583629 Mon Dec 29 12:40:10 -0800 2008 21 34 Wine 0 4280509 On Saturday night, we had a bottle of wine that, after internet research, I think had been the victim of secondary fermentation. It was kind of fizzy -- not bubbly, it wasn't a sparkling wine, but just had a funny fizzy feeling on your mouth. Is this reason enough to send a bottle of wine back? And are there any warning signs, or types of wine are more likely to have this issue? Thanks for any help! Article we found describing what seems to be the issue: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/foodwine/2008066894_wineqanda23.html Mon Dec 29 12:40:11 -0800 2008 59288 DCLindsey 1 4280875 I've encountered the symptom you mention mostly among low-end whites, very seldom in light reds, luckily never so far in high-end bottles irrespective of color. Would I send it back? Probably, but then I wouldn't ask for another bottle of the same, chances being same symptom is present in the entire batch. Warning signs? Nope, none. Mon Dec 29 14:17:15 -0800 2008 4280509 28703 RicRios 2 4281411 «Warning signs? Nope, none.» You're right there's no way to tell by looking at the bottle whether the wine has undergone secondary fermentation. However, winemakers that use little or no sulphur dioxide have a higher incidence of secondary fermentation, so their name on the label might be a sign of increased risk. Before refusing a spritzy bottle from one of those artisanal producers, I'd ask for it to be decanted. The spritz often blows away in minutes and the wine may by no worse for the wear. If the wine is from an industrial producer, however, the spritz is probably a sign of an irredeemable winemaking error. Mon Dec 29 17:26:25 -0800 2008 4280875 10520 carswell 1 4281084 what kind of wine was it? a few bubbles...called frizzante, spritz or petillance, may be fine. refreshing, even. but bubbles in a finished wine can also be a winemaking error...a sign of incomplete fermentation. so, what was the bottle? Mon Dec 29 15:26:25 -0800 2008 4280509 18222 maria lorraine 1 4281348 Limiting myself to your description it does sound like it could be secondary fermentation. If so, that is definitely a reason for sending the bottle back. I'll disagree with Ric, and say that the likelihood of another bottle being thus afflicted isn't very great. I remember a case of Rabbit Ridge zinfandel I purchased ages ago. I walked into my cellar one day to find that the cork from one of the bottles had burst right through the capsule. The only thing that could cause that was secondary fermentation. The other bottles held their corks and the wine inside tasted fine. Mon Dec 29 17:06:56 -0800 2008 4280509 196217 Brad Ballinger 2 4281369 Would that be a secondary, or incomplete first ferm still going? From my angle on words describing ferms, a second ferm would be something like an intentional malolactic ferm, Brett can be a tertiary ferm, etc. The first ferm, obviously, is the one that converts sugar into alcohol. Though ML and Brett can cause in-bottle ferms, they're usually caused by incomplete first ferms. Incomplete first ferms are ostensibly finished first ferms, but after the wine is bottled, yeast microbes and food (sugar) are still present and, whoa nellie, they get going and create bubbles. Can be dangerous and cause exploded bottles...also called a re-fermentation....always a winemaker error, usually involving too high ferm temps, incomplete control of unwanted yeasts, inadequate sulfur, unsterile conditions, etc. Mon Dec 29 17:15:02 -0800 2008 4281348 18222 maria lorraine 3 4281418 "ferms, a second ferm ... a malolactic ferm, a Brett ... a tertiary ferm... sugar into alcohol..." Maria, with all due respect: a generic schmuck like me would rather keep it simple and stick to DCLindsey's clean definition of "a funny fizzy feeling on your mouth". ( Which does not deny the fact that of course, going down to the cellular, molecular, atomic and/or string theory levels yes, there might be quite a few satisfactory explanations ). Happy New Year! Mon Dec 29 17:30:17 -0800 2008 4281369 28703 RicRios 4 4281442 String theory, dark energy, hadron colliders, incomplete in-bottle ferms...all related. Mon Dec 29 17:38:38 -0800 2008 