Giancarelli Brothers Winery Niagara (Weedsport, NY) - $10

Early one morning at the Farmers Market this summer I overheard a voice say something about dry Niagara. Dry Niagara? I rubbed my eyes and looked about to see if Paul might be lurking somewhere in the shadows, but there was no sign of him. The voice actually had come from the nearby stand of a long-time farming family that has recently begun making wine. I declined the offer of a taste, it was only about 7:30 AM, but took their word that it was dry and bought a bottle.

Dry it definitely is, about -2.5 Balling by my hydrometer. The nose can be described only as strong Labrusca, perfume and grapes, doesn’t know a thing about subtlety. Nancy tasting it blind thought it might be Vergennes http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?t=483&highlight=vergennes but somewhat too acidic. I agreed about the similarity to Vergennes, although it wasn’t at all spicy and the acidity seemed OK to me. A big mouth feel in combination with the strong grapey aroma contrasts nicely with a dry, clean taste. You keep waiting for the sweetness to hit but it never comes. This one demonstrates nicely that Niagara has a place among the growing number of commercial dry Labruscas.

Dan,

Not to bring up an old thread, which I seem to remember about this subject, but I don't believe hydrometer readings are accurate for finished wines. I remember them sometimes being pretty far off.

I don't believe hydrometer readings are accurate for finished wines

Tom, I too remember a thread on measuring RS in finished wine, although I thought it had to do with how the breakdown of sugars over time can distort Clinitest readings taken immediately after chapitalizing. I now measure sugar at all phases of winemaking by hydrometer. If that's a problem I'd like to know. Can someone help?

As for the Giancarelli Niagara, if it's not bone dry it sure fooled me!

Dan,

I have no idea about the dry-ness of that particular wine. I was just commenting on the hydrometer use. When I made wine I was taught early-on that it is an unreliable measuring device for r.s. in finished wine--it's use then is to measure alcohol.

Howie, PaulB, what do "youse" know about it?

I agree with Thomas here. I only use the hydrometer to check the sugar content before fermentation. I believe the amount of dissolved solids, glycerine and alcohol content of a finished wine are all variables that make using a hydrometer for measuring finished wine very inaccurate. Here is a link:
Hydrometer use

Help me guys. I see nothing in the Keller link Howie provided
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/hydrom.asp that has to do with not using a hydrometer to measure RS in a finished wine. In fact, it specifically advises using a hydrometer to determine sugar at the end of fermentation. It says to note "Your must's S.G. before yeast was introduced and fermented it to an S.G. of 0.990" to calculate alcohol. The syntax is awkward but the point is that a hydrometer does measure sugar after fermentation is complete. Is that different from the RS of "a finished wine"? How? You gotta give me a better reference than this.

Although not specifically referenced, "Home Winemakers Manual" gives two examples of when a fermentation is finished. In a Chardonnay the ending brix is -2.4, whereas a Carignane was considered finished at -1.7 brix. The hydrometer is used to measure for changes over a period of time, which would imply dryness if the measurements remain constant. If you are making the wine you could assume it is dry, unless the starting brix was very high. But if you are testing a wine that someone else made, is it dry at -1.7 or -2.4? Depends.
I'll check some of my books at home, but probably not until next week, as I'll be out of town for Thanksgiving, starting tomorrow.
Home Winemakers Manual

A delightful post, Dan - thanks very much for the topic.

Yup, it sounds like Niagara made dry to me! I've been making dry Niagara since 2001 and it is one of my all-time favourite sipping wines. Because of the strong jasmine floral nose and the candy-sweet musky finish that is very long, I find that Niagara is best as a sipping wine. The big, bold floral nose, sometimes coupled with a heavy petroleum hit, and that candied musk on the finish, are classic Niagara qualities.

The acidity in Niagara is palpably lower than in Concord harvested at the same time - Concord has a slightly longer ripening curve than does Niagara; the difference is about two weeks in Ontario. I cold stabilize my Niagaras all the time and the acidity is always crisp but never, ever is it sour. Hence my strongly held conviction for years now that Niagara can be made dry with success.

Unfortunately when it comes to measuring sugar content in a finished wine using a hydrometer or any other means, I'm not sure what to say. I only measure sugar prior to pitching yeast, and then I just let all my wines go to complete dryness by allowing sufficient time for the yeast to fall out of solution and for airlock activity to cease. Them's primitive methods, perhaps, but as long as I get the style of wine I'm after, I don't particularly care.

