Filtering wines in the decanting process

WINE TALK
61

Fascinating topic.

I tried some Google time, and it seems 1 micron is the pore diameter most often used by winemakers who filter. (Since that is the data I found, it will most likely be wrong, so I look forward to any winemakers setting me straight on this.)

“Course” filters are considered to be those that filter out 6 micron and above particles, and the winemaking sites said that this size does not affect body or flavor.

I also read that even finer filters, 0.45 to 0.5 microns, can filter out >80% of any remaining yeast cells and even reduce oxidized flavors. This small size seems to be able to make a difference.

From WineMaker: “Some winemakers believe that you’re “stripping” your wine of flavor, color or aromatic compounds when you filter, no matter how you do it or what you use. There have been many studies on this point over the years. The only consensus seems to be that filtering can certainly change a wine’s character … though I haven’t found evidence to prove that over time it’ll have any noticeable effect.”

I went to EC Kraus, WineMaker, and others.

Stephen Reiss conducted a blind tasting of Kermit Lynch wines and tasters preferred the filtered to unfiltered wines in that tasting.

Also this: "No less an authority than Emile Peynaud, the renown Bordeaux oenologist, states in his “Knowing and Making Wine” - “It may be stated that that the mechanical action of filtering has never had a negative influence on quality. To suggest the contrary would mean conceding that the foreign substances in suspension and their impurities that form the lees, which filtration is precisely designed to remove, have a favorable taste function.”

__

Further: Typically, coffee filters are made up of filaments approximately 20 micrometres wide.

The more I look, the more up in the air the argument seems to get, but coffee filters do not at all seem to approach the pore size necessary to get the attention of one’s taste buds, other than to affect mouth feel by removing the grit some may feel “comforted by.”

62

So…all the sludge in the bottom of the coffee filter…which can be pastelike, in your view, doesn’t “get the attentions of one’s taste buds”? Just…remove “grit”? I.e., all the bad stuff gets through? I guess I don’t understand your point. Is it that it doesn’t strip the wine…which I agree with, esp. vis a vis the filters the winemakers use? OR…that it doesn’t even remove the offending particles enough to please the tastebuds vis a vis a wine that isn’t so filtered?

All wines, by the way are “filtered”…in the sense that fruit flies other pests and solids are removed. The issue is the rigour of the filtration. That’s why I thought the “filter” vs. “no filter” argument was silly…as it is, like the “modernist” vs. “traditional” issue in Piemonte, only meaningfuly with the specific details of what the issues are.

63

I’m not taking about coffee, you confuse me with others. I am talking about using filters for wine.

As I said…“The more I look, the more up in the air the argument seems to get…”

64

Problem with coffee filters doesn’t just have to do with what is being filtered out, but with the fact that the trickle is so slow (especially once the sludge starts to collect) that air hits the wine much more abusively than a decant that can be completed in 20 seconds.

65

not in my experience. i pour it slowly into the decanter. if it gets clogged, i use a different part of the filter or grab a new one. i use the non-bleached ones and i run it under filtered water first in case there is any residual anything, but there probably isn’t. if i’m not getting a filter taste from sending 200f water through it, I doubt that wine at 55f would do anything either. but i’m open to evidence otherwise. but to be clear, i’ve only had to do this with CdP which for some reason seems to have more of that really fine muddy sediment that doesn’t settle sufficiently for my tastes.

66

Just a note on the Keurig and likely the Nespresso. These single-use pods all have paper filters packaged inside of them. Pour-overs in American cafes frequently use if not almost always use paper filters. In many cases these are first rinsed with hot water, then the fresh grinds inserted and “bloomed” until the appropriate serving portion is made.

I think it does stand to reason that a metal filter would be more desirable. French Press is universally richer than any other type of brewed coffee I’ve made and it’s quite obvious it’s due to the more porous metal mesh. The fine sediment tends to settle at the bottom of a mug over time and is not something found in any brewed coffee made with a paper filter.

67

i have no idea how this became a coffee thread, but again, the above is not true, or woefully incomplete - take your pick. french press is different that pourover for many reasons; time elapsed in brewing, grind size, filter used (they vary tremendously), proportion of coffee/water, amount of time water is in contact with coffee, etc.

And depending on the grind size and filter used, you may have some fine sediment in “filtered” coffee. This is a stylistic choice.

