__MAIN_TEXT__

Page 1

JULY/AUGUST 2014 · Volume 29 Number 4

INTERNATIONAL TRENDS • Oxygen - another tool for the winemaker's kit bag • What a robot can tell you about sparkling wine quality • Global wine exports & consumption • Heavy drinking and alcohol prices - what do reviews reveal? • Tasting: Dolcetto


Don't rely on what you hear on the grapevine Comprehensive and up-to-date grape and wine industry resource We’ve been doing this for over 30 years Includes snapshot of the industry thorough annual statistical overview Now available in PRINT and ONLINE! • 7,000 Industry listings • 9,000 Personnel • 3,100 Wineries • 4,800 Wine brands • 1,500 Grapegrowers • 2,200 Buyers’ guide listings • 280 Distributors & retailers • 180 Writers & media

PLUS

NEW 2014! FACEBOOK & TWITTER account listings

+ Statistics + 2014 Overview + Calendar of events + Wineshows + Courses + Organisations

If you’re involved with any facet of the industry, The Directory is an invaluable reference for sourcing information

PROVIDING SOLUTIONS TO THE WINE INDUSTRY

To order your copy - Ph: +618 8369 9509 Email: orders@winetitles.com.au Visit: www.winebiz.com.au


Are you just making do with what you’ve got?

Get the Edge Register today and you’ll be even better equipped to get consistently great results.

thegrowersedge.com.au Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd ABN 87 000 226 022 391–393 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East, Vic 3123 Technical Enquiries: 1800 804 479 enquiries.australia@bayer.com


Publisher: Hartley Higgins General Manager: Elizabeth Bouzoudis Editor Sonya Logan Ph (08) 8369 9502 Email

Fax (08) 8369 9501 s.logan@winetitles.com.au

Editorial Advisory Panel Gary Baldwin Peter Dry Mark Krstic Armando Corsi Markus Herderich Editorial Assistance Lauren Jones, Write Lane CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Gianluca Allegro

Jordi Ballester

Tony Battaglene

Taryn Bauerle

Doug Bell

Rob Bramley

Johan Bruwer

Maeva Caron

Michela Centinan

Justin Cohen

Richard Collmann

Bruna Condé

Armando Maria Corsi

Adrian Coulter

Geoff Cowery

Peter Dry

Nick Dry

Marcel Essling

Daniel Fraser

Ilaria Filippetti

Sigfredo Fuentes

Steve Guy

Tony Hoare

Matt Holdstock

Jeffery Hollingworth

Cathy Howard

Kate Howell

Dan Johnson

Tony Keys

Larry Lockshin

Pascal Marty

Erica McIntyre

Mihaela Mihnea

Sonja Needs

Jon P. Nelson

Simon Nunns

Mark O'Callaghan

Linda Ovington

Paul Petrie

Dominique Peyron

Stefano Poni

Mark Rowley

Anthony Saliba

Con Simos

Creina Stockley

Bart Tesselaar

Dominique Valentin

Gabriele Valentini

Damien Wilson

Advertising Sales: Nicole Evans Ph (08) 8369 9515 Fax (08) 8369 9529 Email n.evans@winetitles.com.au

Sonya Logan, Editor

J

ust before this issue of the Journal went to print, the Coalition Government finally succeeded in repealing the carbon tax that Labor established in July 2012. Two weeks prior, I attended the launch of the Australian Wine Research Institute’s ‘Building resilience and sustainability in the grape and wine sector’ program at the National Wine Centre in Adelaide – a program designed to deliver tailored resources and faceto-face workshops to the wine industry on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon storage and the Carbon Farming Initiative/Emissions Reduction Fund and will enable grapegrowers and winemakers to contact the program team at the AWRI to gain up-to-date advice on climate adaptation. The program launch featured a number of climate experts many of whom delivered some startling facts about what lies in store for our planet in the coming decades. One of these was Will Steffen of the Climate Council who revealed somewhat alarmingly that by 2100, with no effective climate policies in place, the average temperature of the world will have risen by 4°C, a figure he said most climate scientists agreed humans are

incapable of adapting to that quickly indeed most of the worlds eco-systems won’t adapt either. Given predictions such as this, we should all be alarmed at the Coalition’s decision. As Ben Eltham, national affairs correspondent with New Matilda.com, reported on the 17 July: “The carbon tax was in place for scarcely 25 months. In that time, it lowered Australian carbon emissions by between 11 and 17 million tonnes...Price rises flowing from the carbon tax were negligible. So small was the impact of the carbon tax on prices, in October last year the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that it couldn’t measure it.” And as many of the climate experts present at the AWRI program launch would no doubt agree, the Abbott government appears to have nothing credible to take its place to ensure greenhouse gas reductions into the future. Enjoy reading this issue of the Journal with its special focus on international trends in the wine industry. And as always, your feedback on what you do and don’t want to appear in your magazine is greatly welcomed. Feel free to drop me an email anytime: s.logan@winetitles.com.au

Production and Design: Nathan Grant Subscriptions One-year subscription (6 issues) Australia $77.00 (AUD) Two-year subscription (12 issues) Australia $144.00 (AUD) To subscribe and for overseas prices, visit: www.winebiz.com.au The Wine & Viticulture Journal is published bi-monthly. Correspondence and enquiries should be directed to Sonya Logan.The views expressed in the Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Journal or its staff.

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter!

www.facebook.com/WineAndVitiJournal @SonLogan Cover: Design by Nathan Grant, reflecting the theme of this issue, ‘International Trends’.

Address 630 Regency Road, Broadview, South Australia 5083

Telephone and Fax Ph (08) 8369 9500 Fax (08) 8369 9501

Email

General Editorial Subscriptions Advertising

info@winetitles.com.au s.logan@winetitles.com.au subs@winetitles.com.au widsales@winetitles.com.au

Website www.winebiz.com.au Printed by Lane Print, Adelaide, South Australia. Adelaide ISSN 1838-6547 © Winetitles Pty Ltd, 2013. All rights reserved

Regular features

News WFA ASVO AGWA Tony Keys

4

www. wi n e b i z.com.au

6 8 9 10 11

AWRI Report Alternative Varieties Varietal Report Tasting

Win e & V iticultur e Jo ur na l

JULY/A UGUST 2014

34 59 76 79

V29N4


I n t h is issu e

R E G U L A R FE AT U R E S

c o n t e n ts

V I T I C U LT U R E

8 WFA (Tony Battaglene): The International Organisation of Vine and Wine and the Australian wine sector

37 TONY HOARE: Water - can you afford it?

9 ASVO (Paul Petrie): Nominations for ASVO Awards for Excellence now open 10 AGWA(Steve Guy): The reasons for raising a red flag to the use of the term ‘orange’ 11 KEY FILES: Tasmania - the path divides

W I NE M A K I N G

16 Oxygen – another tool for the winemaker’s kit bag 22 Australian winemakers’ views towards oak barrel alternatives matures

41 Cover crop water use in relation to vineyard floor management practices 44 Varieties and clones – what’s hot and what’s not for planting 49 Carignan – the unmasking of an imposter 53 Smarter thinking on terroir 53 ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES: Albarino

OVERSEAS

71 Wine tourism: the French exception 25 What a robot can tell you about the quality of your sparkling wine: share a glass with FIZZeye-Robot

73 Sparkling wine production in the southeast of England

30 Perceived minerality in wine: a sensory reality? 34 (AWRI REPORT) Vintage 2014 - trends from the AWRI helpdesk

business & marketing

61 Economic research studies on heavy drinking and alcohol prices: what do systematic reviews demonstrate? 63 Why do people avoid wine? Comparisons across Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States and India 66 Forget special occasions, it is time to relax in China 68 World wine consumption climbs again 69 Global wine shipments down in volume but up in value V2 9N 4

W I NE T A S T I N G

76 Dolcetto

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

5


NE W S

S N I P S

AGWA comes into being The new Australian Grape and Wine Authority (AGWA) began operations on 1 July, replacing the Wine Australia Corporation and the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation. The Adelaide-based single authority offers centralised marketing, export regulation and research and development support for Australia’s $3.4 billion wine industry. Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, said AGWA demonstrated the Australian Government’s commitment to increase returns to grape and wine producers, improve market access and reduce regulatory burden. Key industry bodies Wine Grape Growers Australia (WGGA) and Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA) worked over several years to bring the merger of their two statutory authorities to fruition. WGGA and WFA welcomed the appointment of an interim board of directors. Chaired by Brian Walsh, of Yalumba, directors include Peter R. Brown Family Vineyards chief executive Eliza Brown, Casella managing director John Casella, former WFA president Brian Croser, viticulture consultant John Forrest, winemaker and Australian Vinegar chief executive Ian Henderson, Burch Family Wines chief winemaker Janice McDonald, and Australian media company director Kim Williams. Former Wine Australia acting chief executive Andreas Clark has been appointed to the same role at AGWA to work with the interim board in leading the authority through its first three months. Final board arrangements will be determined and announced following completion of the selection process. WFA president Tony D’Aloisio and WGGA chairman Vic Patrick thanked past board members of the previous two bodies for their dedication, and to staff who have worked through the transition process. “We congratulate the chair and board appointees and we look forward to working with them and Minister Joyce,” D’Aloisio said. AGWA will have a budget of $34.7 million in 2014-15, with approximately $11.5m to be provided by the Commonwealth as matching funds for R&D in accordance with relevant legislation. AWGA’s membership on an ongoing basis will be finalised following the initial establishment phase. Premium Australian wine drives rise in average value The latest Wine Export Approval Report

