ML Fermentation

There was a thread about a year ago on the “other board” about ML fermentation, and there were some winemakers who suspected that prolonged ML ferms increased wine quality. That gave me pause, because frankly, I could not imagine how that could be. I mean, it is just converting malic to lactic acid. Maybe prolonging the pH shift upwards might preserve the color for a bit longer, but once the shift happens, the effect will be the same.
We are lucky enough to have a warm room, so most of the time our ML’s are done before spring. Unfortunately, most smaller wineries do not have that luxury, so the Oenococcus “go to sleep” during the cold winter, and “reawaken” in the spring. These wineries also put barrels outside in the sun on warm days to speed up the warming process.

So, some winemakers think this prolonged ML fermentation actually leads to increased quality. I disagee with this, and here is my theory on this perception (this is discounting inhibitions such as extremely high alcohol and SO2):

1. Since low pH can be an inhibitor of speedy ML ferms, years of high pH wines can proceed very quickly, so years with better acidity/lower pH might take longer and into spring. Unless you really like flabby high pH wines, the lower pH wines have more of a perception of quality.
2. Not having the barrels in a cold and humid cellar, and then putting them in the sun (or in a warm room in our case) can cause significant evaporation. This evaporation can serve to concentrate the wine, cause a perception of increased extraction/quality.
3. Some winemakers rack off ML lees after ML is finished, but some do not. In prolonged ML fermentations, the wine remains on these lees for a longer period of time than some might normally be on them. For those winemakers who normally do rack off the ML lees, the wine remaining on these lees for a longer period of time might increase the perception of quality in these wines.

So, that is the crux of my thoughts. I would think that if a wine went through a fast ML, but was then left on the lees, had a good pH, and also went through some sort of evaporation, these wines would mimic those that had undergone a prolonged ML ferm.
What say ye?

I say, bingo.

It then becomes interesting to type ‘long slow malolactic’ in your search engine and see which wineries come up that use this phrase on their website. But to be fair, the average consumer does not want to know that a long, slow ML is a good sign, and not really a technique. In fact, I think I should add that to our website! Good marketing …

Linda -

I think you have highlighted well the difficulty with many claims and their impact on quality. The myriad of things involved in winemaking and their interplay with each other suggest that broad strokes such as “longer ML is better for quality,” a bit dubious even if there is some kind of correlation (not that I am saying there is). Its the old correlation versus causation problem.

Tyler

Shift happens. Ph shift anyways.

Here is what I know to be absolutely beyond dispute:

1. If your ML’s complete before winter- that is the best possible thing because you can sulfur your wines and keep them safe. This reflects a concious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible practices.

2. If your ML’s don’t complete until spring, that is the best possible thing because longer ml keeps the wine slightly blanketed with CO2.This reflects a concious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible practices.

3. If your ML’s don’t complete until summer, that is the best possible thing because if you bottle in the fall, you will probably have used less sulfur if you waited to sulfur until ML is complete.This reflects a concious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible practices.

4. If your wines simply don’t complete ML, that is the best possible thing, because that harder profile of malic acid gives the wine an additional layer of structure.This reflects a concious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible practices.

5. In all instances, NEVER admit anything is out of your control or that you made a mistake. Instead, always make it clear that you are the ringmaster, and whatever happens is all part of your grand design.

Ok. The answer is D.

I innoculate as wine goes dry and heat winery to maintain 59-60 f. temp. in November and December to assure ml completion. I barrel age 11 months, but by pushing ml I get the same amount of barrel aging post ml, as people who don’t push ml and barrel age 16-18 months. I think its the post ml barrel aging where most of the micro-oxygenation occurs and the key barrel aging period. During the ml the wine is in a reduced stage because it is evolving CO2. I think its after ml that the wine turns into wine.

Cargasacchi Peter made it, finally!!!

Welcome, Cargasacchi Peter! Cargasacchi Peter!

I screwed up registration under Peter Cargasacchi so reregistered under Cargasacchi Peter. The web site says there is already a user under PC and wouldn’t let me register.

