I definitely heard that was the case during crush in the cool 2011 vintageā¦no large bags of sugar to be found anywhere in North Coast wine country. People must have been baking lots of cookies that year. ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
What youāre saying about Velcorin and methanol isnāt quite true. Velcorin breaks down to methanol and CO2 in all casesā¦not just in the presence of alcohol. The limits of Velcorin usage (in any beverage) are determined primarily based on acceptable levels of methanol.
Methanol in wine (or any alcoholic beverage) is less of a concern than in other beverages because ethanol blocks the metabolization of methanol, preventing much of it from getting into your bloodstream.
Not that Iām advocating the use of Velcorin, but I donāt think thereās any reason to worry about it either.
(Edit: changed some incorrect terminology & grammar)
Eric,
Interesting information. If this was true - that ethanol blocks the absorption of methanol, and preventing much/all of it from getting into your bloodstream - then the āissuesā seen in Russia and elsewhere with methanol poisoning from ābadā alcohol meant that there was no ethanol in those products? Just curious . . .
Cheers.
Not necessarily no ethanol, but not enoughā¦and sounds like there was enough methanol to be a problem. I.e. itās the amount of ethanol vs methanol thatās the key. The amount of methanol in wine (produced during fermentation, and optionally from velcorin/etc) would be tiny compared to ethanol (except in russia apparently 
)
Also, I misspoke slightlyā¦ethanol can block the metabolization of methanol (until itās passed from your system)ā¦itās not about absorption. Apparently, the enzyme (one of) responsible for metabolizing ethanol and methanol is 10-20 times more likely to interact with ethanol than methanol. So if you have enough ethanol in your systemā¦
For example, one of the main treatments for methanol poisoning is to give ethanol (for the above reasons). A childhood friend, an ER doc, told me this and piqued my interest.
Iām a neophyte and I have zero understanding of how wine making really works. Are you saying that even though itās against the law, some people do it anyway? Itās āaccepted practice?ā No enforcement? Or maybe thereās an honor code that people donāt follow?
Iām assuming itās a matter of enforcement.
There is a story of a guy who got a gold medal at some sort of county or state event and the āwineā had absolutely no grape content, purely chemical. I canāt find any proof and doubt the story is true.
My former neighbor owns a business that filters wines, based on the problem. Itās not for two or three different problems. Itās for five or ten.
A good winemaker makes consistent wines of good caliber. You come to expect what wine XYZ will taste like, particularly those of you with exceptional palates, who can quickly detect differences or flaws. Weather changes. Grape quality changes. A good winemaker with a large tool box can fix almost anything. He dumps the vintage if he canāt.
On the other hand, there are some winemakers who produce the wine the vintage provided. How does the inconsistency affect their sales?
So, with all the other things in your wine posted, do you really want to know exactly whatās in your wine?
Randy,
Thatās a pretty good perspective, IMO.
Most folks believe itās whatās in the bottle (or glass) that counts. And while that is not my position, I surely understand it.
The folks who think they can pick out wine making techniques by tasting the wine always make me smile. I canāt pick out grapes blind let alone if someone ROād.
But if you pays your money, you get to pronounce.
May it always be thus.
Best, Jim
Adding sugar in California is not something that happens with any regularity every year, at least among producers that folks who follow Wine Berserkers care aboutā¦2011 was an unusual vintage. I donāt think this is a priority for enforcement. As has been noted above, itās perfectly legal to increase sugar in must by adding grape concentrate. Some winemakers who wouldnāt ordinarily even consider adding concentrate did so in 2011 as well as those who went the āC&Hā route. Iāve heard āthrough the grapevineā of at least one well-regarded producer who may be doing it on a more regular basis but I donāt know whether thatās the case.
There was an ITB Funnies thread over on the eSchroedinger forum, In one post, an ITB person was on a group tour at a large winery at harvest time. The winemaker was standing on a pallet of sugar sacks to have some height over the crowd while giving a talk. During the Q&A the ITB guy asked if they chaptalize. āNo, we never do that.ā No one seemed to understand the term and he didnāt push the issue.
Like Ken said, itās not a normal practice here since thereās no need. If you look at wine laws if various countries/regions youāll note an inconsistency of what is and isnāt legal relating to what is and isnāt necessary.
One respected California winemaker told me he chaptalized in 2011. And itās VERY common to add water in California, even though I believe, in theory, thatās only permitted if the grapes got dried up on the vines. Thatās to reduce the alcohol.
So, yes, thereās a lot of skirting of the rules.
And in Europe you have scandals like Brunello-gate (non-sangiovese grapes from outside the region) and, in the distant past, the addition of ethylene glycol (an alcohol used in antifreeze) in Lambrusco and Austrian wines to add body.
Funny story, Wes.
I think the main point here is that these things DO take place, and not just with āmass marketā wineries. I continue to feel that, at times, many on this board continue to believe that most of their beloved producers are āaboveā doing any of this stuff - and Iām just not certain thatās the case . . .
Cheers!
Was that a confession? 
-Al