Lalvin 31 MLB

[winemaker81]

Beth (@VinesnBines) and I have been discussing her success with MLF in her F-A hybrids, and I'm planning to inoculate with Lalvin 31 this fall. The planned reds:

1. Pinotage (if available) OR a Zinfandel-based blend
2. Juice buckets fermented with pomace from Batch #1; varietal depends on #1
3. Chambourcin (possibly blended with other F-A hybrids)

I looked at Scott's description of Lalvin 31 and saw this:

Alcohol Tolerance: <14%
pH: >3.1
Total SO2: <45ppm
Temp: >55°F
Frequently used in: aromatic whites, light and medium-bodied reds, fruit wine​

The Chambourcin probably won't be a problem, but the CA reds typically come in north of 14% ABV. Anyone with experience with Lalvin 31 -- how likely is this to be a problem?

I was thinking about co-inoculation, as folks doing MLF have commented favorably on it, and in this situation, if ABV is a problem, it will give the MLB time to work before the ABV gets too high.

Scott recommends ML Red Boost MLB nutrient, which makes sense -- it IS their product. Any suggestions regarding MLB nutrient?

 

[wood1954]

I use vp41 with very good results.
Here’s the specs on it.
Alcohol Tolerance: <16%
pH: >3.1
Total SO2: <60ppm
Temp: >61°F
Frequently used in: all styles of red, white, and rosé wines, restarting stuck fermentations

 

[BarrelMonkey]

Curious as to why you chose this strain since its alcohol tolerance is (I assume) lower than your expected %ABV? Maybe just got some for free from a fellow winemaker? For reds I have had success with CH16 (pH 3.4, temp 62-77, SO2 40ppm, ABV16%) and O-mega (pH 3.1, temp >57, SO2 60ppm, ABV16%; good for red and white but unfortunately not available in small quantities). This year (for Pinot noir) I'm going to try Oenos 2.0 (pH 3.2, temp 62-77, SO2 40ppm, ABV15%). I'm in the MLF after primary camp, so I can't comment on coinoculation - though if I had access to MBR31 I might give it a try for the reason you state. I know others here have had success with coinoculation, but aside from the potential for VA production (especially at higher pH) I would be concerned with getting all my fermentation and pressing equipment contaminated with MLB.

I've also never used MLB nutrients, either professionaly or for my home winemaking, as long as you're in the operating range of pH, temp etc it should take off just fine.

 

[mainshipfred]

I also use MBR 31 and have ever since I started doing MLF. My reds are always within its parameters and I have success with it so I don't see any reason to change. It is one of the more expensive ones though.

 

[cmason1957]

I have been using Enoform Alpha or Beta recently. Mostly due to the high SO2 allowed, below 50 ppm and the low temp allowed, above 57f. It also adds some spiciness to the wine, improved mouth feel along with low diacetyl production. I most often deal with hybrid grapes.

 

[winemaker81]

Curious as to why you chose this strain since its alcohol tolerance is (I assume) lower than your expected %ABV?

It was recommended, and when I decided to try it, I did my usual -- research it. That's when I spotted the ABV problem.

I've been following MLF discussions for years, and I noticed that it seems like many folks have problems with MLF going to completion. The people I know who use Lalvin 31 don't report problems.

I'm reading through the replies and thinking ....

 

[winemaker81]

I've decided against Lalvin 31, as it's not appropriate for 2/3 of my production. MLB is expensive enough and my overall production is < 66 gallons, so buying 1 packet is the most cost effective.

It's clear I need to do more research. If I made one class of grapes it would be easier, but as the "title" I chose for myself (wine dabbler), I have multiple irons in the fire, e.g., CA Vinifera and VA F-A hybrid grapes.

So I'm going to examine all the recommendation so far and make a decision over the weekend.

 

[BarrelMonkey]

So I'm going to examine all the recommendation so far and make a decision over the weekend.

One other factor to bear in mind is that the individual tolerances described (pH, temp, SO2, %ABV) are not completely independent and are only valid if the other conditions are favorable. So eg I would feel comfortable going close to the ABV limit if the other factors are within range, but if I'm pushing the limits of pH, SO2 and temperature as well, I might run into trouble...

 

[winemaker81]

One other factor to bear in mind is that the individual tolerances described (pH, temp, SO2, %ABV) are not completely independent and are only valid if the other conditions are favorable. So eg I would feel comfortable going close to the ABV limit if the other factors are within range, but if I'm pushing the limits of pH, SO2 and temperature as well, I might run into trouble...

