DOCSLIB.ORG

Fact Sheet WINEMAKING

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fact Sheet WINEMAKING Fact Sheet WINEMAKING Controlling Brettanomyces during winemaking Introduction microbiological spoilage, volatile acidity (VA) and general wine instability problems. Brettanomyces is a yeast commonly found in wineries, which has the potential to cause The growth of Brettanomyces in wine is significant spoilage in wines through the affected by a range of factors, some of which production of volatile phenol compounds. are interlinked. This means that controlling These compounds, in particular 4-ethylphenol Brett requires a multi-faceted approach. If just (4EP), 4-ethylguaiacol (4EG) and 4- one factor is addressed in isolation, it is ethylcatechol (4EC), are associated with unlikely to be successful. However, if action is undesirable sensory characters such as ‘Band- taken on all or most of the factors discussed Aid’, ‘medicinal’, ‘horsy’, and ‘barnyard’, which the risk of Brett spoilage should be greatly are collectively often known as ‘Brett’ reduced. Key factors in a Brett control character. Because Brettanomyces can be strategy are outlined below. found across all Australian wine regions, and can cause such negative sensory effects, it is General sanitation sensible for all wineries to have a control Cleaning and sanitation in the winery are strategy in place, even if Brett spoilage extremely important in controlling a range of problems have not been experienced in the microbial spoilage problems, by helping to past. Steps taken to control Brett are also prevent the build-up of unwanted yeast, likely to have additional positive bacteria or moulds. During vintage, care consequences in avoiding other Updated March 2020 Fact Sheet WINEMAKING should be taken to ensure that crushers, rather than assuming that primary presses and must lines are cleaned and fermentation is complete. sanitised regularly (at least daily), so that populations of unwanted microorganisms can Sulfur dioxide (SO2) be kept to a minimum. Keeping processing SO2 is a very important wine additive, both in equipment clean will also help prevent the preventing microbial spoilage and in accumulation of organic material, which can minimising wine oxidation and promoting harbour microorganisms. wine longevity. Simply adding more SO2 is not Tanks and barrels should also be cleaned necessarily the best way to control Brett, regularly to prevent microbial cross- although in some cases this is appropriate. contamination when wines are transferred Rather, it is better to use SO2 in a way that is within the winery. Additionally, the microbial most effective. A more detailed discussion of status of any wines or barrels entering the SO2 use in winemaking can be found in winery, and the 4EP/4EG concentrations of Robinson and Godden (2003); however, there the wines, including those intended for are some simple principles that can be topping, should be ascertained. applied to minimise the risk of Brett spoilage. Residual sugar • To dramatically reduce the probability of microbiological problems, add some SO2 at Brettanomyces growth is strongly favoured by the crusher. Note that this may eliminate the presence of residual sugar in wine. all yeast and bacteria, which might result in Optimising the success of primary the need to inoculate for malolactic fermentation is therefore an important part fermentation (MLF). of a Brett prevention strategy. The simplest ways to minimise residual sugar in red wine • When adding SO2 to wine, remember that are to: only about 35 to 40% is yielded as free SO2 (the component that has antimicrobial • have the strongest yeast starter culture activity) – so add enough to make a possible by following supplier difference. One large addition is much recommendations – especially with high more effective than several small additions. sugar musts • Don’t forget about the relationship • aerate the fermentation when it is most between free SO2 and pH. The higher the active – conduct at least one aerative pH of wine, the more SO2 is needed to racking, or rack and return achieve the same antimicrobial effect. • avoid temperature shock of yeast when • Wine is particularly vulnerable to pressing – aim to keep wines within two microbiological spoilage during MLF, so it is degrees of fermenter temperature for at a good idea to make a big SO2 addition as least twelve hours during and after soon as MLF is completed – and to do pressing. everything possible to help MLF go through