Is it ok to share wine that your pet imbibed first

[JohnT]

getting back to the topic..

I would have to say that this depends on the wine..

... cough, cough... Welches.. cough, cough.

 

[Runningwolf]

I would bet the average household dog has less mouth bacteria than the average human.

My vet is big into dogs teeth (and money) and when he puylled up my 12 year old dogs lip to show me the bacteria built up on the gums and teeth it was totally disgusting. This was the real thing but it reminded me of the black lungs x-ray they used to show to smokers.

 

[Sirs]

well I think all of us can say we've seen and heard horror stories from restuarants. I'm in no way a germaphob as I know most of these people will probly be killed off with the next big disaster that comes through lol. I do however try my best to keep a certain amount of cleanliness when I'm making either meals or wine or whatever. I wonder if your dog happened to grab one of your steaks you was fixing to cook and sat down and chewed on it for a few if you'd simply throw it in the pan and cook away as the heat will kill anything we know??? You'd probly cut off where he had eaten off of and wash the rest good or let him have it. Myself I'd probly let him have it then kill him and eat him LOL

 

[jtstar]

Al you can put my vote with yours as I work in a packing house (Tyson Inc.) and we have a very strict guild lines that we have to follow if a piece of meat falls on the floor and you don't take short cuts when cleaning a piece of meat that has fallen on the floor and I have also seen what my dogs like to put into their mouths

 

[UglyBhamGuy]

When i read the topic i thought you meant wine that had gone through the pet.

Heck yeah, i would serve it, if they just taste tested it.
As long as my long haired dachshund, "Scooter the PITA" (real name, no lie) leaves enough.

 

[Minnesotamaker]

All things considered, doggie slobber is pretty benign.

After all.... wine is fruit juice and yeast excrement.

Would you serve a guest a carrot? Carrots were grown in and have incorporated properties from soil that contains dead and rotting vegitation, buffalo, gophers, wolly mamoths, saber tooth cats, dinosaurs, worms and larva, etc. I'm sure every shovel full of soil contains atoms from human corpses.

And don't forget the water. It's contained all kinds of carrion from drowned animals, to run-off, and rotting fish. It should be safe though, because nature has filtered it through the soil listed above.

In summary, while I wouldn't encourage a big drooly-mouthed hound to stand over my primary, I wouldn't get too worked up about a little back-wash. Humans are designed to ward off environmental attacks from all directions and when healthy, we do a pretty good job of it.

So bring on the slobber wine. If fact, I think I'll add dog slobber to my wine flavor profile wheel. To accurately detect it though, I'll need to get a good first hand analysis so that I know what I'm looking for.

Put your face really close to the screen and have a taste.

 

[GerardVineyard]

Gerard..i have worked at a restaraunt as well...there are GOOD places that what you refer to...does NOT happen

I have worked at more than a restaurant, I have worked everything from Mom & Pop to 4 star white tablecloth. Trust me, it happens at all of them.

The FDA puts out a book that lists all acceptable "foreign material" that may appear in food & drink and still be considered acceptable. I have not seen the book since culinary school but I would guess that a little dog spittable would be acceptable.

 

[AlFulchino]

13 -3-0-4

so thirteen people here would go ahead w their wine after pooch took his share..i have heard of angel's share but now we have a new category....the 'dog's share'...hmmm i guess you folks now have a new quandry....what to top off with???? or maybe you just get marbles?

13 home winemakers????

Gerard... i want to listen to you but you trotted out the FDA as a beacon of what is acceptable? sounds once again like a gov't agency who could not produce a pencil for a profit...sorry but the FDA is not a bonafide witness for your case

i am surprised ....and by the way, i did not work at as many places as you...just a national hotel chain's restaurant and would love to say i could agree w you but i never saw one employee there do anything untoward regarding their guests food...just my experience

Lon, nice argument that takes the previous 'relativity' points...but to me its still principal....its not fair to your wine recipient if you knew this had occurred and that is good enough and simple enough for me...as for yeast cells...they do their job, fall to the bottom and you rack off...you are presenting natures nectar to your wine drinking family....not Fido's slobber

the four of you who voted that you would save for your enemies....http://www.winemakingtalk.com/forum/images/smilies/happy0199.gif well you folks have a sense of humor

 

[RedNeckWino]

Save it for the friends that only come around when they want something.
I personally don't have pets in the house for other reasons. We are not home enough to be fair to the animal. Not to mention we are both allergic to cats and dogs. I love my friends pets and play with them when I really need a fix.

