refractometer instead. Worked just fine for the SG. By the time I get down to the FG, using the hydrometer should work at that point.

 

[Raptor99]

The refractometer is great for that situation. You only need a few drops of liquid, and no correction is necessary before fermentation starts.

 

[Obbnw]

Why chaptalize?

I know it increases the alcohol content and that can have a preservative effect but how does it impact flavor?

I have some Tannats that are at about 21 brix and am trying to decide if I should add sugar. I'll end up blending the Tannat into my Malbecs (several ferments with starting brix of 23 to 25) so if all adding sugar does is increase the alcohol why bother? But if a higher alcohol ferment helps extract more flavors from the grapes then I would add the sugar.

Most of my wines seem to have less alcohol compared to what I buy at the store. (based on how I feel after a few glasses). I like that mine are lower alcohol and if I could get the same flavor I'd reduce the alcohol even more.

 

[winemaker81]

I know it increases the alcohol content and that can have a preservative effect but how does it impact flavor?

ABV is part of the overall flavor profile of a wine. ABV, body, mouth feel, acid, tannin, sugar, etc all work together (or not).

Let's say you have Apple, Sauvignon Blanc, a light bodied Pinot Noir, and a heavy Cabernet Sauvignon.

If all are at 11% ABV, the first three will probably taste fine, but the CS might taste thin.

If all are at 14.5% ABV, the CS will probably taste fine, but the others will be noticeably hot, especially the Apple.

The CS with higher levels of everything (in the above list) may need the higher ABV to complement the other constituents. Conversely the others cannot because the high ABV overshadows everything.

Note that the above is a generality. There are counter examples, e.g., an Apple wine with higher tannin, acid, and sugar can handle a higher ABV.

That said, if you're happy with the wines you're producing, don't change anything. The big wildcard in all of this is personal taste.

 

[vinny]

Sometimes we sip for the flavor, sometimes the effects are as much, or more appreciated. I have been asked if there was any alcohol in my lighter wines, since then I have chaptalized, those who enjoy the flavor can choose to sip slower.

In seriousness, and to add to Bryan's well demonstrated response, I have aimed for some BIG reds just to see how exciting and full of a wine I can make. Without the alcohol to fill out the fullness of a bold wine, it can fall as flat as with any other missing compontent.

Wine is a symphony of flavors and if the horns or brass fall short, it is the same for the overall experience if the alcohol doesn't balance. It is the same with astringency or sweetness. One way or the other and something is too loud or slightly lost in the background, perhaps just enough to reduce the pure potential we start every batch with, or maybe glaringly obvious.

This is, of course, just my humble opinion, but a fantastic analogy!