quickly. It is also important to check residual sugar levels in red wines using an enzymatic assay, • SO2 is less effective when added to wines with high turbidity. This doesn’t mean that Updated March 2020 Fact Sheet WINEMAKING SO2 shouldn’t be added to hazy wines, but microwaves and even blasting with particles if it is, more will be needed to have the of dry ice. same effect. It also means that working to maintain low turbidity throughout wine To remediate known contaminated barrels maturation will reap benefits. the AWRI recommends hot water as the most effective and practical sanitation method; that • The ratio of free to total SO2 is a useful is, filling barrels with hot water of at least winemaking tool and is worth monitoring. 70°C and leaving it in the barrels for at least A decrease in this ratio indicates that free 30 minutes, or 85°C water for at least 15 SO2 is being lost or bound to other wine minutes (Coulter et al. 2003), ideally until the components, and if this occurs, the reasons outside of the barrel is hot to touch. The hot should be investigated. water may be reused to sanitise other barrels, although caution should be exercised with • During even the most careful transfer of a pumping hot water, due to the possible wine, 5 mg /L of free SO2 can be lost. negative effects on pump stators and hoses. For these reasons, it may be better to transfer pH the water using a syphon and gravity. Brettanomyces growth is favoured by high pH; however, this is predominantly due to the Barrel topping relationship between pH and SO2 The wine used for topping barrels can be a effectiveness. At the end of MLF, wines are potential source of Brettanomyces and other usually at their highest pH and lowest SO2 microbiological contamination. It is commonly concentration, which makes this a critical time poorly stored – often on ullage and without for potential Brettanomyces growth and wine adequate SO2. Simple steps taken to ensure spoilage. It is recommended that winemakers that topping wine is stored carefully, at low clarify red wines and make a single large SO2 temperature and without ullage, and is addition as soon as possible after MLF, rather maintained at a suitable level of SO2 to than a series of smaller additions. prevent microbial growth, could prevent widespread wine contamination. Storing Barrel sanitation topping wine at elevated SO2 concentrations While barrel sanitation should be an can be beneficial, because when used for important component of any Brett control topping it helps control the growth of film- strategy, it is crucial to remember that barrel forming microorganisms in barrels. sanitation alone will not solve a Brett problem. Additionally, any effort put into New barrels vs old barrels barrel sanitation will be wasted if the barrels While it might be commonly assumed that are re-contaminated with wine containing a older barrels pose greater risk, due to the high population of Brettanomyces yeast. possibility of Brettanomyces yeast having become established in the old wood, it should A wide range of barrel sanitation methods are be remembered that all other things being used in wineries around the world, including: equal, wine stored in new barrels will lose SO2 cold and hot water rinses, filling with SO2 faster than wine stored in older barrels. This solutions, steam cleaning, ozone, ultrasonics, factor should be taken into account for wine going into new barrels, or recently cleaned Updated March 2020 Fact Sheet WINEMAKING barrels, to ensure that SO2 concentrations are of volatiles has risen above the sensory maintained at high enough levels to inhibit threshold, and therefore have an advantage microbial growth. over after-the-fact detection by sensory evaluation. Filtration and clarification Silicon dioxide and activated carbon have Wines with high turbidity are generally at a been shown to have some ability to remove higher risk of microbial spoilage (including Brettanomyces-derived volatiles from wine Brett) than those with lower turbidity. This is when used as fining agents, although their due, at least in part, to the influence of high effectiveness and the dose required may vary turbidity on SO2 effectiveness. It is important, between wines. Fining trials are therefore when confronted with a hazy wine, to recommended. determine what components make up the haze, rather than simply to assume that the By far the most effective method of removing haze is benign in nature. If a haze is found to Brettanomyces-derived volatiles is