4 ms·

I think you misunderstood some of OP's points. For 1) the problem is not that the companies use industrial yeast, but that they take already perfectly good win

I think you misunderstood some of OP's points. For 1) the problem is not that the companies use industrial yeast, but that they take already perfectly good wine, and "reyeast" it to fake how and where it was made. For 2) as well, surely people are allowed to enjoy wine made with oak flakes, but the producers should be honest about it. More transparency and labels such as the suggested "wine drink" can only help consumers.

bathMarm0t 9y ago
1. Isn't "reyeast"ing only going to work if there's still significant sugar content in the must? If so, then it's just like any other wine company importing/sourcing their fruit, and then adding their yeast in-house. This is VERY common practice. I vint in central california, and if a bottle of wine doesn't explicitly say "estate" on the bottle, they're sourcing their grapes from somewhere off-site (usually still in the same region, but not always. as the label gets larger, the chances increase that you're going out of the region). 2.Oak flakes vs barrels is very obvious if you know what to look for. The rounding out of flavors via microoxygenation is apparent on a bottle that's seen barrel time. This study was for beginning wine students. Of course they're going to try to pass the test with the information that had just been provided them (red==this, white==that).
- belorn 9y ago
  Is there a distinction between grapes, must and wine? As ingredients we could treat all of them as synonyms, but it seems unhelpful. Parent post said "perfectly good wine", which I have a hard time imagine would be regular must that is being sold as wine. Could it be that the producer take cheap wine and add additional sugar and yeast?
  - stdbrouw 9y ago
    Must is grape juice (sometimes still mixed in with the peels) before or at the start of fermentation, just as wort is malty sugary water but becomes beer when yeast is added and fermentation begins. At the end of fermentation very little sugar remains, so these are definitely not interchangeable liquids. These terms have a legal definition in most places, because wine and beer is taxed heavily but grape juice is not.
stdbrouw 9y ago
(1) would make zero economic sense because you're adding an extra step to the process when you could just instruct the winemaker from which you import to do things the way you like, and as bathMarm0t notes it would require the addition of sugar or fruit juice so the yeast has something to work with, in which case you definitely cannot legally call it wine anymore. (2) It might be out there, but I've never seen cheap wine advertising that it's been put in this or that kind of barrel for a particular amount of time. At most, they might put a barrel on the label to evoke the idea, which is fairly innocuous as far as false advertising goes. If your interpretation of the OP is closer to what he meant, then really what you both are talking about is fraud, not common practice nor legal and definitely not likely to be true of the majority of "generic wine from our national alcohol store".
- Moru 9y ago
  I also watched this documentary. They add sugar not once but twice in the process. It is very economical since they can adapt to many different tastes so everyone can find something they like. But I have never found a wine I like, mabe this is why? A friends friend (and so on) buys something from a traditional wine yard that is drinkable but still not good... :) And those waiting for legislation for ingredients on wine bottles might have to wait for a while more. It has been in the works for 35 years. The industry really dont want to dispell our beliefs in the traditional wine barrel.
Kadin 9y ago
> they take already perfectly good wine, and "reyeast" it to fake how and where it was made. Is there really any evidence to suggest that is going on? It doesn't make a ton of sense as an (admittedly amateur) wine and beermaker. I mean, I suppose adding more yeast is possible, but it seems like it would work... very poorly, especially into finished wine. You'd have to use a much more alcohol-tolerant strain than the original fermentation, but not if the original wine contained sulfites (which stop fermentation -- that's the major reason why they're added)... It doesn't seem to make a ton of sense. Rather, I think what is perhaps going on is a misunderstanding, or even a sort of mendaciously inaccurate description, of how modern winemaking works, where you -- just like beermaking has for centuries -- put in (aka: "pitch") yeast, selected to be consistent with the type and style of wine you want to make. The alternative would be to make the winemaker depend only on the randomly-occurring yeast in an area. (Which I suppose is a sort of 'terroir', but it's not the sort I think most people would appreciate.)
- INTPenis 9y ago
  Look in this thread for my link to the documentary but it's in Swedish so it might not do any good. Also probably geo blocked. But I want to reply by saying that the evidence was provided mostly by one of the 10 wine distributors that the journalists requested the content declaration from. They asked the 10 largest distributors sold in Swedish alcohol stores and one replied. Through that information they were able to track down the company that sells the flavored yeast and make the connection from the flavors listed in their marketing all the way to the actual wine on the shelf in the store. The other distributors refused multiple times to give out any information and some said they would gladly await the EU regulations about content declaration that are in the works, and would follow them, but still refused to say anything about the content.