A big mouth feel in combination with the strong grapey aroma contrasts nicely with a dry, clean taste. You keep waiting for the sweetness to hit but it never comes.

Dan, I just wanted to highlight this part of your description because I like how succinctly and precisely you put that. Very well written; it gives a good idea of the style to people who are unfamiliar with what a dry Niagara is actually like.

I was wrong. Thomas and Howie were right. Tom Hill explains why here:
http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?t=692&highlight=hydrometer

I'm referring not to must weight in juice (degBrix approx = weight% sugar), but the Residual Sugar in WINE. Huge difference. In juice, the primary/only solvent is water. In wine, you got lower-density alcohol (presumably primarily ethanol) that mucks things up. So when you take a density measure for RS in wine (degBrix), you have to account for the amount of alcohol in there lowering the density. You can have a wine with 16% alcohol (i.e. your typical Zinfandel these days) and 1% (by weight) RS and the RS on the Brix scale will be -.62839173857 degBrix RS. Made up numbers).

And here:

I have a nomogram that allows the conversion of a wine's residual sugar from degrees Brix(the RS measurement that's easy to make) to weight/% (the amount of RS we actually taste) as a function of the wine alcohol%. Generally I use it when someone expresses the RS in Brix and want to know the w/% RS.

So the message for us low-tech home winemakers is that while alcohol can be calculated by measuring degrees Brix RS before and after fermentation, the Holy Grail of quantitative RS, weight/%, requires an additional step using a nomogram that takes account of alcohol.

Although Tom mentioned having such a nomogram he didn't post it. How about it Tom?

Another commonly used method for measuring RS is Clinitest. I used it routinely until discovering that results obtained immediately after chaptalizing made no sense. At that point I switched to the hydrometer on the (now) mistaken belief that it provided a better measure. Incidentally, the Giancerreli Niagara tests 0.2% RS by Clinitest.

It still is unclear to me which of the several types of RS is measured by Clinitest. In addition to degrees Brix and weight/volume RS there also is something called % of volume.

If anyone from the Rochester Home Winemakers conference reads this, measures of RS would be a great topic for next year.

The lower density of the alcohol is what I was referring to. I read someplace a long time ago that while 100% ethanol has a much lower SG than water, mixing ethanol with water does not give rise to a linear relationship based on the percent of each componenent, as would be the case with diluting a concenrtated solution, such as sugar-water. If I recall correctly, alcohol and water form a weak molecular bond, thus making the solution more dense than would be expected based on a linear relationship. This same bond between the alcohol and water is the reason it's virtually impossible to produce a distilled spirit over 180 proof (90% alcohol) - some of the water in the liquid being distilled is always carried over during the boiling off and condensing.

Tom's nomogram would be a handy thing. As for my method of making wine, I use basically the same technique as Paul B, but if I want RS, after stabilizing and filtering I sweeten with cane sugar before bottling and allow the wine to sit for 6-8 weeks before drinking to allow the sucrose to break down into the monosaccarides.

From Paul:

the candy-sweet musky finish

That's it exactly; it has a musky finish.

Hi Dan,
According to Daniel Pambianchi in his book Techniques in Home Winemaking, amateur winemakers have a more accurate way to measure sugar levels in must, dry or sweet wines. It involves a titration sugar analysis kit. The downside to this test is it requires time and more effort to perform it. The kit uses copper sulphate and thiosulphate-based solutions which are mixed together and boiled, and the sample of wine (or must) is added incrementally until the blue color disappears completely. Using a conversion table provided with the kit, the amount of wine used in the titration is converted into the amount of sugar present. It can measure sugar concentrations in the range of 1 to 200 g/L.

Salute

Thanks Victor, I have the book. I'll take look.