6

www.win eb i z .c om.au

released by the Australian Grape and Wine Authority (AGWA) revealed the average value of wine exports continued to rise in the year ended June 2014, driven by an increase in exports of premium Australian wine in key markets. The average value of bottled wine exports grew by 6 percent to A$4.77 per litre, while bulk wine exports grew marginally to A$1.02/litre. Total Australian wine exports continued to decline by 2% to 684m litres valued at A$1.78m. AGWA acting chief executive Andreas Clark said growth was strongest in the ultra-premium segment (above A$50 per litre). “The ultra-premium segment grew by 25% to a record 0.95 million litres and valued at A$76m. It’s an early positive indicator of a reversal of the downward trends that were set in place when the global financial crisis took hold in late 2007. “We have continued to see decline in the volume of Australian wine exports, mostly in the red wine segment with exports declining by 6% to 383 million litres and accounting for a 56% volume share. “White wine exports increased by 3% to 287 million litres, representing a 42% volume share,” continued Clark. The UK remains Australia’s biggest export market by volume. While overall volumes declined, bottle wine exports above A$7.50/litre increased by 14% to 2.2 million litres. Vinomofo reveals Australia’s wine obsession The results of online wine retailer Vinomofo’s inaugural Wine Census has provided some key insights into the drinking habits and preferences of more than 6000 Australian wine drinkers. A quarter (26%) of respondents said that wine is one of their great obsessions, while another 64% said they simply love it. Most people reported enjoying one or two glasses a night (57%), while 40% said they drink wine three to five nights a week. The number one favourite white wine was Riesling, followed by Chardonnay. Shiraz was the clear favourite among reds, followed by Cabernet and Pinot Noir. Sparkling wines are reserved for special occasions for 51% of respondents, and 10% claim to only drink Champagne as opposed to other sparkling wines. Australian wine was well supported, with 80% preferring to W i n e & V i t i c u ltur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

drink local drops. The Barossa Valley was the leading wine region that people preferred to drink wine from (28%) and wanted to travel to (21%). A majority of respondents (51%) indicated a preference for shopping online for wine, and said they are highly influenced by price (97%) and discounts and savings (96%). Wine region (94%) and varietal (93%) are also important factors that influence the purchase decision, especially with older drinkers. Label and packaging design has the least influence (60%), but is more important with women and Gen Y. Most households buy approximately seven to 12 bottles a month, and while most people buy wine to drink in the near future, half also buy wine to cellar. Vinomofo chief executive and co-founder Andre Eikmeier said, “The Great Vinomofo Wine Census... revealed what people want to know more about, how they think of wine and how we need to communicate with today’s wine consumer.” Finlaysons’ Wine Roadshow focusses on WFA Actions Finlaysons’ Wine Roadshow XXII is travelling through Australian wine regions in August, focussed on Winemakers’ Federation of Australia’s Action Agenda. The theme is to distil the WFA Actions down to the individual winery level. Released in December 2013 with a view to returning Australia’s wine sector to growth both locally and overseas, WFA’s ‘Actions for industry profitability 2014-2016’ report comprises 43 specific ‘actions’ in key areas for the industry, including growing demand for Australian wine, the wine and health debate, working with retail chains, and wine taxation. The roadshow began in Margaret River on 8 August, and will visit Hobart, Yarra Valley, Rutherglen, Riverina, Hunter Valley, Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale before finishing in Coonawarra on 29 August. Registrations can be made through the Wine Roadshow microsite at www.wineroadshow.com.au, or email Jennifer Sothman, at Finlaysons, at jennifer.sothman@finlaysons.com.au International grapevine trunk disease workshop coming to Australia Grapegrowers and winemakers will learn the latest information and practical management options for V29N4


NE W S

grapevine trunk disease at the ninth International Workshop on Grapevine Trunk Diseases, to be held at the National Wine Centre, in Adelaide, from 18-20 November. Sponsored by the Australian Grape and Wine Authority and hosted by the South Australian Research and Development Institute and the University of Adelaide, the workshop is being held in Australia for the first time and will showcase the Australian wine industry’s proactive methods for trunk disease management. The third day of the conference is an industry forum day, and Australian attendees have been offered a subsidised registration fee of $200 through AGWA’s sponsorship, if their registration is received by 17 August 2014.

To register for the workshop visit: http://www.plevin.com.au/iwgtd2014/ registration.html AWRI provides point of contact in changing climate Australian grape and wine producers will be able to improve business sustainability in the face of changing economic and climatic conditions, thanks to a new program launched in July by the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI). The program ‘Building resilience and sustainability in the grape and wine sector’, which is funded by the Australian Government, will deliver tailored resources and face-to-face workshops in the wine industry, focussing on climate change,

greenhouse gas emissions, carbon storage and the Carbon Farming Initiative/Emissions Reduction Fund. Grapegrowers and winemakers can put questions to the AWRI program team to gain current advice and assistance. AWRI managing director Dan Johnson said, “The AWRI is pleased to provide a central point of contact for the wine industry in the important area of climate adaptation, bringing together the latest policy information, research outcomes and advice”. International accolade for winegrape varieties book The International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) has awarded University of Adelaide School of Economics Professor Kym Anderson one of three prizes for best viticulture book in 2013. Published by the University of Adelaide Press and funded by the Australian Grape and Wine Authority, ‘Which Winegrape Varieties are Grown Where?’, is an in-depth analysis of the world’s wine varieties and winegrape growing nations that account for 99% of global wine production. The book is the first database of the world’s winegrape varieties and regions, and is a valuable resource for the wine industry. It is freely accessible as an e-book at www.adelaide.edu.au/press/ titles/winegrapes and the underlying database, available at www.adelaide. edu.au/wine-econ/databases/ winegrapes, is continually being revised and expanded.

S N I P S

Japanese wine market set to blossom The recent signing of a Japan Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (JAEPA) by Prime Ministers Shinzo Abe and Tony Abbott opens the door for increasing wine exports, reported Winemakers’ Federation of Australia. WFA strategy and international affairs general manager Tony Battaglene said, “Resolving the trade agreement with Japan is about developing export opportunities and giving wine a step-up in the evolving Japanese market. “We congratulate the Australian Government for pursuing an ambitious and aggressive trade agenda and, in particular, the Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb for his focus and hard work,” he said. Japan is currently Australia’s sixth largest market by value and volume. Wine consumption there is growing rapidly as the younger generation moves away from traditional products to wines. “We are expecting to see strong growth in sparkling and still grape wines, with targeted sales of middle-to-premium Australian wine brands,” Battaglene said. The agreement will provide valuable preferential access for Australia’s exports, with the elimination of a 15% import tariff to include bottled, sparkling and bulk wine over seven years. “The agreement with Japan is a good outcome for Australia’s wine sector, building on the positives from the Australia-Korea Free Trade Agreement,” said Mr Battaglene. “We look forward to ongoing discussions to open up further trade possibilities, including with China.”

Also manufacturers of

• S G Spur Pruners • Single Side Pruners • Vine Cane Sweepers • Hydraulic Power Packs • Double Acting Cutter Bars

AUSTRALIAN MADE PRUNERS

For further information visit our website S G Pruner Vineyard & Orchard Sweepers • Single and double sided • Full electric over hydraulic controls at www.spagnolo.com.au or contact: • Spring-loaded head enables it to from your tractor seat glide around posts and vine trunks. • Totally adjustable for different cordon spacings Ph (03) 5021 1933 Fax (03) 5021 5233 • Spur prunes between vine cordons • Optional hydraulic lift, tilt and side shift cylinders. • Prunes single cordon in VSP trellis Email sales@spagnolo.com.au • Ideal for cleaning up uneven terrain • SG Pruner patent app no. • Durable powdercoated finish AUS 780431 U.S.A 6,523,337 Mildura Victoria Australia V2 9N 4

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

7


WFA

The International Organisation of Vine and Wine and the Australian wine sector By Tony Battaglene General Manager - Strategy & International Affairs, Winemakers’ Federation of Australia

An explanation of the basic functions of the OIV and its relationship with the Australian wine industry.

A

s discussed in earlier articles, the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA) and the Australian government (including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Department of Agriculture; Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research); supported by Australian Grape and Wine Authority, work together to increase Australian wine exports by assisting the sector with market access issues and reducing trade barriers. One area of particular interest to Australia is the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). Australian industry, technical experts from AWRI and government participate in OIV activities. The Australian Grape and Wine Authority (AGWA) contributes to the attendance of non-government experts to the OIV, which has greatly enhanced the ability to deliver benefits to the Australian wine sector. Background The OIV is an intergovernmental organisation established under treaty in 2001. The agreement came into force on 1 January 2004. The 46 OIV members include all the major wine-producing countries except China and the US. The OIV comprises the general assembly and executive committee (decision-making bodies drawn from representatives of the member states), four commissions (which guide and coordinate the OIV’s scientific and technical work) and the secretariat (managed by the Director General). Expert groups inform the commissions. Six of Australia’s 10 largest markets are members of the OIV. The UK, Australia’s largest market, is not currently a member of the OIV, but it is a member of the EU. Given this, UK wine imports must comply with EU laws. Non-EU nations that are members of the OIV include Russia, Brazil and India. Australia has been a member of the OIV since 1978. Among other things, the OIV has a broad charter to make recommendations to its member countries on aspects of winemaking and viticultural practices, and recommends international standards for the wine industry encompassing law, regulation, processing aids and additives, maximum

8

www.win eb i z .c om.au

residue levels, labelling, and more. While it is not mandatory for member countries to adopt resolutions of the OIV, positions taken by the OIV can have an important influence on world wine trade. From Australia’s perspective, the importance of the OIV is primarily that the European Union regulations base the oenological practices it authorises on the recommended actions by the OIV, and that OIV methods of analysis are adopted by the EU and its member states. The EU also recognises the OIV list of vine varieties and synonyms, which is significant as the inclusion of a name on this list allows for use of that variety name in the EU market. In addition, many other countries including China, Brazil and India either reference or use OIV standards as a basis when setting regulation in their economies. Further, the OIV has been designated under the provisions of the EU/Australia Wine Agreement (Australian Treaty Series 1994 No. 6) as a potential body able to provide opinions in relation to any bilateral technical disputes that may arise with the European Community. Some key features of the 2001 OIV Treaty include: consensus to be the main basis for decision making within the OIV with individual countries gaining the right to veto resolutions (other than for budgets and elections) which are not in their national interest; the inclusion of English as an additional official language; an improved charter for the OIV, including better definitions of the OIV’s role visà-vis international standards setting organisations; and more stable, transparent and accountable funding arrangements. Australia is obliged to pay an annual membership fee. At present Australia contributes about 1.7% of the total budget. The Australian government provides funding for OIV membership fees, which in 2013 was €70,000 (about $90,000). The general assembly is the plenary body of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine and is composed of the delegates nominated by members. In the case of Australia this delegate is the government representative from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture. W i n e & V i t i c u ltur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