reverse contain viable microorganisms, then filtration osmosis (RO). Mobile RO services are available of the wine before bottling is highly in most Australian wine production regions. It recommended. While some winemakers seem has been reported that up to 7% of 4- hesitant to filter red wines, it is the AWRI’s ethylphenol can be removed with each pass position that a well performed filtration of the of a wine through a RO machine, but care appropriate grade is a much better option should be exercised because positive volatiles than taking the risk of post-bottling microbial might also be removed, particularly with spoilage. repeated passes. It is therefore Other treatments and monitoring recommended that wine is repeatedly sensorially assessed during RO treatment, options and that samples are taken periodically for While the prevention of Brettanomyces comparative purposes as the treatment infection by combining the strategies progresses. discussed here has been shown to be highly In most cases, fining or RO will not reduce the effective and is strongly recommended, some concentration of Brettanomyces-derived other treatments for Brett are also available.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yeast Strains Recommended for Chardonnay Dynamics Fermentation Products Fermentation For
    Yeast & Chardonnay Recommended Fermentation as primary Yeast Strains Recommended for Chardonnay Dynamics Fermentation Products fermentation for: ) 2 -tolerant 2 Manufacturer Vendor(s) Brand Strain Vigorous Ethanol-tolerant (>16%) Cold-tolerant (<10C) SO (up to 50 mg/lfSO Esters Glycerol Polysaccharides Mannoproteins Release Terpenes gucosidase(beta- activity) Degrade Malic Acid Barrel Ferment (sur lees) Style Malolactic style Fruit-forward style Restarting fermentation AB Mauri GW Kent, Maurivin AWRI 796 •• ••• Pacific Coast Chemicals AWRI R2 ••• • Cru-Blanc •• • • Elegance ••• Primeur •••• AEB Group American Tartaric Products Fermol® Associees ••• •• Blanc •• Chardonnay •••• Anchor Scott Laboratories Anchor VIN 13 •• •• Chr. Hansen Gusmer Enterprises Viniflora Symphony.nsac • DSM Gusmer Enterprises Collection Chardonnay •••• Cépage Fermicru LVCB •• •• Enartis Winetech LLC Challenge Vintage White •• • •• Aroma White • Laffort Scott Laboratories Actiflore C (F33) •• • • •• RMS2 •••• Zymaflore ST VL2 ••• Lallemand Vinquiry Enoferm ICV-D47 •••••• M05 • M1 •• M2 •• QA23 ••• Simi White • T306 • VQ11 ••• W46 •• Scott Laboratories, Vinquiry Lalvin EC1118 ••• •• ICV-K1 (V1116) ••• • •• BA11 •• CY3079 ICV-D254 •••••• S6U •••• ••• Lesaffre American Tartaric Products Bio-Springer BC S-103 (PdM)** • • • • • UCLM S-325 •• Red Star Côte de Blancs • (Epernay-2)** Red Star Champagne •• • • (UCD-595)*** Oenofrance Oenofrance Levuline C19 •• • • Vi-A-Dry Scott Laboratories Vi-A-Dry Montrachet (UCD-522)**** * Chart only includes yeast strains discussed in
    [Show full text]
  • Starting a Winery in Illinois: Profile and Business Plan Workbook
    Starting a Winery in Illinois: Profile and Business Plan Workbook This Winery Business Plan Workbook was prepared by the Small Business Development Center at Southern Illinois University Carbondale in coordination with the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity’s Entrepreneurship Network Business Information Center. The following organizations and individuals made valuable contributions to the development of this publication: Susan M. Daily, C.P.A. Business Counselor Small Business Development Center Southern Illinois University, Carbondale Illinois Entrepreneurship Network (IEN)/Business Information Center Illinois Small Business Office Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity Stephen Menke, Enology Specialist Food Science and Human Nutrition College of ACES (Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Science) University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Bonnie Cissell, Executive Director and Marketing Specialist Illinois Grape and Wine Resources Council Imed Dami, Viticulture Specialist Plant and Soil Science Department Alan Dillard Limestone Creek, Jonesboro, Illinois Kyle Harfst Rural Enterprise and Alternative Agriculture Development Initiative The Office of Economic and Regional Development Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois The Indiana Wine and Grape Council The Missouri Grape and Wine Program Updated 2008 by Bradley Beam University of Illinois Enology Specialist 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brettanomyces Spoilage: Friend Or Foe?