4281418 18222 maria lorraine 5 4281915 I usually attribute these anomalies to the Klingons, but have been wrong on a few occasions. Maybe it was the Menehunies...! Depending on the wine, it might be a fault, or maybe not. Was it a Vinho Verde? Hunt Mon Dec 29 21:07:32 -0800 2008 4281442 11329 Bill Hunt 3 4281488 Interesting distinction, Maria. FWIW, the Oxford Companion doesn't appear to draw it: "secondary fermentation, a fermentation that occurs after the completion of the normal alcoholic fermentation. This may be a fermentation in bottle, or the evolution of carbon dioxide that accompanies a malolactic fermentation, or simply a restarting of an alcoholic fermentation of a wine that still contains fermentable sugars. This can happen if, for example, there is a rise in temperature or a more powerful yeast is introduced." Mon Dec 29 17:54:11 -0800 2008 4281369 10520 carswell 4 4281761 The trouble with unplanned, unwanted bubbles, other than exploding bottles, is that they're often accompanied by nasty smells and tastes. Unwanted bubbles inside wine bottles usually occur because of unsterile bottling conditions and residual sugar (glucose). But glucose isn't the only precursor to bubbles. Some evil bugs (one lactobacillus, in particular, and pediococcus) can eat pentose, an odd "undetectable" sugar, and produce bubbles and foul odors as a result. Cloudiness, often, as well. Prevalent in Pinot Noir. So, in DCLindsey's case, we don't know if the bubbles were of the beguiling variety (spritz, petillance) or the nasty, smelly type, in which case sending the wine back would have been without question the correct decision. If we learn the name of the wine, perhaps we can figure it out. Mon Dec 29 19:54:18 -0800 2008 4281488 18222 maria lorraine 4 4281940 Word quibbles, and further practical distinctions re: incomplete vs. secondary ferm: The use of the word "after" in the Oxford text, above, about secondary ferms is telling, as in "after the completion of the normal alcoholic fermentation," or after the first ferm. “Re-starting” a ferm implies finishing an incomplete ferm (one “re-starts” a “stuck” ferm), not beginning a new secondary ferm. If unspent yeast (of any variety) from the first ferm produces CO2 inside a bottle, those bubbles are the result of an *incomplete* first ferm. But if, as mentioned earlier, an “evil bug” introduced into the wine via unsanitary conditons after the first fermentation eats any glucose remaining in the wine (or a non-glucose sugar), the bubbles produced from that would be the result of a secondary fermentation. So the type of “sugar-gobbler” and the specific sugar gobbled can tell us if the bubbles are from a first, incomplete fermentation or a new secondary fermentation. But the bad smell and taste of the wine will usually be a giveaway. Bad = secondary. So, DCLindsey, how did the wine in question smell and taste? Good, bad, odd, off, pleasant, etc.? Additional distinctions regarding first/incomplete or secondary ferms are: whether or not the ferm was intentional or unintentional, and whether or not the ferm occurred before bottling or after. Obviously many combinations and permutations can result but only in a few instances are bubbles produced inside a bottle -- marked by °°°°°°: first ferm, intentional, pre-bottling: normal ferm with inoculated yeasts; wild yeasts first ferm, unintentional, pre-bottling: “wild” yeasts first ferm, unintentional, in bottle: making wine when you didn’t mean to, "wine"-maker error incomplete first ferm, intentional, pre-bottling: mechanically stopped ferm, as for making port incomplete first ferm, intentional, in bottle, small amount of yeast causing bubbles: stylistic spritz, petillance°° incomplete first ferm, unintentional, pre-bottling: "stuck" ferm, must innoculate incomplete first ferm, unintentional, in bottle, larger amount of yeast causing bubbles: winemaking error, exploding bottles °°°°°° secondary (or tertiary) ferm, intentional, pre-bottling: malolactic ferm, intentional Brett ferm secondary (or tertiary) ferm, intentional, in bottle, causing bubbles: methode champenoise°°°° secondary (or tertiary) ferm, unintentional, pre-bottling: spontaneous malolactic, uncontrolled Brett, other