The OIV conducts its technical activities through expert groups, sub-commissions and commissions, co-ordinated by a scientific and technical committee. Australian industry delegates represent Australia on these sub-commissions funded either by individual companies or supported by AGWA. Tony Battaglene (WFA) chairs the Expert Group on Situational and Economic Analysis (ANECO) and Creina Stockley (AWRI) chairs the Commission on Nutrition and Health. Markus Herderich from the AWRI also makes a very valuable contribution to the OIV Expert Groups. The OIV holds three sets of meetings each year: • March - expert groups; commissions, scientific and technical committee (CST) and executive committee (two weeks of meetings) • June/July – World Congress of Wine, Commissions and General Assembly • October – Commissions, CST, Executive Committee and extraordinary General Assembly. Australian industry provides a number of industry technical experts in oenology, viticulture and health to attend technical meetings. Participation at the expert group level allows Australia to shape OIV resolutions at an early stage and minimise the risk of trade distorting or contentious decisions being made. The primary goal of Australia’s participation is to continue to ensure OIV resolutions are based on sound science and are minimally trade-restrictive. We that the organisation is well governed and that it gathers analyses and provides data for use in strategic planning and competitor analysis for Australia. In order to ensure that Australia’s engagement with OIV reflect the needs of the Australian wine industry, DA seeks comments and briefing on OIV resolutions and issues from a reference group (comprised of WFA, WGGA, AWRI, and AGWA). The group also supports the industry representatives and government officers who attend the meetings. Following meetings DAFF circulates reports to the reference group on the outcomes. OIV activities are also subject to industry government liaison through a government-industry market access group. V29N4


A S V O

Nominations for ASVO Awards for Excellence now open By Paul Petrie, President, Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology

N

ominations are once again open for the ASVO Awards for Excellence. We would like to welcome Amorim as the new sponsor of the ‘Winemaker of the Year’ award. This award aims to recognise a winemaker who has demonstrated technical mastery over any aspect of winemaking. The ‘Viticulturist of the Year’ award is again sponsored by Bayer CropSciences, and will honour an outstanding viticulturist involved in the development of a novel and significant viticultural innovation or introduction of a novel viticultural practice. The ‘Paper of the Year’ awards are open to all research papers published in the Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research over the last 12 months. These awards are sponsored by the newly-formed Australian Grape and Wine Authority. They will be judged by an industry-based panel which will be tasked with selecting the best viticultural and oenology papers it deems present research that has the most significant potential impact on the industry. Please visit the ASVO website for more information on how to enter yourself or nominate a colleague for any of these awards: www.asvo.com.au The Awards for Excellence will be presented as part of the ASVO seminar that will be held in Adelaide in November. This seminar is titled ‘Inputs and outputs – is less more?’ It will focus on more

V2 9N 4

efficiently managing the costs associated with nutritional additives; oak alternatives, tannins, oxygen and mouthfeel enhancers; and more efficient fermentation through the use of better microbes and alcohol management. We are in the process of arranging some very exciting overseas speakers. Keep an eye on the ASVO website for more details. Everyone thoroughly enjoyed the recently-completed ASVO Mildura seminar. Highlights included the key note presentations from Professor Stefano Poni on the ‘Impact of leaf removal and the management of crop load’ and Dr Martin Mendez-Costable on ‘Understanding the impact of cultural practices on fruit quality in California’. Dr Mike Trought’s presentation challenging the dogma that high yields lead to inferior wine quality was also thought provoking. We would like to thank all of the sponsors and speakers who made this such a successful event, and are now working hard to put the proceedings together. The Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research is celebrating its 20th issue this year and over the last 20 years has gone from strength to strength as Australia’s and now the world’s highest ranked source of peer-reviewed research articles in viticulture and oenology. The journal will receive more than 200 manuscript submissions this year and publish approximately 25% of them.

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

The popularity of the journal continues to grow and to help manage this we have recently appointed four new associate editors in Eveline Bartowski, Jaume Flexas, Stefano Poni and Manfred Stoll who will support editor Terry Lee and deputy editor Greg Dunn and add further depth to an already strong editorial team of experts in viticulture and oenology. This year’s issue will also be the largest yet with approximately 515 pages; additional pages have been purchased to ensure that we can have papers in print as soon as possible after acceptance. Every effort is made to ensure that manuscripts are reviewed efficiently and to a high quality. A recent assessment of our reviewing rates showed that the median time from submission to first decision was 67 days. While this is a good figure we continue to look for ways to expedite the process, especially for the topics where we rely on a small pool of reviewers and a late review can significantly slow our response to authors. The associate editor and reviewer roles are voluntary and we appreciate the time taken by all involved to fit the reviews around other work obligations. The ASVO sees the AJGWR as a vital part of the society and we look forward to another 20 successful years of publishing the world’s best grape and wine research. WVJ

www.winebiz. com . au

9


AGWA

The reasons for raising a red flag to the use of the term ‘orange’ By Steve Guy, General Manager – Regulatory Services, Australian Grape and Wine Authority

Steve Guy provides the context for the recent advice issued by the Australian Grape and Wine Authority (until recently known as Wine Australia) for Australian wine producers to be careful if they wish to use the term ‘orange’ if their wines are not from the New South Wales geographical indication of Orange (GI).

O

ur decision to publish advise recently on how to comply with the law was prompted by one wine label in particular; a label which prominently displays the words ‘Orange Sauvignon Blanc’ in large typeface and without additional information in the same field of vision, despite the fact the wine was made from grapes grown more than 700km from the Orange geographical indication (GI). This label would be considered misleading, let alone false, by any reasonable person. The producer of this wine responded well to our intervention and has agreed to no longer present his skin-contact white wine in that manner. It would, of course, have been unfair for us to challenge one producer of skin-contact white wines and not make the law clear to others making wines of a similar style. So, please let me briefly summarise the law on this point. Under the Wine Australia Corporation Act (the ‘Act’) a person commits an offence if they sell a wine with a label that includes a GI and the wine is not from that GI. There are more than 100 GIs for Australia including, for example, Barossa Valley, Margaret River and Orange. There are also many European GIs such as Champagne, Chianti and Rioja. Subject to the further comments below, the Act includes a strict rule that a GI can only be used on a label if the wine is from that GI. That is why Australian producers cannot use Champagne or Bordeaux on their wine labels, even if it is clearly stated that the wine is from Australia. Similarly, a wine made from grapes grown near (but not in) the Barossa Valley cannot say this on the label, even though it would be a true statement. The inclusion of the term Barossa Valley triggers the legal requirement for the

10

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

wine to be from that GI. The rationale is that the GIs must be protected and any such incidental use allows others to unfairly benefit from the reputation of that GI. Fortunately there are some sensible exceptions. For example, it is recognised that some GIs can also have a common English meaning beyond the indication of a particular place. The English words ‘Lay’ and ‘Held’, for example, were until quite recently registered German GIs, so without an exemption for the use of common English words a simple phrase such as ‘for best drinking we recommend you lay this wine down for several years in your cellar’ would constitute a breach of the Act. Similarly, Port is a registered GI but this exemption allows the continued use of the word port if used for other purposes - to state, for example, that a wine is from the region of Henty near the city of Portland (or town of Port Fairy). Orange is obviously a common English word as well. A statement on a wine label that ‘this luscious dessert wine is suited for pairing with an orange sorbet’ presents no issues. ‘Orange wine’, however, is ambiguous. It could indicate the wine was from the Orange GI, the wine has an orange colour, or even that the wine was made from oranges. Some have claimed that consumers are savvy enough to tell the difference when it is being used to indicate a wine from Orange as opposed to indicating a white wine with extended skin contact. We have, however, as explained above, seen at least one example when many consumers, including wine experts, could believe that a wine was sourced from the Orange GI, when in fact the word was being used to indicate a wine style. To illustrate this further - if we substituted the word Orange with Barossa or Bordeaux so the label read W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

‘Barossa wine’ or ‘Bordeaux wine’ a consumer would expect the wine to be from that GI. Given the Orange GI has the same status as all other GIs, we are advising producers they need to be careful when using the term to describe any wine that is not from the GI. Our key role is to assist producers to comply with the law and our note was intended to explain the law so that producers do not breach it, even unintentionally. The law allows for a skin-contact white wine displaying orange tints to be described as such. Not as ‘Orange wine’ or ‘orange wine’, but as a wine displaying orange tints, or words to that effect. We have noticed a trend for such wines to be described as ‘amber’, and this terminology would certainly avoid any conflict with the name of the Orange GI. The suggestion that ‘Orange’ should be used for the GI and ‘orange’ to describe the style may appear to be an elegant solution, but it does not comply with the Act and consumers are unlikely to understand the difference. The Australian Grape and Wine Authority certainly is interested to ensure skin-contact white wines have a deserved and ongoing place in the market. We are also obliged to protect all registered GIs, including the Orange GI. If we can assist in developing terminology that will somehow reconcile these competing interests, we are absolutely prepared to do so. We suggest this should involve bringing interested parties together from both the Orange GI and the skin-contact white wine community, in an attempt to find a way through the complex legal situation. If you would like to suggest a market or regulating subject for this column please email: WVJ editor, Sonya Logan, s.logan@winetitles.com. au V29N4


K E Y

F I L E S

Tasmania - the path divides By Tony Keys

The following article is based on a presentation Tony Keys delivered at the inaugural Tasmanian Wine Conference held in Hobart in early June.

T

asmania is not the only Australian wine region that has plenty to offer the epicurean, but it has more to offer than most. The seafood, cheese and meat are exceptional and apart from high quality wine, the island boasts interesting beers, ciders and several whiskey distilleries that are gaining greater respect and global recognition. Enhancing the produce is a landscape of pure beauty and cities, towns and villages that still have a great deal of architecture from colonial times. With so much on the positive side is there anything to be negative about? From my viewpoint I believe there is.

The negativity, or the possibility of negativity, lies in the path the Tasmanian wine industry chooses going forward. I firmly believe that in the UK, USA and Canada, Australian wine has become common place; It is cloth cap and hobnailed boots, the McDonalds of wine, the drink of the plebeian not the patrician. And here is the crux: this current image of Australian wine, does not suit Tasmanian wine but Tasmanian wine is Australian wine. Tasmanian wine is struggling to be seen as a peacock in a paddock turned into a dustbowl by a huge flock of bush turkeys.

Tasmanian wine is struggling to be seen as a peacock in a paddock turned into a dustbowl by a huge flock of bush turkeys.