 

[BobF]

I'm shocked ...

First, it would be impossible for my dog to get to my wine, but ...

I'm not going to let the fact that there are things beyond my control allow me to not control the things I can control.

Thanks for posting this. Just one more reason to NOT drink wine from OTHER home winemakers - you never know what you'll be drinking.

I take great pride in the exactness and cleanliness of MY processes. I'm still in shock ...

These responses are as telling as they are sickening.

 

[Dugger]

Interesting topic - it seems there are two parts to this - one is the principle of something disgusting coming in contact with the wine and then sharing it with others and the other is possible contamination of the wine.
Going back to UglyBhamGuys inference of wine that had gone through the dog, what if someone peed in the wine ( perhaps an adventurous small boy!) - now this would be deemed disgusting by most, but urine is generally considered sterile and would not contaminate the wine. Would this change your vote?

 

[Runningwolf]

Oh Man, where is this thread going?

 

[AlFulchino]

Dan....i think it is better talked about than hidden...i would never have expected the response of the 14 thus far seeing that so much time is spent on kmeta....do you not feel there is a strange dichotomy presented here ob behalf of the 14 respondents who have no issue w doggie saliva remaining in their wine?

it is not the thread that is driving off the road..its is certain winemaking practices..i encourage you Dan and all of the 14 to literally do a poll of THEIR OWN FRIENDS AND FAMILY...ask the very same question i asked w the accompanying answers.....see if the friends and family start thinking different of what wine is shared w them....the truth will be in the puddin' do your own local familt friend polling

another respondent countered with:

"I take great pride in the exactness and cleanliness of MY processes. I'm still in shock ..."

that is the kind of response i would expect from the show me state.

 

[Julie]

i'm with Dan on this one, what is the purpose of this poll? Once you have this information what are you planning on doing with it?

 

[Brian]

.
So bring on the slobber wine. If fact, I think I'll add dog slobber to my wine flavor profile wheel. To accurately detect it though, I'll need to get a good first hand analysis so that I know what I'm looking for.

hahahaha Lon I expect to see the Skeeter pee recipe on the web page change to include (1/2 cup dog slobber) very soon!

 

[Minnesotamaker]

Interesting topic - it seems there are two parts to this - one is the principle of something disgusting coming in contact with the wine and then sharing it with others and the other is possible contamination of the wine.
Going back to UglyBhamGuys inference of wine that had gone through the dog, what if someone peed in the wine ( perhaps an adventurous small boy!) - now this would be deemed disgusting by most, but urine is generally considered sterile and would not contaminate the wine. Would this change your vote?

I'd think your scenerio would change many voter's opinions. Two things stand out. One is pure volume. We're now talking about substantive addition vs. a few droplets. The source is also different in that while possibly not harmful, it is traditionally taboo.

Pertaining to Bob's post: ignorance is bliss. If you eat anything prepared or processed, you're being exposed to all sorts of things that may not meet your approval. The fact that there are FDA allowable contamination limits tells me that you consume repugnant items every single day. How many times have you heard people say that they won't ever again eat _____ [fill in the blank] because they used to work there and they know what goes into it. Yet, they'll still eat different but similar processed food items. Are they thinking that the only bad food item on the planet is the one they worked around? With few exceptions, it's all in people's minds.

I believe all wine makers strive for absolute best practices. They take reasonable steps to avoid risks. The way I looked at the original questions was twofold:

A) If you had a batch of must or actively fermenting wine, and a dog's mouth came in contact with it, would you throw out the entire batch?
B) Secondly, do you think it would be your duty to inform drinkers that the wine was exposed.