68

I’m curious Yaacov, what are you disputing?

Of the coffee I’ve brewed (with filter - I don’t drink Turkish coffee or Moka for that matter), French press is universally richer. I have also not found the fine sediment I get in French press in any paper filtered coffee.

Are either of my personal experiences not true? I find it odd to call either of those statements not true or woefully incomplete on the basis of coffee to water ratio or brew time. They seem like different things entirely.

69

Yaacov, if you are to be our coffee or wine guru on this thread, you need to serve up something more than “not true, woefully incomplete, patently false, blah, blah, blah”. Your say-so and experience alone do not cut it. You have said not one damn thing of substance by way of claiming utility, superiority or anything else regarding the use of filters for coffee OR wine, and many others have explained to you inherent or potential problems with the use of paper filters in both cases. I really have to stop the coffee business now, but Taylor has laid the French press on the table and I can go on for an hour about the other technological advances that have supplanted pour-over paper filter technology, including pour-over METAL filter technology, for God’s sake. You inadvertently hit the nail on the head…pour-over paper filter technology cannot properly control the all of the variables required for truly great coffee-making. Full stop. Forget about Oliver’s extreme coffee geek in his lab with the Ehrlenmeyer flask and $50,000 worth of measuring equipment, including 17 types of scientific-grade paper filters. Not reality for coffee lovers. Take Andy’s test. It took no backpedaling to best you on this one, Yaacov. You are simply being as stubborn as…Bill Klapp! Vias con Dios…

Taylor, last time that I used a Nespresso machine, I opened a capsule that misfired out of curiosity, and there was nothing but coffee in there (no room for anything else). Hot water is forced through the pierced end of a coffee-filled capsule until the pressure blows the aluminum seal (rather like a miniature seal on a single-serving capsule of creamer) on the other end and allows the coffee to flow out. The exit hole in the handle is so small that little or no coffee escapes into the cup. Nespresso may have changed its technology in the interim, and Keurig capsules may have a filter inside. On the other hand, Keurig machines make shitty coffee! :slight_smile:

Keith, excellent point on what goes on while the wine is trying to find its way through a paper filter into the decanter…

70

Bill, I wasn’t sure about the Nespresso pods - I merely assumed at that point. We have a Nespresso machine ourselves but I haven’t ventured to open a capsule up. On the other hand, while having to circumvent the ridiculous Keurig “2.0” DRM technology I had the “pleasure” of disassembling a capsule in order to pull a Silence of the Lambs-esque maneuver to place the DRM compliant foil on subsequent “non-conforming” capsules. Through this I found that there is indeed a paper filter inside the capsules.

As I look this up, I forgot that the machine pierces the foil on the pods in such a way to create a metal filter on the capsule itself. Far more ingenious than the Keurig machines. Unfortunately having to order the pods directly from Nespresso in the United States rather than picking them up in the store has led to us not using our machine in some time. (something I need to remedy).

By the way, someone in our office purchased a Keurig machine as a gift (to the office) to make things easier and more convenient for everyone. After a day, people were asking for me to make French press now that I wasn’t brewing in the old percolating brewer. I think that confirms your assessment of the quality of the Keurig machines. Even the old industrial percolating brewer made better coffee. (with a lot of cleaning, grind settings, grounds to water ratio and other elements that I can’t adjust with a Keurig).

One other note: One element of paper filters is that it’s storage is pretty critical. The paper has a tendency to pick up aromas from its surrounding environment. Rinsing with hot water seems to remedy this, but this isn’t something applicable to wine. Just one more reason why a metal mesh seems preferable.

Either way, quite the derail now and I’m really digressing. I just can’t think of a single reason why a paper filter would be preferable.

71

Just something to add here:

Talking about filtration on the level of microns on a molecular level doesn’t make something “more scientific”. Andy’s process of blind trial with different filters is indeed part of the scientific method. (and therefore “scientific”.

Tasting the wine or coffee based on different filters on an objective basis is not only scientific but substantially more relevant as we’re ultimately concerned about how that cup or glass really tastes in the end. The exact size of the molecules left in the glass is of little importance. We’re just assuming that it has some correlation to what we’re tasting.

72

we agree on the results, i was referring to your comment that those results were due to the more pourous metal mesh; it certainly plays a role but because there are so many differences between that brewing method and others, it’s just one of several factors. And I think it’s relevant to wine because we are talking about removing things from the wine - and what size pore is a factor.

