Sparkling Port
Posted: 22:15 Tue 10 Nov 2020
The list of Ports which should exist but which do not is very long. It might usefully include a 1970 Quinta do Vesuvio; a 1987 Graham; a Quinta do Noval Garrafeita; and a Quinta do Crasto 20-year-old-tawny.
You might have thought that sparkling Port is not on that list. And you would probably be right. But never mind.
The aim is relatively simple: make something drinkable without encountering the problems that these chaps had. Here, I think, a classic soda siphon has an advantage over a soda stream, since the Port remains pressurised until serving, there is reduced danger of sudden de-pressurisation and explosion.
I used about half-a-bottle of Ruby port. It needs to be well-chilled since one can dissolve a greater amount of gas in cold liquid than warm. I added it to the soda siphon and then charged it with a single 8g cartridge. I shook it thoroughly (whilst counter-intuitive, this is necessary to aid the dissolving of the gas in the liquid) and then added a second 8g cartridge since I have read that alcohol can dissolve less gas than water and so I thought I might need to achieve a higher level of concentration. I then returned it to the fridge for some time.
Perhaps as might be expected, when squeezed out of the soda siphon and into the glass, the result was a very large amount of Port foam which was thick, like the head of a beer. This, however, settled very quickly and the result was a chilled, very lightly sparkling Port which was quite nice to drink.
You might also try squirting the Porty-foam straight into your mouth. But that is another story.
I think, if I was doing this again, I might make it without the long straw in the siphon (which results in the liquid from the bottom of the bottle being pushed out first) so that after charging the siphon and letting it dissolve for some time, I could then de-pressurise the bottle, unscrew the top and pour out the Port. I think it is the sudden de-pressurisation that results in the large amount of foam and, of course, that produces so many nucleation points that a lot of the carbonation is lost. Perhaps one for the Summer?
You might have thought that sparkling Port is not on that list. And you would probably be right. But never mind.
The aim is relatively simple: make something drinkable without encountering the problems that these chaps had. Here, I think, a classic soda siphon has an advantage over a soda stream, since the Port remains pressurised until serving, there is reduced danger of sudden de-pressurisation and explosion.
I used about half-a-bottle of Ruby port. It needs to be well-chilled since one can dissolve a greater amount of gas in cold liquid than warm. I added it to the soda siphon and then charged it with a single 8g cartridge. I shook it thoroughly (whilst counter-intuitive, this is necessary to aid the dissolving of the gas in the liquid) and then added a second 8g cartridge since I have read that alcohol can dissolve less gas than water and so I thought I might need to achieve a higher level of concentration. I then returned it to the fridge for some time.
Perhaps as might be expected, when squeezed out of the soda siphon and into the glass, the result was a very large amount of Port foam which was thick, like the head of a beer. This, however, settled very quickly and the result was a chilled, very lightly sparkling Port which was quite nice to drink.
You might also try squirting the Porty-foam straight into your mouth. But that is another story.
I think, if I was doing this again, I might make it without the long straw in the siphon (which results in the liquid from the bottom of the bottle being pushed out first) so that after charging the siphon and letting it dissolve for some time, I could then de-pressurise the bottle, unscrew the top and pour out the Port. I think it is the sudden de-pressurisation that results in the large amount of foam and, of course, that produces so many nucleation points that a lot of the carbonation is lost. Perhaps one for the Summer?