Your point makes sense. Given my experiences, I avoid approaching tolerances as much as feasible, given that we are talking about living creatures that don't necessarily match the spec sheet.

 

[mainshipfred]

All the posts in this thread are coming from experienced winemakers. With that being said, I can't see SO2 being an issue since we all know if we will be doing an MLF and probably have taken that into consideration.

Dealing with ABV is a little controversial to me. My formula is starting gravity minus finished gravity time 131 gives me different numbers than the online calculators. It appears the online calculators go from starting to .990 where I typically use .995. An example is at 24 brix the online calculator gives you an ABV of +/- 14.4. Using my formula it is 13.1 +/-. Most of my wines seem to stop at .995. At 26 brix its 14.4 as opposed to 15.9 on the calculator. Keeping in mind it is potential alcohol I believe the calculator is high leaving the wine in the tolerance of Lalvin 31.

Realizing it's a stylistic choice I don't care for high ABV wines and 14% is about as high as I like to go. Plus I have never received any grapes from California above the 24 range. My local VA grapes come in around 20 to 24 brix although the acid is normally higher than that of California.

Depending on you situation temperature could pose a problem. I'm fortunate that I can keep my warehouse at 70° while others may not have this luxury. The thing is though, even at the lowest temperature range it should still work just take a longer time.

 

[winemaker81]

Dealing with ABV is a little controversial to me. My formula is starting gravity minus finished gravity time 131 gives me different numbers than the online calculators.

I disagree -- it's a LOT controversial.

My workbook uses (OG-FG) / 7.36, which produces a higher value. I've been using that formula for decades and haven't changed as I didn't see a need. However, I am reconsidering.

Confusing things is that there are at least 4 formulas I know of that calculate ABV, all all produce differing results. Making it more confusing, some formulas work only for a range of ABV, e.g., so if the ABV is in the 10%-14% range, a formula can be used, but if it's actually 15%, it can't. ARGH!!!

I'm started a research project into this a couple of years ago but got frustrated as I found no solid indication which formula is most correct. I got frustrated enough to abandon it.

I have the same problem as you with projected ABV charts -- I also use 0.995 when guesstimating a red wine's ABV. For Whites I use 0.993.

Regarding online calculators, I tend to distrust them because I don't know which formulas are used. Plus most are written in JavaScript, which exhibits funky rounding problems in some situations.

I like the higher ABV reds, but they hit a LOT harder than a 12% wine. I'd prefer my CA grapes come in under 1.100, but most of them don't. I'm investigating watering back with acidulated water to reduce ABV.

My cellar temperature in the fall is typically 63-67 F, so I should be in an ok range for MLF.

 

[cmason1957]

Dealing with ABV is a little controversial to me. My formula is starting gravity minus finished gravity time 131 gives me different numbers than the online calculators.

I don't see it as controversial at all. All of the calculations are approximations. It depends on so many factors. The only way to really know what your ABV actually is, would be to use an ebollimeter or send it off to a lab. I punch the numbers into an online calculator that gives for it five guesses and take the average.

 

[mainshipfred]

All of the calculations are approximations. It depends on so many factors.

I couldn't agree more Craig. I suppose that is why they call it potential alcohol. The point I was trying to get across is when dealing with the ABV threshold for MLB the higher reading might sway you away from a certain strain.

 

[winemaker81]

I don't see it as controversial at all. All of the calculations are approximations.

How about "open to discussion and disagreement"?

Your method of using the average is as good as any. As you said, none are truly accurate. I 'spose us being consistent to ourselves is the best choice, regardless of what method we choose.

I couldn't agree more Craig. I suppose the is why they call it potential alcohol. The point I was trying to get across is when dealing with the ABV threshold for MLB the higher reading might sway you away from a certain strain.

Emphasis mine. Your previous comment caught my attention and has me questioning the method I've been using to calculate ABV, since the formula I use produces a result about half a percent higher than the one you use.

Adding to my questioning, the other formulas I have investigated produce a value closer to yours than mine. This doesn't mean mine is the one that far off, but it has spurred another investigation.

Plus I'm considering water back if the OG is too high. About 3/4 of my CA grapes over the years have had a OG above 1.100. My 2019 Merlot calc'd at 15.7%, and it WILL kick my tail.