    Microbial Faults Trevor Phister, PhD Assistant Professor Overview • Wine microbiology • Microbial faults – Brettanomyces – Lactic acid bacteria – Cork Taint • Controlling microbial faults – Sanitation – Quality programs Saccharomyces cerevisiae Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Piskur et al 2006) Does Not Always Work The Wine Fermentation OD ETOH Yeasts Bacteria • Metschnikowia sp. • acetic acid bacteria • Pichia sp. • lactic acid bacteria • Candida sp. • Kluveromyces sp. Molds • Hanseniaspora sp. Sugar • Botrytis & others • Saccharomyces Time Three common microbial contaminants • Brettanomyces • Lactobacilli • Cork taint Brettanomyces Brettanomyces bruxellensis 45000 0.8 Slow40000 growing soft drink and wine spoilage yeast 0.7 35000 0.6 30000 0.5 25000 Produces 4-ethylphenol or “wet dog”taint cfu 0.4 4EP CFU/ml 20000 0.3 45000 0.8 15000 4-Ethylphenol (mg/ml) 40000 0.7 35000 0.6 30000 0.5 0.2 25000 cfu 0.4 10000 4EP CFU/ml 20000 0.3 15000 4-Ethylphenol (mg/ml) 0.2 10000 4-ethylphenol produced in absence of platable population 0.1 0.1 5000 5000 0 0 1 20 34 45 64 81 99 115 137 158 184 202 217 230 244 265 307 351 391 434 473 712 Days 0 0 1 20 34 45 64 81 99 115 137 158 184 202 217 230 244 265 307 351 391 434 473 712 Days Am J. Enol Vitic 54:294-300 Brettanomyces bruxellensis Isolated by Dr. Clausen in 1904 Provides missing element of traditional beers The brewing industry just started using yeast Friend or Foe? For Now Brett On Your Table 4 - Ethylguaiacol (4-EG): ~175 ppb 4 - Ethylphenol (4-EP): 600 - 800 ppb Diacetyl: 2-4 ppm Geraniol: 0.5 – 1
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 ASBC Annual Meeting
    2014 ASBC Annual Meeting 76th ASBC Annual Meeting June 4–6, 2014 57 Analyzing the sugar and flavor profile of Brettanomyes wild yeast Palmer House, a Hilton Hotel Chicago, IL during primary versus secondary fermentation (Tiffany Andres, White Labs, Inc.) Abstract Brewing with Brettanomyces yeast has been rising in popularity as such yeast can create different flavors and aromas to increase the unique character of a particular beer. Recent research on Brettanomyces strains available in the brewing industry focused on strain-specific fermentations and have attempted to identify the major compounds produced during fermentation. This study attempts to investigate the differences in flavor compounds after experimenting in primary and secondary fermentation with various Brettanomyces strains. The concept of primary versus secondary fermentation relates to different sugars being available for Brettanomyces to metabolize since Saccharomyces yeast will readily consume most of the fermentable sugars. By analyzing the performance of various Brettanomyces strains during primary versus secondary fermentation, it will be essential to measure the carbohydrate sugar profile before and after fermentation, as well as look at attenuation. The focus of this research will be to explore the flavor compounds produced when Brettanomyces has fermentable sugars available in contrast to which flavor compounds are produced from dextrins after secondary fermentation. The Brettanomyces strains that will be able to metabolize different sugars resulting in differences on a sensory level will be evaluated. Introduction Results Brettanomyces create different flavors and aromas that can contribute to the unique character of the finished beer. The type and quantity of sugars present will affect the fermentation flavors.
    [Show full text]
  • Brettanomyces Bruxellensis
    Annals of Microbiology (2019) 69:1217–1225 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-019-01503-5 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Microbiological, biochemical, physicochemical surface properties and biofilm forming ability of Brettanomyces bruxellensis Maria Dimopoulou1 & Margareth Renault2 & Marguerite Dols-Lafargue1,3 & Warren Albertin1,3 & Jean-Marie Herry2 & Marie-Noëlle Bellon-Fontaine2 & Isabelle Masneuf-Pomarede1,4 Received: 9 April 2019 /Accepted: 25 July 2019 /Published online: 3 September 2019 # Università degli studi di Milano 2019 Abstract Purpose Brettanomyces bruxellensis is a serious source of concern for winemakers. The production of volatile phenols by the yeast species confers to wine unpleasant sensory characteristics which are unacceptable by the consumers and inevitably provoke economic loss for the wine industry. This ubiquitous yeast is able to adapt to all winemaking steps and to withstand various environmental conditions. Moreover, the ability of B. bruxellensis to adhere and colonize inert materials can be the cause of the yeast persistence in the cellars and thus recurrent wine spoilage. We therefore investigated the surface properties, biofilm formation capacity, and the factors which may affect the attachment of the yeast cells to surfaces with eight strains representative of the genetic diversity of the species. Methods The eight strains of B. bruxellensis were isolated from different geographical and industrial fermentation origins. The cells were grown in synthetic YPD medium containing 1% (w/v) yeast extract (Difco Laboratories, Detroit), 2% (w/v)bacto peptone (Difco), and 1% (w/v) glucose. Surface physicochemical properties as electrophoretic mobility and adhesion to hydro- carbon of the cells were studied. The ability of the strains to form biofilm was quantified using a colorimetric microtiter 96-well polystyrene plate.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications of Nitrogen Nutrition for Grapes, Fermentation and Wine