For question A, the poll speaks for itself. It tells me that people understand the realities of what we put in our mouths; even though it might not be pleasant to talk about.

For question B, ignorance is bliss. If the wine is safe, clean, and pleasant, giving the consumer a disclaimer serves no purpose other than to inhibit their enjoyment. As makers of wine, we all know that a bottle of wine contains a certain percent of bird crap, bug parts, insect eggs, dirt, etc., but we don't dwell on it with every swallow. For people who aren't aware of this fact, it could be shocking to them.

 

[BobF]

Pertaining to Bob's post: ignorance is bliss. If you eat anything prepared or processed, you're being exposed to all sorts of things that may not meet your approval. The fact that there are FDA allowable contamination limits tells me that you consume repugnant items every single day.

Two things:

First, I said in my post, "I'm not going to let the fact that there are things beyond my control allow me to not control the things I can control."

This means that I'm NOT considering the FDA's loose standards as good enough for my wine.

Second, the question itself implies that you're not ignorant of the fact that your animal just slobbered in your wine - the 'ignorance is bliss' argument doen't apply to the dog-slobbered wine.

As a final point, and my last post in this thread, I consider *knowingly* allowing someone else to drink wine that your animal slobbered in to demonstrate a TOTAL lack of respect for others. Unless, of course, you tell them about the animal slobber BEFORE they drink the wine. That bit of disclosure would make it their decision, not yours.

 

[AlFulchino]

"i'm with Dan on this one, what is the purpose of this poll? Once you have this information what are you planning on doing with it? " from Julie

Julie...this topic was borne out of another topic where another member asked what to do because he had reason to believe his dog had been into his wine....some people thought ..hey no problem.....i found this odd and wanted to query folks as to general sentiment.....i find your question rather odd....what is it that i could do about it???? do you believe i have some nefarious motive? I continue to be shocked at the response and hopefully i allowed my belief on this...I have sene that more people than i would have imagined, believe accidental dog saliva in a wine is ok to share....remember the question was about sharing...if anyone here wants to drink their own wine w this issue, far be it for me to question them.....but sharing it, to me anyways crossed the line..your question to me about what *i* am going to do w the information makes me feel you are offended that i even ran the poll to begin with.

I believe the poll did highlight something and i will leave it at that.

This quote sums up what i could NOT apparently say in just a few words...it is from Bob F:

"Second, the question itself implies that you're not ignorant of the fact that your animal just slobbered in your wine - the 'ignorance is bliss' argument doen't apply to the dog-slobbered wine.

As a final point, and my last post in this thread, I consider *knowingly* allowing someone else to drink wine that your animal slobbered in to demonstrate a TOTAL lack of respect for others. Unless, of course, you tell them about the animal slobber BEFORE they drink the wine. That bit of disclosure would make it their decision, not yours. "

Julie and Dan...i had no nefarious motive in asking a reasonable question spontaneously generated by another members topic....my question really now is why focus on me....why not wonder yourselves just why fourteen winemakers would be ok with this practice?

I am gonna take Bob's lead..my last post on the subject.

Thank you for the opportunity in the first place to read the story that prompted the poll and then place the poll and to discuss it.

 

[Julie]

My questions were based on confusion. Please understand when I see ANY post that starts into a semblance of an argument, I am now cautious. One little judgement on one person that will anger someone will send this thread down the wrong path in a heartbeat.

We as mods must maintain a civil air on the forum and we get a little worried when threads like this pop up. As long as everyone can voice their opinion and be respectful to everyone else the thread is find. But once you criticize one person's action and that person takes offence, then a mod has to come in and either ban the post or the thread and that is something that none of us take joy in doing. This is my reason for asking where this thread was going.

 

[BobF]

Julie - Hopefully most here are adult enough (despite evidence to the contrary depicted in some of the 'humor') to be able to disagree without getting combative.