Print

Online Pdf

Wine &

Viticulture

Journal

now available

whenever you want

ArchiVed Online Articles – seArch by key WOrd. altERNatIVE VaRIEtIEs

V I t I C u lt u R E

Italian inspiration for novel Nero d’Avola making

Va R I E ta l R E P O R t

Putting the sparkle in sparkling rosé In keeping with the approaching festive season, this issue’s tasting featured sparkling rosés, 28 in all, ranging from non-vintage examples through to one from the 2003 vintage. the tasting panel identified the top wine or wines from the non-vintage entries, those from the 2012 to 2009 vintages and the 2008 to 2003 vintages (see page 102-106 for the complete results), with the producers behind three of those wines revealing what went into their making.

By Brad Hickey, Brash Higgins Wine Co., McLaren Vale, South Australia

Mclaren Vale-based Nero d’avola producer Brad hickey travelled to sicily, in Italy, in 2011 to investigate local growing and vinification of the variety. In addition to collecting ideas about how to maximise Nero d’avola’s potential on home soil, Brad was inspired to use amphorae as a winemaking technique.

W

need to find information on oak, pruning or the AsVO? type in your topic of choice to locate previously published articles.

hen I moved to McLaren Vale six years ago, after a decade spent buying wine for restaurants in New York City, I started thinking about new varieties we could plant on our vineyard that would not only thrive in McLaren Vale, but make for interesting drinking as well. The drought years had been making life hard, even for our Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon plantings, and we felt we needed to find some better suited grapes to bring onboard. Nero d’Avola fitted the bill. In 2009, Brash Higgins obtained some of the first cuttings of the Sicilian red winegrape Nero d’Avola available in Australia from Binjara Vine Nursery (formerly Chalmers Nursery), in Euston, New South Wales. Nero d’Avola is drought and heat tolerant to a certain degree, ripens late and thrives in its native Mediterranean climate, so it seemed like a good fit for coastal McLaren Vale and our evermounting heat and water issues. VItICultuRE 2009-2010 In October 2009, we dedicated a halfhectare research block on our Omensetter

Vineyard to Nero d’Avola. Soils in this block are relatively shallow (40-50cm) red brown clay loam over a deep, soft marl limestone. In the winter of 2009, we asked Dr Nuredin Habili, of Plant Diagnostics, at the Waite campus of The University of Adelaide, to perform a virus test on our Shiraz rootstock, which was planted in 1997. The results came back affirmative to graft Nero d’Avola. Field grafting was conducted later, using two buds per vine on the Matura 1 clone from the Matura Group, in Italy. The clones grew exceptionally well, exhibiting great vigour and not needing any irrigation until the first week of December, followed by small amounts on a regular basis until midFebruary. Vines were trained on a single cordon trellis, and the cordon was filled by February 2010. We noted that foliage was prone to powdery mildew.

Josef Chromy Wines in tasmania’s tamar Valley. Jeremy Dineen Winemaker/general manager Josef Chromy Wines tamar Valley, tasmania Wine: Pepik NV sparkling Rosé (RRP$27.00/bottle)

2010-11 The first fruit bearing year, we pruned the lateral growth hard from the main cordon back to basal buds. Vines grew strongly, with many double buds providing two shoots per node. These were shootthinned back to one shoot per node. A lazy ballerina trellising system was used,

VItICultuRE Fruit for the Pepik NV Sparkling Rosé is estate-grown from our vineyard at Relbia, 15km south of Launceston, Tasmania. The vineyard contains 61ha of vines and has an elevation of 85-170m with north and north-east facing slopes. The soils range from deep, black, selfmulching clay to shallow brown clay with high gravel content. The mean January temperature for the area is 16.7°C. It receives an average of 679mm per annum, with 94 rains days. The vines enjoy 1050 heat degree days, and 1758 sunshine hours (October-April). The average age of the vines in the vineyard is 13 years, which are on a mixture of own roots and rootstocks. The blend for the Pepik is usually Pinot dominant with some Chardonnay. The Pinot clones planting in the vineyard comprise D2V5, D5V12, G5V15, G8V3, G8V7, H7V15, 115 and 114.

Mclaren Vale’s Brash higgins obtained some of the first cuttings of Nero d’avola available in australia from Binjara Vine Nursery (formerly Chalmers Nursery) at Euston, in New south Wales in 2009 and planted half a hectare. V27N6

W i n e & V i t i c u lt u r e J o u r n a l N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 2

www. win e b iz . c o m . a u

67

V27N6

The Chardonnay clones are I10V1 and Penfolds. The vines are trained to Scott-Henry and VSP trellises and have a vine density of 3220 per hectare and 2415 per hectare, respectively. All vines are crown thinned every year. Shoot and/or bunch thinning is carried out depending on the year. The amount of drip irrigation, which is sourced from our on-farm dam and nearby river, depends on the season. A permanent sward is grown in the midrows to reduce erosion with farm-produced composts also applied. The vines are mainly hand cane-pruned with limited mechanical spur pre-pruning carried out. Botrytis is the biggest disease risk to the vines, which yield an average of 11.5 tonnes per hectare. WINEMaKINg The hand-picked Pinot Noir is whole bunch pressed, giving a free run of usually 500L/tonne and pressings of 200L/tonne. The hand-picked and/or machine-picked Chardonnay is pressed to 500L/t free run and 200L/t pressings. The pressings are fined separately while the base juices are settled and combined prior to the primary ferment. Malolactic fermentation is not carried out. W i n e & V i t i c u lt u r e J o u r n a l N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 2

Josef Chromy Wines winemaker and general manager Jeremy Dineen. The juice is cold stabilised, partially heat stabilised and cross-flow filtered. The secondary ferment is commenced in tank and bottled when the viable cell count has reached its target (tirage ferment approximately 15°C). The wine is bottle aged for 12-18 months prior to disgorging. The dosage liqueur contains Pinot Noir table wine to ensure a consistent salmon pink colour. It is dosed to contain a final sugar content of ▶ 10-12g/L. www. win e b iz . c o m . a u

99

Only available to subscribers. Visit www.winebiz.com.au/wvj T: +618 8369 9500 F: +618 8369 9501 E: subs@winetitles.com.au W: www.winebiz.com.au

PROVIDING SOLUTIONS TO THE WINE INDUSTRY

V2 9N 4

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

11


K E NE Y FWI S L E S

What is the story of Tasmania wine? How can it be within Australia but have a separate identity? As Tasmania cannot be divorced from Australia it needs to establish an identity that is one of association. More second cousin than brother. As yet the answer lies down an unlit pathway complete with tricky obstacles. Wine strategy needs to be constantly updated and must not become moribund as it has in so many regions. It’s difficult to stand out globally when around 180 million litres out of 677 million litres exported in the 12 months to the end of March 2014 went out under the non-defined South Eastern Australia banner. Greed, arrogance and poor leadership during the 1990s and into this century have taken their toll on the image of Australian wine, especially in the UK and North America. Adding to this lethal mix was the lack of understanding of consumer loyalty and changing fashion. The major problem Tasmania faces is how it separates itself from Australia without denying its birthright or putting down its siblings. The hope is the wine will do the talking and consumers will focus on quality and individuality. Unfortunately consumer taste in wine sits at a lower price bracket than Tasmanian wine can currently satisfy. This gives Tasmanians the choice of increasing production to improve cost of production, resulting in lower prices on the shelf, or keeping supply short and growing at a pace the natural market dictates. It’s not easy to choose the correct path as all have merit and disadvantage. One argument is Tasmania should consider itself more New Zealand than Australian as the island is Australia’s coolest region and the wines are more New Zealand in style. In a paper Dr Richard Smart prepared for the West Report (Professor Jonathan West: Diversifying Tasmania’s Economy 2012) he says, “using ‘gridded’ climate data we show that the temperature climate of Tasmania is more like that of New Zealand than of any other country in the world.” No doubt this is true but does that mean Tasmania should follow New Zealand? In conversations with Dr Smart he has said he sees no reason why the island cannot provide the Australian market with all the Sauvignon Blanc it requires. It’s a sound theory, but should Tasmania follow that path the island

12

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

The small size of Tasmania is an advantage and being physically separated from the mainland a blessing. would, like the Marlborough region, become Sauvignon Blanc dominated. One also has to ask the question, will the popularity of New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc plummet as did Australian Chardonnay? It’s my belief it will, as the sale of wine is more fashion and price driven than region or terroir driven. In ‘Scoping Study for Marketing Tasmanian Wine: Directions for 2022’ Professor Larry Lockshin says, “during the past 20 years the Marlborough region has been shown to produce a unique Sauvignon Blanc wine, which Tasmania is capable of copying”. Again, no doubt true but is not the word ‘unique’ important in that sentence? Would not Tasmania lose out being a copyist rather than an originator? It’s not a pathway I would recommend. At this moment in time New Zealand has more class to its image, portraying its wines as better than Australian wines. It’s unjust but it is as it is. Unfortunately, good, medium and poor New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc is flooding into the UK, US and, worse, Australia; worse still at very good FOB prices. Lockshin and I are in agreement with the promotion of Tasmanian wine being focused on the state, not regions within the state. He uses New Zealand as an example saying, “consumers still recall New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc not Marlborough”. The small size of Tasmania is an advantage and being physically separated from the mainland a blessing. Where I diverge from Lockshin is in this statement regarding Pinot Noir: “Tasmania would benefit greatly from exposure in key international wine magazines and reviews.” He goes on to say the wider benefit is for specialty retailers and restaurateurs to gain greater knowledge of Tasmanian wines. Would they? I’m not so sure. I know well-known wine writers such as Huon Hooke, James Halliday, Jancis Robinson, Anthony Rose and many others around the world have huge W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

respect for the state’s wines. If respect is not lacking, what is the problem? I am not convinced of the value of wine writers in the second decade of the 21st century. I think their time is passing; some will remain but their power is diminishing. Newspapers are doing away with or reducing wine content; wine magazines are also folding. It’s worth noting that peer reviews are becoming more popular. Aldi in the UK is recruiting 10 consumers who will receive two bottles of wine a month and have to review them within the 140 characters on Twitter. Aldi in Australia has said it is watching with interest to see how it plays out. If the wrath of wine writer reviews is declining cannot other traditional associations be questioned? Food and wine is for many (myself included) a natural combination but I suspect most people see food and wine as separate identities. Considering the amount of food content now found in newspapers and magazines, the success of Masterchef and other numerous cooking programs that dominate television along with the star or even superstar status of chefs, where does wine fit in? Those involved in the wine industry and trade assume others think as they do and there is a strong connection between wine and food but, as demonstrated by the reduction and loss of wine columns, along with the increased coverage for food, can we be sure? Newspapers doing away with or reducing wine content is due to the fact that they have worked out they can do without it. But does it not also demonstrate consumers are not as interested in wine as they are in food? Do we not delude ourselves in thinking there is a strong connection? To be clear, I’m not saying there is no value to wine columns, reviews and wine and food connections - just less than the industry thinks they're worth. The industry needs to get a perspective on that worth. V29N4