    242 Implications of nitrogen nutrition Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 11, 242–295, 2005 Implications of nitrogen nutrition for grapes, fermentation and wine SALLY-JEAN BELL and PAUL A. HENSCHKE The Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond,Adelaide, SA 5064,Australia Corresponding authors: Sally-Jean Bell, facsimile: +61 8 8303 6601, email Sally.Bell@awri.com.au; Paul A. Henschke, facsimile: +61 8 8303 6601, email Paul.Henschke@awri.com.au Abstract This review discusses the impacts of nitrogen addition in the vineyard and winery, and establishes the effects that nitrogen has on grape berry and wine composition and the sensory attributes of wine. Nitrogen is the most abundant soil-derived macronutrient in a grapevine, and plays a major role in many of the biological functions and processes of both grapevine and fermentative microorganisms. Manipulation of grapevine nitrogen nutrition has the potential to influence quality components in the grape and, ultimately, the wine. In addition, fermentation kinetics and formation of flavour-active metabolites are also affected by the nitrogen status of the must, which can be further manipulated by addition of nitrogen in the winery. The only consistent effect of nitrogen application in the vineyard on grape berry quality components is an increase in the concentration of the major nitrogenous compounds, such as total nitrogen, total amino acids, arginine, proline and ammonium, and consequently yeast- assimilable nitrogen (YAN). Both the form and amount of YAN have significant implications for wine quality. Low must YAN leads to low yeast populations and poor fermentation vigour, increased risk of sluggish/stuck/slow fermentations, increased production of undesirable thiols (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Brettanomyces – Solving a Wine Spoilage Problem Adoption Impact
    Wine Australia for Australian Wine Case study July 2020 Brettanomyces – solving a wine spoilage problem Adoption Impact Overview and summary of impact Brettanomyces (‘Brett’) is a yeast that is commonly found in wineries (and breweries). Molecular research by the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) has shown that there are dozens of strains of Brett in Australia. It is found in wine and in barrels and persists through cross-contamination between the two. Two decades of research and extension by AWRI, with funding from Wine Australia, has substantially reduced the cost to the Australian wine sector of spoilage associated with the presence of the yeast Brettanomyces. The situation Brett produces a range of volatile phenol compounds, produced, which is in turn related to the grape variety. principally 4-ethylphenol (4EP) and 4-ethylguaiacol Brett is also associated with reduced fruit flavour (4EG). These compounds can impart undesirable intensity and a drying, metallic aftertaste. Consumer sensory characteristics on wine including ‘medicinal’, studies by AWRI indicate that the concentration of Brett ‘leather’, ‘smoky’, ‘spicy’, ‘Band-AidTM’ and ‘barnyard’. compounds in wine is strongly and negatively correlated These expressions depend on the ratio of compounds with consumer liking. Wine Australia case study Brettanomyces – solving a wine spoilage problem 2 The critical risk period for Brett spoilage is known as the character, involving collaborations with research groups ‘Brett zone’ – the period between the end of primary at the University of Adelaide, in Bordeaux, in Chile and and secondary fermentation, and before the addition elsewhere. of sulfur dioxide – especially when residual sugars are AWRI promotes a strategy comprising eight major available to the yeast.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Brettanomyces
    Understanding Brettanomyces By Tom Ostler Introduction In March 1994 the Cornell University Agricultural Research Station at Geneva NY. (N.Y.S.A.E.S.) hosted the 23rd annual New York Wine Industry Workshop. This two-day event is well attended by most New York wineries as well as by many representatives from Ontario wineries. In addition, there are usually a number of serious amateurs present, soaking up technical information to improve basement, or garage, production. The 1994 session was no different with members of A.W.O. representing Toronto, Ottawa and Niagara in attendance. You might not know what Brettanomyces is, nor why you need to understand it. I didn’t until I found myself in the midst of a mild, but enthusiastic, scientific debate about the merits of the beneficial effects this yeast strain has on a wine, as opposed to the potential damage it can do to a wine. The debate in the commercial wine industry seems to have evolved to differentiate ‘good Brett’ from ‘bad Brett’. It appears that the progress of Brettanomyces in a wine leads to an evolution in aromas, as opposed to an enhancement of one aroma indicator. The volatile phenols produced in red wine by Brettanomyces are characterized by descriptors ranging from “barnyard” and “leather”, to “clove” and “strong spice”, to “smoky – B.B.Q.”, to “phenolic”, “medicinal”, “band aid” and even “animal”. The presentation made by Erik Olsen of Chateau Ste. Michelle Winery, Washington was accompanied by a tasting of three wines with varying levels of 4-ethyl phenol, which is a byproduct of Brettanomyces.