Dan

Dan,
Slammed for time right now and will go back & read thru this thread and comment again.
Hydrometer readings ARE accurate in finished wine.....for reading specific gravity or density. And that IS reflective of the RS in a wine, but is a measurement that has NO relevance.
What we taste on our palate as residual sugar in a finished wine is strongly correlated w/ the measurement of RS in the wine by weight %. The specific gravity (as expressed in degrees Brix or degrees Balling) of a finished wine is just that...a density measurement. That density is reflective of two things....the RS and the alcohol content. You can have two wines that register 0 degree brix, one at 11% alcohol and another at 16% alcohol, and the RS level, as expressed as w/o, will be considerably different.
I say strongly correlated, because the acidity (as expressed as TA..titratable acidity) also effects our perceptions of RS in wine. However, w/ proper training, the effect of TA can be trained out of one's palate. I, and most wine geeks, don't have that sort of training.
In grape must/juice, there is a near 1-to-1 correspondance/equivalence between density, as degrees Brix, and w/o sugar. As the wine ferments and produces low density alcohol, that 1-to-1 correspondance becomes more and more disparate.
So, when expressing the RS in a wine on the label, the w/o is the relative figure for telling how it tastes on the palate.
The degrees Brix is ONLY relevant for expressing RS if you know the alcohol content.
There is a nomograph out there somewhere that allows you to figure the w/o RS in a wine by knowing the % alcohol and the degrees Brix density of the wine.
And.... if you guys are willing to pay big...really BIG...$$$$'s, I'l write a C++ program that'll do that computation for you. With a GUI interface and parellelizing it so it runs on 512 processors, it'll only cost you $150,789.34. I DO work for the USofA government, after all!!!
Tom

Hi Dan and Tom H,
This talk of density and specific gravity got me thinking.
Density and specific gravity are definitely related but they are not the same thing.

Density is defined as objects mass per unit volume (kg/cu m)
p = m/v
Where p = density (kg/cu m)
m = mass (kg)
v = volume (cu m)

Specific gravity is a dimensionless unit defined as the ratio of the density of the material or substance to the density of water at a specific temperature. (Density of (pure) water = 1000 kg/cu m).
SG = p / p H2O
Where p = density of material of substance (kg/cu m)
p H2O = density of (pure) water = 1000 kg/cu m

Therefore the Specific gravity of water is equal to:
SG = 1000 kg/cu m / 1000 kg/cu m
= 1
(The density of Ethyl alcohol is 789.2 kg/ cu m and its SG is .7892).

I took two samples of alcohol water solutions:
Southern Comfort (38% alc by volume 76 Proof) and found the SG to equal < .990
Stock Anisette (30% alc by volume, 60 Proof) and found the SG to equal slightly higher than 1.110
From this I can definitely state there is more sugar in the Anisette than the Southern Comfort (this is easily confirmed by tasting but surely the Southern Comfort does have some residual sugar present, and it is not bone dry). Bartenders use this information when preparing layered drinks (weight and color), to them all this means is that Southern Comfort has less weight than Anisette (when compared to water)..

Salute

Tom,
I follow your argument up until taste on the palate. I think I even understand that too, but when you imply that taste on the palate is an appropriate criterion for settling the question of quantity of RS I get lost.

That the hydrometer provides a faulty measure of the quantity of RS after fermentation because alcohol, as you say, murks things up, makes sense. So a different measure, one that gives weight %, or a correction by way of a nomograph, is needed to know the actual amount of RS.

On to the palate. You say that perceived sugar is more highly correlated with weight % than with degrees Brix. I can see why that might be the case. Are there good data? But here's the real question: what does a fact about the perception of sugar in wine have to do with the validity of various measures of the actual amount of RS in wine? One has to do with the psychological world, the other with the physical world.

Sure, it's nice to know that the psychological variable of perception of sugar in wine is more aligned with physical measure A (weight %) than with physical measure B (degrees Brix). But I don't see what that to do with whether A or B provides a more accurate reading of the quantity of RS. That's a question about the physical world.

Happy Thansgiving! We'll probably have a sparkler, which one as yet undetermined. A Rose Cava was a big hit at Thanksgiving last year.

Dan

Dan,
My comments were directed at the stated RS of a wine on the label. That figure is important to the consumer so that they know how sweet the wine is going to taste, so they can know what food & circumstances to serve that wine. Putting the w/o RS on the label or the degrees Brix are both perfectly legimate way to state the RS of the wine. But the Brix gives little guidance to the buyer/consumer of how that wine is going to taste. Stating the RS on the label as -1.0 Brix doesn't give the conumer any guide what the wine'll taste like. What be negative sweetness?? most buyers would ask.
One of my Amerine texts makes the assertion that the taste of sweeetness in wine is well correlated with w/o numbers. And then further notes that acidity levels can muck up the palate perception of RS in the wine.
Sorry for not making my comments more clear...I was (and still am) rushed. Story of my life.
Tom