K E Y

F I L E S

Table 1. Red and white bottled wine sales in Australia on a MAT basis to August 2013 in millions of litres. <$7.99

$8-$11.99

$12-$15.99

$16-$24.99

$25>

White

23.7

20.8

15.3

16.0

1.7

Red

22.3

20.5

13.7

23.8

6.5

Total

46

41.3

29

39.8

8.2

Source: Woolworths Price can also be considered a perspective. Those who produce wine have one view which often diverges from the consumer perspective. The route to market is different for all producers in the wine industry whether an industry giant (e.g., Accolade), a large company (e.g., De Bortoli) or one of the multitude of small producers. The giants and large companies sell more wine not just because of the size of production but because they know how to deal with the large retailers such as supermarkets, and they know supermarkets understand consumers extremely well. Supermarkets give consumers what they want and large wine producers give supermarkets what they need to fulfil consumer demand. Smaller concerns such as those that dominate Tasmania often deal directly with consumers, the question here being, do they really understand consumers and are they making the utmost of the individual relationships they are fostering? How much do consumers like to pay for wine? A lot less than the average cost of Tasmanian wine (Table 1). The average retail price of a bottle of table wine in the Woolworths group

Unless there is rapid growth in the Tasmanian wine industry, it’s unlikely that its producers will have any impact on market sectors below $12 retail. Even the middle sector is a struggle, but there is a sweet spot in the $16-$24.99/ bottle category. Can they find a path to this sector, which offers growth and reasonable return? is $10.24, while the average price of a bottle of Tasmanian wine in the group is $20.91. Tasmanian wine represents 0.9 per cent of Woolworth’s wine stock in volume and 1.9 per cent in value. Shane Tremble, head of corporate development at the Woolworths Liquor Group, said, “The only thing

constraining our sales of Tassie wine is availability. They obviously need to strike a balance between volume and quality but there’s no doubt we could sell more if we could get it.” Unless there is rapid growth in the Tasmanian wine industry, it’s unlikely that its producers will have any impact

G IN SK A -T TI UL M BY S ST CO ON TI UC OD SAVE PR

WHERE CUTTING

EDGE MEETS SUSTAINABILITY

2 & TWISIMATETELRY W2 FISCHERHERBVE! MEE T THE ULT

& GL4K FISCHERTO GUNL4 DERVINE MOWERS INTER-ROW

FINALLY IT’S UTION CLEAN, CHEMICAL- FREE UNDERVINE SOL

OFFERS GROWERS A TOTAL SOLUTION FOR EFFECTIVE WEED CONTROL

• Acclaimed by Australian Vineyard Managers • Offering various configuration options • Available for flat and delved vineyard rows

FOR A PERSONALISED RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE CONTACT JURG MUGGLI ON 0409 572 581 OR THE OFFICE ON 08 9433 3555. FIND US ON FACEBOOK OR AT WWW.FATCOW.COM.AU

V2 9N 4

check us out on

CHECK OUT VIDEO TESTIMONIAL ON

A NEW WAY WITH A CERTAIN TWIST

• Seamless weed control from inter-row to undervine • Using expandable deck technology • Durable high speed bio-brush weeders • Mechanical removal of basal water-shoots

www.fischeraustralis.com.au

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

13


K E Y

F I L E S

Table 2. Value of exported Tasmanian wine. Litres

Value AUD

Value per Litre

MAT April 2001

68,306

$771,938

$11.30

MAT April 2002

219,835

$2,467,325

$11.22

MAT April 2003

250,457

$2,926,443

$11.68

MAT April 2004

360,648

$4,054,027

$11.24

MAT April 2005

251,348

$3,426,409

$13.63

MAT April 2006

351,713

$3,918,464

$11.14

MAT April 2007

534,956

$5,713,774

$10.68

MAT April 2008

531,527

$6,180,497

$11.63

MAT April 2009

470,580

$5,365,184

$11.40

MAT April 2010

403,193

$4,539,395

$11.26

MAT April 2011

372,773

$4,415,673

$11.85

MAT April 2012

263,244

$3,281,605

$12.47

MAT April 2013

209,093

$2,509,608

$12.00

MAT April 2014

217,098

$2,764,663

$12.73

Source: Australian Grape and Wine Authority on market sectors below $12 retail. Even the middle sector is a struggle, but there is a sweet spot in the $16$24.99/bottle category. Can they find a path to this sector, which offers growth and reasonable return? One assumes a few producers such as Brown Brothers, Pipers Brook and Josef Chromy, for instance, can put wine on retail shelves within this price bracket. But with the 2014 edition of The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Directory listing 117 Tasmanian producers, one would assume most will have high production costs, so can they offer wine to the consumer priced between $20 and $25? Perhaps they can if they sell all production direct and take the view that tourism is the important factor. Blocking this pathway is the possibility that numerous small wineries selling direct may do little to enhance the

region’s international profile and perhaps winemakers don’t want to be tourist store operators. Wants, likes and dislikes are part of life. The tourism aspect is, I believe, worth embracing but it also requires skills and those of a winemaker may not be enough. Again, I urge small winery operators to think wider than wine. The main market for Tasmanian wine is still local, followed by the mainland and least of all exports. Table 2 shows a high value per litre for Tasmanian wine exported but the volume is low. This presents another conundrum: to increase exports without sacrificing price per litre a huge uplift in global recognition is needed. Can Tasmania take on Burgundy, New Zealand, Oregon or Carneros for the Pinot Noir crown?

Maybe it can from a quality angle but, as stated, wine is not always about quality. Also, global recognition often requires huge amounts of marketing back up. With budgets being cut and to be fair to all other regions, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority (formerly known as Wine Australia) is unlikely to be much help. The state government may be able to offer support but, again, it’s unlikely to be enough for a global program. This leaves the Australian mainland and the island itself. The mainland is worth plugging away at but how is the question. What works best on a limited budget: road shows, wine shows, independent retail, restaurants or wine reviews? It’s not a problem limited to Tasmania. Many regions suffer the same issues. However, I see the growing global fame of the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) attracting visitors to the state from all over the world and mainland Australia. I also see many of these visitors being interested in wine and some of them having a deeper interest to travel around visiting wineries and spreading the word back home. This may be in a roundabout way such as, “you must go to MONA and then spend a couple of days visiting wineries, fly into Hobart and then out of Launceston”. MONA should also be an inspiration to wineries, wine routes and many other aspects of Tasmanian tourism. In short, open the mind, look for new pathways, and take a fork or a turning that is away from the old, tired, pompous image of snobbery, food and wine so many in the wine industry WVJ cling to.

Subscription is free and easy! Visit www.winebiz.com.au to sign up today.

A snapshot of wine business, research and marketing content gleaned from international wine media sources, with a focus on Australian news and content.

14

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

Don’t miss a

thing!

Distributed to over 10,000 subscribers (and growing) daily V29N4


W I NE M A K I N G

o x yg e n

Oxygen – another tool for the winemaker’s kit bag By Cathy Howard

While various procedures have been adopted by winemakers in recent years to either deliberately introduce or remove oxygen at various stages along the winemaking process, there is still a need to find out when and how much is needed to make a particular wine style. Cathy spoke to researchers at the Australian Wine Research Institute about their efforts towards this end, as well as German professor Ulrich Fischer who is currently on sabbatical with the AWRI, to hear how oxygen is being managed in that country.

O

xygen uptake depends largely on the surface area exposed, the temperature of the juice or wine, and the exposure time. Oxygen can dissolve in must, juice or wine during cellar operations through the entire production chain from crushing through to bottling. Added to this, during any winery operation where considerable splashing and bubbling occurs, the must, juice or wine can become saturated with oxygen quickly as the turbulence created greatly increases the exposed surface area. As we all know, utilising and excluding oxygen during the winemaking process is a balancing act - too much oxygen could lead to oxidation, and too little could lead to reductive faults. This then poses the question, how much oxygen at this particular stage in the winemaking process is too much, and how much is not enough? Over the past few years, winemakers have adopted procedures at certain points in their winemaking processes that either deliberately introduce oxygen into their ferments or wines, or remove oxygen from the atmosphere surrounding their must, juice or wine. Some examples are: • Reductively handling many white wines from the start, by inerting the atmosphere in contact with the must and juice, and protecting them as much as possible from oxygen from crushing, through pressing and into the juice tank • The use of oak barrels allows for small amounts of oxygen to enter the wine, aiding in polymerisation of tannins into larger molecules, which are perceived on the palate as softer, during primary fermentation. Some oxygen is needed for healthy yeast growth and a deficit will result in struggling ferments that are liable to produce sulfides, cause reduction problems, and increase the

16

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

Pilot-scale (500L) white wine fermenters at the Hickinbotham-Roseworthy Wine Science Laboratory, at the University of Adelaide, equipped with dissolved oxygen monitoring and dynamic headspace management. risk of the ferment becoming sluggish and stuck. The addition of oxygen during the early stages of fermentation, can help maintain the yeast cell viability and encourage budding. Micro-oxygenation (MOX), a widely applied technique to deliver continuous trace amounts of oxygen to red wine during vinification and ageing. The use of MOX imitates the oxygen diffusion process occurring in wooden barrels during wine ageing, and is used to stabilise wine colour due to increased polymerisation, and to improve the sensory perception of tannins •A  dding oxygen or air to red ferments during pump-overs and into vinomatics using venturi or air draw systems. Dr Martin Day, a research scientist at the AWRI, sums up where the Australian W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

wine industry is currently at with oxygen’s influence on winemaking processes and wine styles: “Generally, the wine industry is quite happy about using or choosing not to use oxygen exposure during winemaking. There are people who think they are adding oxygen, but may not be adding as much as they would hope. I know of people who blast their ferments with pure oxygen and cannot get enough of it in there! There are others who use inert pressing and reductive handling to give purity to their fruit and produce stunning, pure and fresh wines. “What this is telling us is there is a need to find out when and how much is needed to make a particular style, and all this in a rigorous scientific study. For instance, Richard Gawel’s recent work (Gawel et al. 2014) has demonstrated V29N4


o x yg e n

that grape reaction product (GRP), formed when caftaric acid is oxidised into quinones (which react with grapes' natural anti-oxidant glutathione), can impart an oily and mouthfilling sensation while masking phenolic hotness. This may be one of the drivers for influencing style. Other important work revolves around understanding the production and, hence, mitigation of reductive aromas in winemaking”. There have been some interesting results come out of an earlier survey by Day in 2010 (Day 2012) measuring dissolved oxygen levels in must and juice during juice processing. To summarise: • Grape ‘damage’ activating enzymatic oxidation can occur during machine harvesting. Depending on the equipment used and the degree of mechanical shear involved, oxidation is likely to occur during harvesting in an uncontrolled manner • High DO values occur in must at crushing. Results showed an average DO value during crushing of 6mg/L with a standard deviation of 2mg/L • During pressing DO levels appear lower, indicating that crushing is the stage that can pick up most oxygen. The DO values started at 3mg/L with values during crushing around 9mg/L (9mg/L is close ▶ to the saturation level in grape juice)

W I NE M A K I N G

A process-grade DO probe measuring oxygen during a pump-over on a 110-tonne fermenter.