Fixed it! You are now aptly named…

THANKS!

Here is what I know to be absolutely beyond dispute:

1. If your ML’s complete before winter- that is the best possible thing because you can sulfur your wines and keep them safe. This reflects a concious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible practices.

2. If your ML’s don’t complete until spring, that is the best possible thing because longer ml keeps the wine slightly blanketed with CO2.This reflects a concious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible practices.

3. If your ML’s don’t complete until summer, that is the best possible thing because if you bottle in the fall, you will probably have used less sulfur if you waited to sulfur until ML is complete.This reflects a concious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible practices.

4. If your wines simply don’t complete ML, that is the best possible thing, because that harder profile of malic acid gives the wine an additional layer of structure.This reflects a concious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible practices.

5. In all instances, NEVER admit anything is out of your control or that you made a mistake. Instead, always make it clear that you are the ringmaster, and whatever happens is all part of your grand design.

This is hilarious and you could substitute any number of stylistic “choices” for ML length.

I like it in between: December/Jan finish. Valentine’s Day at the latest. I do think it’s probably related to the lower acid wines flying through in 2 weeks.

John - My wife likes ML’s done by the end of the calendar year, but my girlfriend likes them to continue 'till the Spring. And my mistress? Fugettaboutit. My dog likes to sniff butts, but doesn’t really care about MLs. How do you handle this situation, sensei?

Get your girlfriend and mistress together for a threesome. Have your wife take pictures. Usually works for me.

Then you wake up in a cold sweat…

John really is a player! He gets Nate’s girlfriend and mistress together for a threesome, then has Nate’s wife take pics!!!

What if you have your MLs finished by Thanksgiving? We have one winemaker in the Willamette who does that every year so he can barrel taste and sell futures.

This is the best possible pratcie. it reflects a concious decision by… oh never mind…

Hey Linda,
FWIW, I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone actually say that long ML produces high quality. The burgundians think that it is part of a high quality problem. At least the ones I’ve talked to like long malos for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest is, as has been pointed out, a much lower use of sulfur in the long run. The idea of CO2 protecting during long malo isn’t seen so much as a contributor to quality but a boon that helps protect the wine during those long malos.

I do long native malos here, and we don’t see any elevated VA’s or huge bacterial growth over that period. I typically don’t sulfur reds until the summer, and our chards don’t finish primary until at least May. I’ve never seen any negatives associated with it, and I use very little sulfur during the elevage, even with 15-16 months in barrel. I think it’s just part of an overall philosophy of native ferments and allowing the wines to take however long they’d like.

I think that a lot of the “risks” involved with native and subsequent long malos are grossly overstated. If you can do a native program without using nutrients, I think you can develop a nutrient “desert” in the wine that discourages spoilage organisms. I also think that nutrient requirements are grossly exaggerated as well. Then again, I’ve been accused of having worn a football helmet and riding the short bus as a child…

I’ve looked and looked and can’t find the original thread that I had remembered. Darn it.

Jeff, are you saying this from the aspect of better tannin resolution as the result of lower sulfur?

I do think that’s part of it. I also think that both oak and whole cluster/stem character integrates faster. There’s certainly something that protects the wines during that period, and I do think it’s the CO2. Our VA’s are lower than most other places I’ve worked, and they don’t see SO2 until, like I said earlier, at least May and usually later. I just tasted through all of the 08’s on Friday and there isn’t a hint of malo yet, but the wines taste really fresh.

This is a good question. I honestly have no idea if or why longer ML would improve wine quality, but I might have suggested it did…before reading this thread, at least.

I guess I’ve always learned that time is an important quality issue for many things, for many different reasons. I think of disparate things like braising meat, repairing dings in surfboards with epoxy, curing concrete or cheese. Super fast primaries obviously aren’t what we’re looking for in most cases. So longer, drawn out MLs seem like they’re better. But I don’t know if it’s true, or why.

I suppose Holdredge is right. My 2008 pinot is hanging out in the 40Fs with no activity, and that’s my intention and obviously the best way to go.