    [Show full text]
  • Brettanomyces (Dekkera)
    Kvasny Prum. 198 62 / 2016 (7–8) Kvasinky non-Saccharomyces a jejich význam v pivovarském průmyslu. I. část – Brettanomyces (Dekkera) DOI: 10.18832/kp2016024 Kvasinky non-Saccharomyces a jejich význam v pivovarském průmyslu. I. část – Brettanomyces (Dekkera) Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts and Their Importance in the Brewing Industry Part I -Brettanomyces (Dekkera) Tatiana KOCHLÁŇOVÁ1, David KIJ1, Jana KOPECKÁ1, Petra KUBIZNIAKOVÁ2, Dagmar MATOULKOVÁ2 1Ústav experimentální biologie, Přírodovědecká fakulta, Masarykova Univerzita / Department of Experimental Biology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, 611 37 Brno, e-mail: 376098@mail.muni.cz, 223187@mail.muni.cz 2Mikrobiologické oddělení, Výzkumný ústav pivovarský a sladařský, a.s., / Department of Microbiology, Research Institute of Brewing and Malting, PLC, Lípová 15, 120 44 Prague e-mail: kubizniakova@beerresearch.cz, matoulkova@beerresearch.cz Recenzovaný článek / Reviewed Paper Kochláňová, T., Kij, D., Kopecká, J., Kubizniaková, P., Matoulková, D., 2016: Kvasinky non-Saccharomyces a jejich význam v pivovarském průmyslu. I. část – Brettanomyces (Dekkera). Kvasny Prum., 62(7–8), s. 198–205 Kvasinky jiných rodů než Saccharomyces se v historii výroby piva vyskytovaly jako součást spontánního kvašení. Nyní jsou považová- ny většinou za kontaminaci produkující nežádoucí senzoricky aktivní látky a CO2. Výjimkou jsou speciální pivní styly (např. lambik a gu- euze), kde je metabolická činnost non-Saccharomyces kvasinek (zejména rodů Brettanomyces a Dekkera) klíčovým prvkem. V článku je uvedena charakteristika a taxonomické zařazení kvasinek Brettanomyces a Dekkera a popsány jsou základní mikrobiologické aspekty výroby piva lambik a gueuze. Kochláňová, T., Kij, D., Kopecká, J., Kubizniaková, P., Matoulková, D., 2016: Non-Saccharomyces yeasts and their importance in the brewing industry. Part I – Brettanomyces (Dekkera).