Leave It To Us The team at Portavin makes your life easier when it comes to wine bottling and services. With ten winemakers working across five sites, your wine is in the hands of a family owned company that cares. From bottling to packing and dispatching export containers, quality assessment and warehousing – there’s no task too large or too small. And it’s reassuring to know that we offer all major accreditations and our sites are close to key transport hubs, reducing environmental impact. Call Portavin today for an obligation free chat about your business needs.

Portavin – caring for your wine from tank to shelf. Adelaide (08) 8447 7555

Margaret River (08) 9755 0500

Melbourne (03) 9584 7344

Perth (08) 9437 1033

Sydney (02) 9722 9400

www.portavin.com.au portavin@portavin.com.au

V2 9N 4

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

17


W I NE M A K I N G

o x yg e n

for prevention of oxygen-related quality loss once fermentation is completed. These are critical to delivering the best quality product possible.”

The AWRI’s micro-fermentation suite with oxygen accounting capability. • The crushing step has been identified as a potential source of oxidative damage for aromatic grape varieties such as Sauvignon Blanc • Using an inert press and inert gas cover on press trays, the DO of the juice reached a maximum value of 2mg/L during the dejuicing step. For the remainder of the press cycle, the DO never exceeded 0.18mg/L • During pressing, when the juice is static, the DO decreases due to enzymatic consumption of oxygen to oxidise the phenolic material present • The DO in juice post-pressing in tank is very low due to the rapid nature of enzymatic oxidation, which will consume oxygen picked up during processing. Assisting winemakers to get the balance right in a measured and informed way is the focus of a four-year research project which commenced at the AWRI in July 2013. Influencing wine style through management of oxygen during winemaking The project is funded solely by the Australian Grape and Wine Authority (formerly Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation), and is being conducted by Dr Martin Day. AWRI senior research scientist Dr Simon Schmidt will be carrying out laboratory-scale fermentations, and project leaders are Dr Eric Wilkes and Dr Paul Smith. Day stated: “The effects of oxygen management during the process of winemaking (from crushing through fermentation) are not well understood. The limited information that exists is

18

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

mostly around the management of fermentation efficiency and reliability. However, the role of oxygen during winemaking is likely to have a profound effect on the final wine and, thus, a significant opportunity exists for winemakers to use oxygen management before or during fermentation to impact on critical aspects of winemaking such as aroma, texture and post-bottling stability; in particular, to remediate or prevent the formation of reductive aromas during fermentation and possibly minimise the risk of reductive aroma formation postbottling. “We are approaching the research in a systematic way by carrying out carefully controlled laboratory experiments looking at the effect of dose, timing and introduction modality (particular method of introducing oxygen). Full chemical analyses looking at aroma and texture parameters will be carried out, along with descriptive sensory analysis,” Day explained. The V14 pilot-scale winemaking trials were carried out at the fully-equipped Adelaide University RoseworthyHickinbotham Wine Science Laboratory, and the upcoming V15 winemaking trials will also be conducted there. The AWRI has partnered with a few wineries in South Australia to trial different DO measuring equipment and oxygen addition techniques during fermentation. Day said: “This project will establish the effect of the early use of oxygen at crushing or during fermentation on wine style, and on the efficiency of malolactic fermentation using both model systems and pilot-scale fermentations. Furthermore, strategies will be assessed W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

The key project objectives are • t o determine how much oxygen gets into juice through production and what juice exposure to oxygen does to final wine style/composition • t o define key grape and yeast-derived volatile and non-volatile compounds, which are affected by oxygen management during winemaking • t o determine the effect on wine style and sensory properties of key oxygenmodulated compounds • t o develop improved measurement tools for monitoring oxygen exposure during wine production • t o provide practical advice about ways to introduce oxygen and the effects of timing and dose of addition • t o develop methods to improve the efficiency of malolactic fermentation through the use of oxygen during alcoholic fermentation. The AWRI will be producing extension materials as part of the project outputs. With another three years to run on the project, the AWRI will be making results available on a regular basis through AWRI workshops, trade articles and scientific papers. At the recent Winery Engineering Association conference, Simon Schmidt released the findings of the project so far. By the beginning of next year, the initial data from the V14 front end processing and fermentation trial work will be available in time for winemakers to assess and trial going into the 2015 vintage. It is planned that by late next year the analytical results from the winemaking trials and monitoring work for postferment, racking, stabilising and bottling will be available and conveyed to industry through an AWRI technical seminar. In regards to the scope of the winemaking trials being carried out, Day said: “We are initially looking at white wine with a focus on Chardonnay, the one susceptible to the biggest style changes. This year we are looking at the juice stage, including inert pressing, reductive versus oxidative handling. Subsequent years will focus as well on carefully timed and dosed additions of oxygen during fermentation. We are seeing big differences in the pressing mode, with inert versus conventional/ oxidative pressing equipment and techniques. Our trials have been 100% whole bunch pressed Chardonnay, and we have measured huge O2 pick-ups at pressing, particularly for the pressings fractions.” V29N4


o x yg e n

Of interest to Day is that around 60% of tank presses in Europe are inert, but here in Australia there are relatively few in use. This vintage, additional trials have looked at recommendations for efficient ways of getting air or oxygen into a ferment, so venturis have been investigated with great success in V14. “We trialled a Mazzei venturi on a 110T SWAP and achieved 40% air saturation, but the system required a high flow rate and this was only achieved by using two centrifugal pumps in-line to achieve the desired flow rate. The dosing frequencies are being looked at still and fine-tuned. Air draw tubes, for example, maybe better for a slow trickle of air into a pump-over, and venturis may be better suited for big hits, and for more vigorous inputs of air on pump-overs. “The results of V12 showed us that tannins are more affected by very early oxygen exposure, creating shorter and more convoluted, knotted tannins than during later oxygen exposure through ageing [there is a paper in press: McRae et al. 2014]. Later years will see some more work on red wine too, most probably Shiraz as this responds very well to oxygen to prevent stinkiness,” Day said.

Day concluded: “The science and technique of adding oxygen in the early stages of fermentation is relatively new in wine science terms, and more widely accepted and used in France than in Australia. Since starting this project we have had a lot of interest from wineries hearing about the work: “Earlier work the AWRI was involved with was telling us that more than 20% of wine faults were related to ‘reductive’ characters, and these weren’t limited to wines sealed under screwcap. This made us think that lack of oxygen in the early stages of winemaking could be to blame. It’s taken us down this path of identifying the importance of adding a controlled amount of oxygen in the early stages of winemaking, but it has also showed us that much more work needs to be done to understand the importance of timing and amounts necessary for beneficial results,” Day said. An international perspective: Ulrich Fischer, DLR Rheinpfalz For an international perspective on this topic, I contacted Professor Fischer who is working at the AWRI until 3 September on the Influence of Oxygen in Winemaking project, as well as on a project to detect the potential of smoke

W I NE M A K I N G

tainted juices or wines with an FT-MIR based analysis (GrapeScan or WineScan, FOSS Corporation). The technology aims to measure the glycosylated precursors of the smoke taint in a fast way after concentrating the juices and wines via a SPE sample clean-up. Fischer is originally from the Moselle Valley, in Bernkastel-Kues. He graduated from the University of Applied Science, in Geisenheim, with a degree in viticulture and oenology, and continued his education in the graduate program at UC Davis. Since 1995 Dr Fischer has been employed at the state teaching and research centre in Neustadt and is involved in research, teaching and extension, and chairing the viticulture and oenology department. His major research emphasis is on value adding wine constituents such as aroma compounds or polyphenols, their sensory and how they can be altered by oenological means. In 1997 he started teaching food sensory and food technology in the food chemistry program of the Technical University of Kaiserslautern. In 2009, he was involved in implementing a Bachelor of Science program in Neustadt that combines academic teaching with a 24-month hands-on apprenticeship in cooperating

Incline Drainers

Four models -300, 500, 800, 1000mm

Additionally we tailor-make • Marc removal systems • Receiving bins • Stalk elevators • Belt conveyors • Whole bunch pressing conveyors • Storage tanks

Membrane Presses

4,500 ltr to 66,000 ltr tank capaciy Both closed and slotted shell presses

Destemmers/Crushers There are six models in our MC Series: · MC100 · MC250 · MC400 · MC600 · MC800 · MC1000

10–15 tonne/hr 25–30 tonne/hr 40–50 tonne/hr 50–60 tonne/hr 60–80 tonne/hr 80–100 tonne/hr

28-34 Neptune Terrace • Ottoway • South Australia 5013 Phone (08) 8447 3911 • Fax (08) 8447 1088 • Email fmc@fmiller.com.au For more information on our wide range of products visit www.fmiller.com.au

V2 9N 4

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

Australian Products for Australian Wineries

Spotlight on Innovative Efficient Products for the Wine Industry

19


W I NE M A K I N G

o x yg e n

For further information, please contact Kauri NZ Tel: 0800 KAURIWINE NZ Fax: 04 910 7415 Email: winery@kauri.co.nz