73

yes, indeed. we agree 100% on this.

but in an effort to understand these effects and optimize for them, the next logical step is to drill down into what’s causing these various things to happen (or not happen, as the case may be). a blind trial is a great first step.

74

I know you’re talking about wine; so am I. And, wine only. I was trying to understand your point re: paper filters and wine.

75

Bill - How you manage to write so much without actually saying anything is astounding, but let me summarize very briefly:

  1. You stated no serious coffee drinker uses paper filters, this was and is patently false as very clearly demonstrated by the ubiquitous use (and recommendation) of various pour over coffee techniques by every high-end (“serious”) cafe and roaster. Walk into Stumptown, Blue Bottle, Intelligentsia, La Colombe, Terroir, Counter Culture, etc., etc. You created a Straw Man with references to strange and expensive equipment when the reality is that truly transcendent pour over coffee can be achieved at minimal cost. This is quite lazy for you.

  2. Somehow, and very strangely, that false statement evolved into “filters aren’t good for coffee, why would they be good for wine?” I still don’t have any understanding of this transition, and doubt I ever will.

76

Yaacov, how you write so little without saying anything is equally astounding. Your brief recitation of coffeehouses above strikes me as myopic, in the grand scheme of things, America hardly being the center of the coffee universe. You do not read and comprehend particularly well, and you cling to your own ways in the face of others trying to help you to find better ways. So it was last year with destroying truffles with your Microplane grater, armed only with a misplaced, misguided notion that exposing surface area is everything with white truffles. Thank God that your good friend Jeremy explained that truffles are made to be eaten, not just smelled. Maybe you feel the same way about wine, and it is enough for you to smell the wine while you pour it through coffee filters, and the taste lost is not so important. Maybe Jeremy can explain to you that no, aroma and taste are both important to the enjoyment of wine, along with color, body, texture and other factors, and that it is a bad idea to subject wines to filtration by using paper filters designed for another purpose and not well suited to the task at hand. Give him a call or shoot him an e-mail. Maybe when he tells you what others have told you here, you will believe him…

77

bill - you’re trailing off again and i see a very strange pattern emerging; i offer real facts and examples, and your respond with ad hominem attacks and, more important, zero facts. i didn’t pick those roasters and cafes because they’re in america, i picked them because they represent the most sophisticated and serious coffee - that would be true if they were in mexico or spain. but instead of a reasonable retort showing (1) a serious coffee culture outside of these examples that (2) also does not consider pour over coffee as serious, you have again failed miserably. so, where is the center of the coffee universe and what are they doing there? and if it’s so different than here, what explains the difference? these are facts, you haven’t presented any. i thought you conceded this point, but you clearly haven’t. if you intend on pushing this ridiculous notion forward, please at least attempt to bring some actual facts to the discussion. you claimed pour over coffee wasn’t serious, i and others on this thread have shown the opposite.

and i do not cling to anything - just the opposite. i found simple decanting insufficient to remove the muddy texture from older cdp - i tried a coffee filter and liked the results. repeatedly. several here are saying it (1) removes too much, and/or (2) it adds a paper taste or some other unwanted element. i always seek to improve and learn and never take anything at face value, so i’d like those with more knowledge to expand on these ideas.

as for the truffles, i did absolutely not believe jeremy, on the contrary, he explained in scientific terms WHY the thing he said was happening was happening. i didn’t need to believe him because he made a logical argument based on scientific evidence. which there is almost none of - yet - in this thread. that’s a stark difference to what you’re proffering, at least to me.

it’s surprising because i doubt you’d let anyone get away with the way you’re making these arguments.

78

My point was simply that there is no definitive answer, either way.

But, this being the interweb, the lack of a definitive answer should not get in the way of the level of passion of people’s opinion!

I have an aversion to any sensation of sediment when I drink wine, so I may skew toward favoring some filtering. Other, perhaps not!

79

Anton, stop being so reasonable!

80

So, after filtering the wine, there must be some absolutely intense flavors and aromas trapped in the filter. I think you should smell and suck some filters and report back on the sensory sensation.

champagne.gif

People also use eggs for fining. Are you upset that they are using a substance that wasn’t designed specifically for wine fining?

Corks weren’t exactly designed for their purpose, either.

I’m cheating here… strawman