No matter what, the triple scale hydrometer is a valuable tool for the home winemaker. Besides determining SG, balling or Brix, potential alcohol by volume, and final potential alcohol by volume (starting potential alcohol by volume minus finish potential alcohol by volume), one can make an approximation on the amount of sugar (w/v) in ones must or juice prior to fermentation. Thus one can calculate the required amount of sugar to add to a given amount of must when the “desirable SG” is not met.
• Obtain a SG value and equivalent balling or Brix value using the hydrometer. . Example a SG reading of 1.090 is equivalent to approximately 22.2 Brix
• Because a 22.2 Brix sugar/water solution is the same as a 22.2% sugar solution. I could take this number and express it as .222 by simply moving the decimal point two places to the left. Example 22.2 Brix becomes .222
• Multiply this number by the SG value, this will give you the amount of sugar (expressed in grams) in 1 ml of must. Example 22.2% of 1.090 = (.222) (1.090) = .242 g/ml
• Now take this number and multiply it by 1000, this will give you the amount of sugar (expressed in grams) in 1 liter of must. Example (.242) (1000) = 242 g/L
IMHO this is how those gravity tables in Cox’s book “From Vines to Wines” and Duncan’s and Acton’s book “Progressive Winemaking” were calculated. This seems to work well (adequately for home winemakers or maybe I’m just simplifying things to much) because we assume that the must prior to fermentation is simply a water/sugar solution. The finished wine however is a lot more complex, it’s (basically) water/sugar/alcohol solution. Now I think the science gets way too complicated for this amateur winemaker. Damm, I just broke my hydrometer jar I give up Dan! (Let’s keep on trying to pick at Tom H brain!)

Salute

Let’s keep on trying to pick at Tom H brain!

My thought exactly. There's a lot of good stuff in there.

Let’s keep on trying to pick at Tom H brain!

My thought exactly. There's a lot of good stuff in there.

Not to mention a lot of totally useless stuff as well!!
I'm going to reread Amerine & Roessler tonight and see if they have anything further to add to the discussion.

Tom

Hi Tom H,
Before you get really scientific on me, just remember we are amateur winemakers (take it easy and slow. Remember prior to fermentation I said I view the must solution as a (pure) water/sugar solution. Because “pure” water has a SG of 1.000, I think we can say it has a density of 1 g/ml. From the definition of Brix, grams of solids / 100 grams of solution we can call a 22.2 Brix solution a 22.2% solution. So IMHO I think it’s fairly reasonable to interpret a Brix reading of 22.2 and SG reading of 1.090 prior to fermentation as thus;
- this 22.2% sugar/water solution has a density of approximately 1.09 g /ml
- the amount of sugar (expressed in grams) in 1ml of this 22.2% sugar solution is 22.2% of 1.09 (.222 X 1.09 = .242 g/ml)
- by multiplying this number by 1000 I’m just calculating the weight of sugar expressed in grams in 1 liter of this solution (a quantity much easier to work with IMO) (.242) (1000) = 242 g/l which is equivalent to 32 ozs/gal or 2 lbs/gal
I realize that dissolving 2 lbs of sugar in 1 gal of water will not yield a “true” 2lb/gal solution. Dissolving 2 lbs of sugar in water in fact occupies the equivalent of approximately 20 oz of water (see Howie’s post, ref. to Keller’s site). I realize that in those gravity tables the amount of sugar present is given in a w/v (1 gal or 1 liter of sugar/water) - and this represents the total volume of dissolved sugar and water in 1 gal or 1 liter. But because we are home winemakers only looking for an approximation we can ignore this and simplify thing a little. All I wanted to point out was that prior to fermentation by using the triple scale hydrometer and obtaining a SG reading and equivalent Brix reading one can make an approximate calculation of the amount of sugar present (w/v) in one’s juice or must and make corrections if the ‘desired SG” is not met

Salute

Victor,
As far as I know, I believe you to be correct. The origin of the thread, though, was about measuring RS in a finished wine. All that low density alcohol sorta mucks things up. Why coulkdn't everything have a density of 1.00 and life would be so much simpler!!
Tom

Dr Yair Maragalit in his book “Winery Technology & Operations” suggests that the residual sugar content (w/v) of relatively high sugar content (finished) wines can be calculated by taking the SG reading of a dealcoholized sample (by evaporation) of the wine and determine its concentration of dry extract expressed as g/L (taken from density of dealcoholized wine vs. dry extract concentration (g/L) tables or graphs designed for this purpose). Taking this total (no-sugar and sugar) extract concentration (g/L) and subtracting 20 g/L, the average concentration of no-sugar extract found in wine will give one an approximate concentration of residual sugar in the finished wine in terms of g/L.

Salute