20

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

AUS Tel: 1800 127 611 AUS Fax: 1800 127 609 Website: www.kauriwine.com

wineries. His teaching comprises oenology, sensory and chemistry subjects. Current research projects in his group at Neustadt are focussing on the sensory and chemical effect of terroir on German Riesling, micro-oxygenation of red wines, the cause of bitterness in white wine, measurement of grape-derived aroma precursors by FT-IR analysis, as well as sensory changes induced by partial dealcoholisation of wines. According to Fischer, “there has been an increase in Sauvignon Blanc wines in Germany being made in reductive style, as well as the fruitier and lighter styles of Riesling, Pinot Blanc and Pinot Gris. In Germany in recent years, there has been a major shift towards dry style wines, focussing on fruit and varietal expression, as well as ageing abilities for top wines. Only in Moselle is there still a predominance of sweeter style white wines. “There is a general trend for Riesling and other white varieties to have skin maceration of four, six, or 12 hours in length to drop excessive acidity and pick up some phenolics. Ascorbic acid is only used at the press for Sauvignon Blanc, and flotation is widely used with air or nitrogen,” Fischer explained. The juices are highly clarified prior to ferment, being flotated, settled or filtered off juice lees aiming for 10-30 NTU. These styles also allow for long lees contact post-ferment of around 3-4 months, then the wine is filtered off lees in preparation for bottling. Due to a rigid juice clarification, wines are being kept for longer on yeast lees and fine lees until February,” Fischer said. “Increasing skin contact time is beneficial for ageing as there is a corresponding increase in skin phenolics and uptake of all varietal aroma components from the skins,” he said. “However, in order to compensate for an excess of skin phenolics, one or two saturations of oxygen during pressing or juice clarification such as flotation is considered beneficial. “Sauvignon Blanc, however, is strictly handled reductively, using presses inertied with nitrogen gas because reductive handling favours the release of thiols downstream in the winemaking process. On the other hand, it has been found that if Riesling or Pinot Blanc were treated too reductively at the juice stage, the increase in thiols masks the true varietal character and there is a loss of varietal edge. Instead, it is preferred to utilise yeast strains with these varieties to turn on or off thiols to meet style requirements. Another emerging trend is wild yeast ferments, and seeding of Champagne yeast mid-way through the ferment to ensure fermentation completes through to dryness in four weeks after inoculation,” Fischer said. Fischer adds: “About 50% of wines in Germany are now bottled under screwcap. Current research is focussing on headspace oxygen levels and reducing DO pick-up. We are finding that screwcaps are not the best closure for all wines.” Fischer added, “outside of Germany, not many are aware that red grapes now make up about 40% of the total acreage in Germany. The main variety is Pinot Noir, and it can make up to 50% of the most southern areas. There is about 10,000 hectares of Pinot Noir planted in Germany, placing it as the third largest Pinot Noir producer in the world”. One research focus with Pinot Noir in Germany was on MOX he said. Cold soak pre-ferment is achieving higher anthocyanin levels in the must before tannin extraction starts during fermentation (Durner and Fischer 2011). Combined with oxygen addition during ferment, the end result is a higher degree of polymerisation and an enhanced incorporation of anthocyanins in these polymers. This leads to better colour, as well as better balanced wines with fewer drying phenolics post-ferment (Durner et al. 2011). “Dornfelder, a Germany variety that was crossed in 1955, could be compared in character to Barbera, with naturally

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


o x yg e n

higher levels of anthocyanins and lower levels of tannins, so no MOX is used on these varietal wines. Dornfelder is made into a fruity and soft, easy drinking style. “With other reds in Germany with low levels of tannin and limited colour potential, such as Pinot Meunier, more than half are made using a thermovinification procedure. This is, however, different to the French flash détente technique, taking a softer approach with less focus on tannin extraction. The must is rapidly heated to 850C, maintained for two minutes at this temperature and cooled down in a heat exchanger with incoming must to 40°C. Prior to pressing, 4-12 hours of maceration is used to facilitate further extractions, accelerated by enzyme dosage. “Depending on the tannin-toanthocyanin ratio, we use 20-40g/HL tannins at the beginning of the alcoholic ferment. The tannins used are a 1:1 mixture of condensed and ellagic tannins. Immediately after completion of alcoholic fermentation, we start MOX with 10mg oxygen/L/month for quite a short period of 4-6 weeks. In the case of spontaneous MLF we pause MOX, then re-start oxygen delivery again two weeks after MLF is complete. These wines show much

higher colour density values, two or even three times higher than thermovinified wines without tannins and MOX.” Conclusions Utilising and manipulating oxygen during the winemaking process is a balancing act - too much oxygen could lead to oxidation, and too little oxygen could lead to reductive faults. Gaining a better understanding of when and how oxygen is introduced and interacts with must, juice or wine during the winemaking process will assist winemakers to not only avoid wine oxidation problems, but also to judiciously use, or not to use, oxygen to enhance the wine style that they are aiming to make. The effective management of oxygen during winemaking can help create diverse styles, attractive to a range of different consumers. Many approaches to oxygen management are currently being researched, but knowledge of oxygen management has predominantly been focussed on post-fermentation treatments such as MOX, the management of oxygen during bottling, and the effects of closure selection on post-bottling wine development.

W I NE M A K I N G

I will be one winemaker who will be looking forward to the updates on the AWRI’s research project over the next three years, and utilising the information to further improve the wine styles that I am making. References Day, M. (2012) How much oxygen gets into white wine must during grape processing? (Cuánto oxígeno penetra en el mosto de vino blanco durante el procesado de la uva?) Acenologia 132 (First published in the AWRI Technical Review No.189 Dec 2010). Gawel, R.; Schulkin, A.; Smith, P.A. and Waters, E.J. (2014) The effect of mixtures of caftaric acid and grape reaction product on the in-mouth sensory character of model wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20:25-30. Durner, D. and Fischer, U. (2011) Monitoring the oxygen uptake during different microoxygenation regimes applied in Pinot Noir. Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker 573:66-71. Durner, D.; Ganss, S. and Fischer, U. (2010) Monitoring oxygen uptake and consumption during micro-oxygenation treatments before and after malolactic fermentation. American Journal of Enology & Viticulture 61(4):465-473. Durner, D.; Weber, F.; Neddermeyer, J.; Koopmann, K.; Winterhalter, P. and Fischer, U. (2010) Sensory and colour changes induced by micro-oxygenation treatments of Pinot Noir before and after malolactic fermentation. American Journal of Enology & Viticulture 61(4): 474-485. Osicka, S. (2010) Press technology to reduce juice oxidation: Practical results from an industry trial. Proceedings of the 14th Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference, July 2010, Adelaide, South Australia. WVJ

The Disc

Fast and accurate results

Wine analysis with the Thermo Scientific range of Gallery and Arena Discrete Analysers • Compact design occupies small footprint and is fully self-contained.

Thermo Scie

• Flexible loading capacity up to 45 samples or 30 reagents simultaneously.

Automated, dis

• All necessary steps are automated, providing a walk-away time of up to two hours. • Up to 200 results per hour with automatic pre and post dilution capability.

For further information, please contact Kauri AUS Tel: 1800 127 611 AUS Fax: 1800 127 609 Email: winery@kauri.co.nz

V2 9N 4

NZ Tel: 0800 KAURIWINE NZ Fax: 04 910 7415 Website: www.kauriwine.com

• Full range of reagents and applications available.

Thermo Scientific Gallery Photometric Analyzer

Superior, compac industrial and env

Automation and ef

For more information on this product, contact us on 1800 333 110 or visit our website at www.thermofisher.com.au

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

for food and b www.winebiz. com . au

21


W I NE M A K I N G

O A K alt e r n ativ e s

Australian winemakers’ views towards oak barrel alternatives matures By Mark O’Callaghan, Senior Consultant & Director, Wine Network Consulting, Healesville, Victoria 3777 Email: mocallaghan@winenet.com.au

Mark O’Callaghan, former senior winemaker and winery manager for the Accolade-owned Yarra Burn in Victoria’s Yarra Valley and now consultant and director with Wine Network Consulting, spoke to wine producers, oak product suppliers and wine reviewers to provide an overview of the Australian wine industry’s use of oak barrel alternatives.

I

t is probably fair to suggest that for most of us in the world of winemaking, the use of oak barrel alternatives is not one of the more energising or romantic aspects of our days’ work. Nor are they what seduced us all away from more lucrative careers elsewhere. Also, one suspects that a beautifully lit barrel hall is a better image for brand building than a store room with bags of chips and planks on the shelves. The reality, however, is that most of the wine sold and enjoyed at the dinner table, at least here in Australia, has been made using oak barrel alternatives. This article takes a look at why, where and how wineries are using them and how this has evolved by drawing on the views and experience of wine reviewers, suppliers and winemakers. Cost constraints and quality – are they mutually exclusive?