yeasts eating non-glucose sugars, unsanitary conditions, winemaker error secondary (or tertiary) ferm, unintentional, in bottle, causing bubbles: spontaneous malolactic, uncontrolled Brett, other yeasts eating non-glucose sugars, unsanitary conditions, winemaker error, exploding bottles °°° Glad I could get this off my chest...:-)) Mon Dec 29 21:19:52 -0800 2008 4281488 18222 maria lorraine 5 4282448 Thanks everyone for all of your help! I told my boyfriend that the Hounds would know what was going on. I believe the wine was this one: Domaine du Font-Sane, Tradition 2004 Grenache Blend Gigondas It was recommended by our waiter and since neither my boyfriend nor I have a lot of knowledge about french wines, we took his advice. The wine tasted fine (in that we didn't notice anything off in it) outside of the slight fizzy feeling in the mouth. While not the perfect bottle, it did generate a lot of discussion about what we like and dislike in wine so hopefully next time we can be more specific about what we are looking for. Thank you for your help. Tue Dec 30 06:39:51 -0800 2008 4281940 59288 DCLindsey 6 4282598 I'm sticking with unplanned secondary fermentation. Tue Dec 30 07:39:18 -0800 2008 4282448 196217 Brad Ballinger 6 4283428 Gigondas +fizziness = flaw => send back. Tue Dec 30 12:18:25 -0800 2008 4282448 28703 RicRios 7 4283476 Yup. Unplanned secondary, Send it back. Tue Dec 30 12:33:53 -0800 2008 4283428 18222 maria lorraine 6 4284153 Hey, am I too late to say, "send it back?" This is of course predicated on whether you liked the "spritziness." [Is that even a word?] I've encountered several lightly petulant wines (either by design, or fate), that I kinda' liked. Not sure that a Gidondas would have been in that camp, but then I was not there. I would have offered a taste to the sommelier, and asked him/her about the effervescence. I'd have liked to have heard that response. Hunt Hunt Tue Dec 30 16:30:34 -0800 2008 4282448 11329 Bill Hunt 5 4286234 You missed one non-ferm cause: using C02 to protect from oxidation, and accidentally aerating the wine. If the wine is aerated or handled roughly in the presence of C02, some C02 will dissolve into it, which when drunk later may not show bubbles in the glass but can taste slightly spritzy in the mouth. My dad was once pumping wine in and out of a small portable rectangular tank while blending, and forgot to open the top as he pumped the wine out. One of the walls collapsed from a convex to a concave position due to the suction, and he just about had a heart attack thinking he may have just spritzed his wine. I'm pretty sure that by that year we were using Argon and not C02 in the winery, which I think is less prone to carbonating the wine, and the wine turned out fine without a hint of carbonation. Wed Dec 31 13:08:19 -0800 2008 4281940 17221 SteveG 6 4286358 Thanks. Good story. Wed Dec 31 13:51:05 -0800 2008 4286234 18222 maria lorraine 1 4281377 I once was given a bottle by a wine store that had secondary fermentation. It was a nice inexpensive Italian white that they thought quite good because of the incipient bubbles, but could not be kept in the store because the bottles were exploding due to thin glass! It was bring home at your own risk, chill to lower the pressure, and drink with some strawberries. Delish! Mon Dec 29 17:16:27 -0800 2008 4280509 221285 therealdoctorlew 1 4281904 DCLindsey, A lot depends on the exact wine. Many undergo various forms of "secondary fermentations," but most are by design, and contribute to their “creamy” nature. Others, are by design, and do lead to a "frizzanti" effervescence. Some are totally by accident and may/may not contribute to the end-product. This might be a fault, or it might not. What was the wine? Hunt Mon Dec 29 21:00:54 -0800 2008 4280509 11329 Bill Hunt 1 4284807 I've had both pleasant and unpleasant secondary fermentations in commercial wines. Sometimes they're drinkable, but when the expected character is altered (beyond a pleasant frizz,), that's when I'd send it back (or take it back to the store.) And on some types of wine, I wouldn't want to see a frizzante at all (red Bordeaux, etc.) Tue Dec 30 21:52:44 -0800 2008 4280509 124191 comestible