ThePortForum.com

AHB wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:The wheat flour is outside the cork, not in the drink...

True, but only if every last trace were successfully removed when pulling the cork. If any of the paste adhered to the neck of the bottle as the port was poured out, some would dissolve in the liquid to be consumed - but whether more than 200ppm I cannot estimate.

Either way, my fear would be that the paste can attract mould or other growth. It's an organic compound, there's no reason why it shouldn't.
What about embedding a (stout) thread in the wax plug, so it can be pulled and the wax break up?

jdaw1 wrote:The wheat flour is outside the cork, not in the drink, so it should still be safe. But you might be more cautious than that.

I have to be cautious, unfortunately. 20 ppm is very little indeed. 0.02g flour in a pour. An unlucky scrap. The problem would be on opening, and chipping all the paste away on getting the cork out. Perhaps an opportunity for tongs!

Coeliac is not an intolerance or an allergy, it is an autoimmune disease, where the body attacks itself with vigour if it detects any gluten, giving quite unpleasant short and quite a variety of significantly unpleasant long term problems.

djewesbury wrote:

AHB wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:The wheat flour is outside the cork, not in the drink...

True, but only if every last trace were successfully removed when pulling the cork. If any of the paste adhered to the neck of the bottle as the port was poured out, some would dissolve in the liquid to be consumed - but whether more than 200ppm I cannot estimate.

Either way, my fear would be that the paste can attract mould or other growth. It's an organic compound, there's no reason why it shouldn't.
What about embedding a (stout) thread in the wax plug, so it can be pulled and the wax break up?

As long as the paste were mixed well, and allowed to fully harden, it should be OK. The wax seal would stop air getting to it, so mould and aerobic bacteria should be inhibited whilst it remains intact, but yes, some risk, but perhaps no worse than a slightly mouldy cork. Apparently it is common in France to still use the traditional flour paste to seal some wine barrels, although most other countries use more modern alternatives.

I agree that wax with a break up mechanism would be better, and certainly so for me!

A plug of softer wax could be used to fill the gap perhaps?

jdaw1 wrote:The wheat flour is outside the cork, not in the drink, so it should still be safe.

The principle reason for re-waxing a bottle is that it is leaking or likely to leak. Putting an organic compound on top of a leaking or potentially leaking cork is about the same as putting the flour in the bottle. As soon as it is laid down the Port will pass through or around the cork and soak the underside of the flour plug. The flour (or disolved compounds from it) could then potentially pass back around the cork and into the bottle.

Seems just too risky for me given that the solution to removing an inert wax plug is 10 seconds with a sharp knife.

True, but only if every last trace were successfully removed when pulling the cork. If any of the paste adhered to the neck of the bottle as the port was poured out, some would dissolve in the liquid to be consumed - but whether more than 200ppm I cannot estimate.

OK, the wonders of Google and the silly things one does when you wake up at 5 a.m. for some reason..

US FDA says 20ppm or less may be described as 'gluten free'.

Maximum amount of flour likely to be used = 1g with gluten content of 100mg

- If bottle opened as pop and pour, at least 95% would be displaced by the exiting cork, 5mg in 750ml = less than 7ppm

- If cork pushed in and bottle badly decanted (gluten is almost insoluble) 90% of gluten stays in sediment, and 10% finds its way with other sediment into the wine, 10mg in 750ml = less than 14ppm

I don't think gluten is the issue for the vast majority of people. The issue is running the risk of tainting the wine.

Why bother doing that when there are perfectly suitable alternatives that do not introduce that risk?

uncle tom wrote:

True, but only if every last trace were successfully removed when pulling the cork. If any of the paste adhered to the neck of the bottle as the port was poured out, some would dissolve in the liquid to be consumed - but whether more than 200ppm I cannot estimate.

OK, the wonders of Google and the silly things one does when you wake up at 5 a.m. for some reason..

US FDA says 20ppm or less may be described as 'gluten free'.

Maximum amount of flour likely to be used = 1g with gluten content of 100mg

- If bottle opened as pop and pour, at least 95% would be displaced by the exiting cork, 5mg in 750ml = less than 7ppm

- If cork pushed in and bottle badly decanted (gluten is almost insoluble) 90% of gluten stays in sediment, and 10% finds its way with other sediment into the wine, 10mg in 750ml = less than 14ppm

A teaspoon is about 3g so 1g about right, yes.

Assumes homogeneity. On pop and pour, 5 mg concentrated in 2 of 15 pours doesn't work for me.

Assumes gluten is insoluble. Wine is not water (thank goodness) - it is a dilute acid, and gluten dissolves well enough in dilute acids. Flour dispersed over the large surface area of a filter paper while wine is poured over is a great way to dissolve gluten.

Let me know if flour is used and I'll pass. It isn't a problem, I already pass on lots of things when I'm out.

On the broader issue. Is flour able to taint wine? Possibly. Worth the risk? I think probably not, and certainly not for an older more delicate more valuable wine.

A very worthwhile conversation.

Hopefully Tom can find a substitute, and mentions it here before using it on too many bottles.

This is just another example of political correctness gone mad. I have been sealing all my bottles with bat droppings. I didn't notice that any of you dropped dead when you drank them. Honestly, it's amazing we've survived this long considering our ancestors didn't maintain three contact points on the ladder when they descended from the trees.
x1000, and all in the most friendly imaginable way!

djewesbury wrote:I have been sealing all my bottles with bat droppings.

That explains the "mouse-y" flavours I've been noting in some ports. I just thought it was a variation of VA / TCA / baterial infection.

BOOM-BOOM

Really, I would have expected you to know that mice and bats have quite different diets Alex. Bat droppings consist mostly of insects and are quite harmless. Mouse droppings contain gluten and should only be used on Madeira.

Hopefully Tom can find a substitute, and mentions it here before using it on too many bottles.

Experimented with plaster of Paris yesterday, but so hard you'd break the end of the bottle before it came out. Can I find a neutral admixture to reduce the hardness.. hmm?

Wax?

DRT wrote:Wax?

Wax?

Well, it's an idea..

The wax sold by British wax makes a superb seal, but is a struggle to remove if the cork was depressed at the time of waxing. Using an alternative and less resilient wax to fill the depression is a possibility, but candle wax might be problematic as it has a much lower melting point and would almost certainly re-melt on dipping.

But a good old fashioned sealing wax candle might do the trick - will experiment..

Quite pleased with my first effort at rewaxing a bottle.

Looks great ...

That does look good.

You might want to consider buying a home printing kit with the rubber letters you put into a frame so you can stamp the wax with shipper and vintage while it’s still soft.

Alex Bridgeman wrote: ↑23:26 Sat 09 Nov 2024 That does look good.

You might want to consider buying a home printing kit with the rubber letters you put into a frame so you can stamp the wax with shipper and vintage while it’s still soft.

Indeed I was pondering purchasing the recommended kit.

I would. It’s very satisfying to stamp the identity of the wine into the newly waxed capsule.