    [Show full text]
  • CSU Wine Faults 1 of 3
    “IT HAD BETTER NOT BE MY FAULT” AN ANALYSIS OF WINE GONE BAD CSU Assoc. Prof. of Enology Stephen Menke WINE QUALITY, GREATNESS, AND FAULTS Not all of us agree on the definitions of wine quality, as it can either be a personal statement, or it can be the common agreement of a larger group. We tend to be generous in accepting personal ideas of wine quality, but compromises are necessary to reach a group definition of wine quality. Groups find it easier to agree upon the most extreme characteristics (or outliers, for the statisticians) of a wine. These are either characteristics that we all find to be exceptionally good, or we all find to be exceptionally bad. This is the underlying psychology and politics of the terms “great wine” and “faulty wine”. It is socially easier to agree on faults. So what are the wine faults that we all (or almost all) agree upon? COMMON WINE FAULTS Most caused by microorganisms or grape composition Color flaws High pH, improper fruit maturity/grape extraction Oxidation & aging Clarity flaws Crystal salts (tartrates, etc.) Re-fermentation and microbial hazes Colloidal hazes and sediments Protein/phenolic or glucoside/phenolic or other vs. tartrates Temperature, fining, and aging are clarification tools Sensory (aroma and flavor) faults Winemaking origin Microbiological origin WINE SENSORY FAULTS Excess SO2 Volatile acidity (Acetobacter, yeast, other microbes) Ethyl acetate and acetic acid Oxidation (Excess O2 or microbiological origin) Acetaldehyde, other aldehydes and pyrazines Reduced sulfur
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Overview on Cider Production 23 23
    TALLINN, ESTONIA TALLINN, ESTONIA APRIL 25, 2017 APRIL 25, 2017 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW ON CIDER PRODUCTION TECHNICAL OVERVIEW TECHNICAL OVERVIEW ON CIDER PRODUCTION 23 23 LALLEMAND OENOLOGY LALLEMAND OENOLOGY TALLINN, ESTONIA, APRIL 25, 2017 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW ON CIDER PRODUCTION PROCEEDINGS OF THE XXVIIes ENTRETIENS SCIENTIFIQUES LALLEMAND ISBN 978-2-9815255-8-1 (printed version) ISBN 978-2-9815255-9-8 (pdf version) Legal deposit Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2018 Library and Archives Canada 2018 DISCLAIMER: Lallemand has compiled the information contained herein and, to the best of its knowledge, the information is true and accurate. Lallemand offers this publication for use by winemaking professionals world- wide as a compendium of existing knowledge, both scientific and anecdotal. It is the user’s sole responsibility to determine whether any of the information contained herein is of benefit. The information, techniques and procedures presented in this publication are not to be considered as any type of expressed or implied guarantee for any aspect of the winemaking process in any wine-producing country. Lallemand Inc. Montréal, Canada H1W 2N8 The reprint or digital publication of any part of this book without permission from Lallemand is prohibited and illegal. CONTENTS CIDER CIDER: AN ANCIENT ART CIDERMAKING VS. WINEMAKING - IS THERE A IN A MODERN WORLD ............................................5 DIFFERENCE? ...........................................................19 Rebecca Mussell Amanda Stewart A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF FRENCH CIDER: LOCAL IMPORTANCE OF CIDER PRODUCTION IN FROM SPOILAGE CONTROL TO AROMATIC PROFILE ESTONIA (LOCAL PRODUCER SIIDRIKODA AS A PILOT CHARACTERIZATION ................................................9 PLANT FOR SCALE-UP YEAST APPLICATION) .........25 H. Guichard, P. Poupard, Jean-Michel Le Quéré and Rain Kuldjärv R.
    [Show full text]
  • Brettanomyces Bruxellensis Occurrence, Growth, and Effect on Wine Flavor
    ARVIK, BRETT OCCURRENCE, 1 Reprinted with permission from Practical Winery & Vineyard, May/June 2002 BRETTANOMYCES BRUXELLENSIS OCCURRENCE, GROWTH, AND EFFECT ON WINE FLAVOR Torey Arvik1, Thomas Henick-Kling2 1 Doctoral Student, Cornell University Enology Group, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 2 Associate Professor for Enology, Cornell University,New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, NY Brettanomyces bruxellensis can make some red wines smell like a horse blanket that has been stored in a metal Band-Aids® box. Any, or a combination of all of these flavors and aromas can be found in affected wines harboring this yeast. Dekkera/Brettanomyces has been known to inhabit many specialized environments including tree sap, dairies, breweries, and most notably the winery environment.1 There are currently five accepted species of Dekkera/Brettanomyces: D. (B.) bruxelllensis, B. custersianus, D. anomalus, B. naardenensis, and B. nanus.3 These genera were re-classified from multiple isolates after having been given various synonyms throughout the history of mycology. Conserved gene sequence analysis and traditional biochemical tests were recently used to re-classify this group.4 What is the difference between Brettanomyces and Dekkera? To answer this question, one should know a little about yeast sex. Dekkera, which makes spores when times get tough, is the “perfect” sexual form of Brettanomyces, mycologically speaking. Thus, the reader will often see the name “Dekkera/Brettanomyces” in the literature to describe this duality. Let’s just focus on the term Brettanomyces, since only a few fortunate people have been able to get the Dekkera form from a wine.7 Brettanomyces bruxellensis has supposedly been isolated from a 10-year-old wine! Not surprising if you are a microbiologist, but winemakers bristle at the thought.
    [Show full text]