bathMarm0t 9y ago

1. Isn't "reyeast"ing only going to work if there's still significant sugar content in the must? If so, then it's just like any other wine company importing/sourcing their fruit, and then adding their yeast in-house. This is VERY common practice. I vint in central california, and if a bottle of wine doesn't explicitly say "estate" on the bottle, they're sourcing their grapes from somewhere off-site (usually still in the same region, but not always. as the label gets larger, the chances increase that you're going out of the region). 2.Oak flakes vs barrels is very obvious if you know what to look for. The rounding out of flavors via microoxygenation is apparent on a bottle that's seen barrel time. This study was for beginning wine students. Of course they're going to try to pass the test with the information that had just been provided them (red==this, white==that).

belorn 9y ago
Is there a distinction between grapes, must and wine? As ingredients we could treat all of them as synonyms, but it seems unhelpful. Parent post said "perfectly good wine", which I have a hard time imagine would be regular must that is being sold as wine. Could it be that the producer take cheap wine and add additional sugar and yeast?
- stdbrouw 9y ago
  Must is grape juice (sometimes still mixed in with the peels) before or at the start of fermentation, just as wort is malty sugary water but becomes beer when yeast is added and fermentation begins. At the end of fermentation very little sugar remains, so these are definitely not interchangeable liquids. These terms have a legal definition in most places, because wine and beer is taxed heavily but grape juice is not.

stdbrouw 9y ago

(1) would make zero economic sense because you're adding an extra step to the process when you could just instruct the winemaker from which you import to do things the way you like, and as bathMarm0t notes it would require the addition of sugar or fruit juice so the yeast has something to work with, in which case you definitely cannot legally call it wine anymore. (2) It might be out there, but I've never seen cheap wine advertising that it's been put in this or that kind of barrel for a particular amount of time. At most, they might put a barrel on the label to evoke the idea, which is fairly innocuous as far as false advertising goes. If your interpretation of the OP is closer to what he meant, then really what you both are talking about is fraud, not common practice nor legal and definitely not likely to be true of the majority of "generic wine from our national alcohol store".

Moru 9y ago
I also watched this documentary. They add sugar not once but twice in the process. It is very economical since they can adapt to many different tastes so everyone can find something they like. But I have never found a wine I like, mabe this is why? A friends friend (and so on) buys something from a traditional wine yard that is drinkable but still not good... :) And those waiting for legislation for ingredients on wine bottles might have to wait for a while more. It has been in the works for 35 years. The industry really dont want to dispell our beliefs in the traditional wine barrel.

Kadin 9y ago

> they take already perfectly good wine, and "reyeast" it to fake how and where it was made. Is there really any evidence to suggest that is going on? It doesn't make a ton of sense as an (admittedly amateur) wine and beermaker. I mean, I suppose adding more yeast is possible, but it seems like it would work... very poorly, especially into finished wine. You'd have to use a much more alcohol-tolerant strain than the original fermentation, but not if the original wine contained sulfites (which stop fermentation -- that's the major reason why they're added)... It doesn't seem to make a ton of sense. Rather, I think what is perhaps going on is a misunderstanding, or even a sort of mendaciously inaccurate description, of how modern winemaking works, where you -- just like beermaking has for centuries -- put in (aka: "pitch") yeast, selected to be consistent with the type and style of wine you want to make. The alternative would be to make the winemaker depend only on the randomly-occurring yeast in an area. (Which I suppose is a sort of 'terroir', but it's not the sort I think most people would appreciate.)

INTPenis 9y ago
Look in this thread for my link to the documentary but it's in Swedish so it might not do any good. Also probably geo blocked. But I want to reply by saying that the evidence was provided mostly by one of the 10 wine distributors that the journalists requested the content declaration from. They asked the 10 largest distributors sold in Swedish alcohol stores and one replied. Through that information they were able to track down the company that sells the flavored yeast and make the connection from the flavors listed in their marketing all the way to the actual wine on the shelf in the store. The other distributors refused multiple times to give out any information and some said they would gladly await the EU regulations about content declaration that are in the works, and would follow them, but still refused to say anything about the content.