It came as no surprise that when asked why they used alternatives, all the winemakers interviewed for this article mentioned cost constraints. As always with the good houses, however, the thinking goes deeper than that. To remind ourselves of the economics of production, Figure 1, while limited to

Figure 1. Australian bottled table wine sales MAT to December 2013. Based on figures in ‘Nielsen Bottled Table Wine Market Update - Off-premise Bottled Red & White Wine Sales to December 2013’. Nielsen scan data, sheds some light on still table wine sales in the Australian off-trade. Clearly, Figure 1 is not a comprehensive dissection of the Australian wine market but the salient point is that of the scan data, approximately 94% of bottled still table wine is sold for $20 or less. When discussing the sensitive matter of price with winemakers and suppliers, it

was the $20-25 (RRP) range that was consistently the tipping point, i.e., barrels are usually unviable below this point in Australia. The suppliers contacted for this piece all knew of (anonymous) examples of $40-50 red wines made without barrels, including one from a house at which “…they haven’t had a barrel in the place for 10 years!” This brings us to the question of quality – how have the wines in what we

...when ...when tradition tradition meets meets the t highest standard of quality... Family owned and enriched by the history and experience of three generations of coopers Saint Martin is used by the highest quality references overseas and the finest wines in Australasia. Garry King Director Australasia E gking@saintmartin.com.au M +61 (0)439 766 777 T +61 (0)8 8358 5657 F +61 (0)8 8358 5658

www.tonnelleriesaintmartin.com

22

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


O A K alt e r n ativ e s

might call the ‘alternative range’ evolved over the last 10 years? Wine writer and judge Tyson Stelzer is overwhelmingly positive about this group. “To my taste, the improvement in the last 10 years has been extraordinary. There was a time when these wines (made with alternatives) really stood out. Now, if it’s done well, when comparing a good adjunct solution to a mid-range barrel, who would know the difference? “I’ve got single vineyard red wines in my cellar that I bought for $10. I have since found out that some of them were made using adjuncts but they are ageing beautifully. There is still a role for older barrels in cheaper wines and the truth is you are never going to use a cheap alternative to replace the texture of a great barrel. However, I’m finding some fabulous wines in that range. In fact, I’m often giving higher scores to some houses’ cheaper wines because they are not over-oaked or overripe. I’m much more critical of too much oak than too little.” Widely known in the wine world as a great communicator, wine judge and director of Bottle Shop Concepts Dan Sims has noticed the same trend. “Yes, I do think things have improved with the use of oak. I think the wine show system is seeing this as well. No more massively oaken, overripe wines. They’re more about integration and quality of fruit. I buy wine when I buy a bottle, not a lump of wood. If I wanted that, I’d go lick a tree – it’s cheaper!” The improvement in the balance of these wines, from an oak perspective at least, seems to be driven by thoughtful and sensitive use, together with improved quality of the alternatives. Tom Newton, senior winemaker at Accolade, said he’d noticed that the material available was “much better than it was 10 years ago. Back then, they were more sappy, with timbery, rustic flavours. Now they are much sweeter…quite a lot of refined material out there.” I spoke to another well-known winemaker on the subject of oak barrel alternatives who requested he remain anonymous, so from here on shall be referred to as Max Power. Power’s request for anonymity is no doubt indicative of the stigma that still surrounds the use of alternatives in the industry. “The brand managers worry a little about techniques like this being misinterpreted or misunderstood. You know, like some kind of ‘Frankenwien’, rather than the conventional winemaker image. At the risk of sounding a bit patronising, I just don’t think the public, or even some trade, are ready for that yet. A few years ago, a guy I know V2 9N 4

W I NE M A K I N G

Oak staves cut and drilled for use in stainless steel holding racks inserted inside a tank.

Oak dominoes, designed for the maturation of medium to premium range wines. admitted to using chips in a $25 wine at a trade event - you could’ve heard a pin drop and he was almost lynched!” However, Power agrees that the quality of alternatives and the wines made using them has improved. “I reckon when we first started, the flavour was very different. Now they actually taste and feel like they have been in barrel – much more genuine.” In terms of the production of alternatives, this has undergone a complete overhaul and Hamish Black from Classic Oak is adamant: “Certainly over the last five years we have seen much more competition. It’s ferocious, but it has been a great positive for quality. Wood selection is certainly one of the things that has changed. To a certain extent, they are still made using offcuts but the big difference is that they are properly seasoned, these days a minimum of 24 months”. Black added, “the good producers now have sites that are purpose-built for alternatives, so you see features like a range of toasting, from fire, to convection, to infra-red”. Nick Wickham, general manager of Diverse Barrel Solutions, agrees and adds that even for the best grade oak powder, “it’s heat-treated but not toasted and made using the same wood as the barrels – from offcuts, to sanding and cutting the croze; the base material is the best”. Application – how are they used? To build on the improvements in quality of alternatives, the way in which they are used today is much more W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

considered, balanced and sympathetic to the fruit and house style. Max Power is adamant that the use of alternatives is not entirely about affordability. “Just like an addition, we have used untoasted bags of cubes to improve mouthfeel without oak flavour and that is fabulous. Apparently, they can do something for colour but really – who knows? Or cares? That’s not why we use them.” In terms of length of maturation, Power does not exceed a total of nine months. After that, they go to the pizza oven, and this was similar to the feedback from the other winemakers interviewed. Tom Newton likes the results from longer maturation at lower rates of tank staves but that is not always possible. The other consistent feedback from winemakers is that, all things being equal, earlier integration is better. From oak powders added at crushing, to finishing red ferments on light rates of staves, to finishing malolactic (or MLF) ‘on’ oak – the integration is generally better when added earlier. Interestingly, one aspect of managing barrel alternatives that varied widely amongst interviewees was microoxygenation (MOX). Nick Wickham said his observations around many wineries suggested the use of MOX may be dropping. “I see a lot of MOX units covered in cobwebs. What I’m noticing is more people just using oxidative handling, say, when racking reds”. Tom Newton says Accolade has cut back a little compared with a few www.winebiz. com . au

23


W I NE M A K I N G

O A K alt e r n ativ e s

years ago but it is still important, while Max Power, whose portfolio includes a fantastic affordable range that uses alternatives, is still a fan. “With reds before malo we will use 10-20ml/L/month [of oxygen], then turn it off once malo starts, going back to 2-5ml/L/month after that. The aim is to replicate a barrel and stop it going ‘tanky’.” A simple summary of the options available for using alternatives underscores how many different combinations of features are available to winemakers today: • supplier/brand • type – stave, block/domino, chip, powder • timing – crusher, end of primary ferment, pre-malo, post-malo, pre-bottling • MOX – yes/no • toast level. Even from this rudimentary list, if one assumed only three toasting levels and six different suppliers, there could be at least 700 permutations even before considering the rate of use. One consideration that is rarely discussed but could use a little more thought is the role of microbiology and oak. An observation from Max Power

may be useful to wineries that are still battling Brettanomyces in their cellars: “It’s funny, isn’t it? Our more expensive wines are matured in barrel, so even with no 4EP, they will sometimes test positive for Brett on the micro-test, so we sterile filter them. In contrast, our reds that use the alternatives at. They never test positive, so we can always bottle unfiltered – safely!”

equivalent of 25% ‘new oak’, we use the manufacturers’ recommendations for 12.5%.” All of this simply means that there is certainly no magic formula and refining the management of alternatives is an ongoing, complex aspect of balance and house style.

Units of Measure

Here is some salient feedback from a premium oak supplier which reminds us all of the enduring truism that you still only get what you pay for. Certainly, competition has pushed the rising tide that has lifted all ships in terms of quality but it still varies from supplier to supplier. Noted the supplier from its negotiations with a major commercial winery: “The bean counters came in and told them to cut the COGS by a certain dollar figure. They went for cheaper oak adjuncts and overnight, their scores fell, reviews dropped off and sales slumped. Once that happens business recovery is almost impossible, at least in the short term.”

Another interesting aspect that relates to balance and how much oak is used is the unit of measure, i.e., how does one compare or benchmark between alternatives and the effect of barrels? The most common methods include grams per litre, percentage of barrique surface area, square metres per kilolitre (KL) and staves per kL. It can be a little frustrating to try to compare apples with oranges, but many of the suppliers provide calculators to convert to an approximation of a barrique effect. On the topic from one winemaker: “We usually go with the manufacturers’ guides and that varies, but mostly it’s percentage surface area. We take their guides and then trim them by 50%. So, if we want the

Leaders in the Design and Manufacture of Wine Making Equipment

And finally…

Disclosure Diverse Barrel Solutions is a client WVJ of Wine Network Consulting.

Products and Services

MOBILE FILTRATION SERVICE Using gentle, pressure controlled filtering, we can filter wines in a single pass. Even small batches from 1000litres, saving time and wine losses. Please email, or call us today for a quotation, or booking.

Taylors Engineering (Blenheim) Limited Liverpool St Riverlands Estate Blenheim Contact: Conway Taylor (03) 579 4783 ddi Email: sales@taylormadenz.com Visit our new website: www.taylormadenz.com

24

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

PHONE 1300 360 353 info@vinvicta.com www.vinvicta.com

2/19 Macquarie Drive THOMASTOWN Vic 3074

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


S parkli n g wi n e

W I NE M A K I N G

What a robot can tell you about the quality of your sparkling wine: share a glass with FIZZeye-Robot By Sigfredo Fuentes1*, Bruna Condé1, Maeva Caron2, Sonja Needs1, Bart Tesselaar3, Jeffrey Hollingworth3, Daniel Fraser3, Richard Collmann3 and Kate Howell1 1 Melbourne School of Land and Environment, The University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Victoria, Australia. 2 Université de Toulouse, ENSAT-INPT, BP 32607 31326, Castanet, France. 3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Victoria, Australia. * Corresponding author: sfuentes@unimelb.edu.au

A robotic system has been developed to assess sparkling wine foam and bubble characteristics – an important factor in sparkling wine quality – proving its worthiness as a tool for both winemakers and wine judges. INTRODUCTION

T

he term ‘quality’ in wine has not been objectively defined. The difficulty in obtaining a specific definition resides in the fact that the perception of wine quality varies among people from different regions of the world, generations, wine styles (Grainger 2009) and the level of wine involvement and expertise of consumers (Charters and Pettigrew 2007). Furthermore, sparkling wine is usually considered harder to evaluate than other wines, since its consumption is associated with celebration events, which may increase the difficulties in assessing this wine style objectively. Drinkers with low involvement in wine appreciation find it even harder to evaluate sparkling wine when compared with wine connoisseurs (Charters 2005). The quality of sparkling wine is currently assessed, among other sensory properties, by its foam and bubble behaviour. Therefore, pouring a glass of sparkling wine and looking at the foam dynamics of bubble formation and persistence are the first sensory metrics commonly performed by consumers and trained sensory panels for quality assessment. Bubbles are formed once the bottle is opened, as gaseous carbon dioxide escape from solution. The bubbles are judged according to their size and the collar formation (Liger-Belair 2013). Wine quality is officially assessed in wine shows and wine magazines by a trained panel of judges. This process is fundamentally subjective, since it is based on the variability of the sensory perception among people, which makes wine sensory evaluation often dissimilar, even within the same panel. Formation of foam and stability of bubbles in sparkling wine is intimately related to the chemical composition of the wine, which is a product of the method used in the sparkling wine manufacture. This method is called Method Champenoise or Methode Traditionelle and comprises six major steps: i) first alcoholic fermentantion; ii) blending; iii) second fermentation (also known as prise de mousse); iv) ageing; v) riddling and disgorging; and vi) dosage. What essentially differentiates sparkling wine from still wines is the effervescence and foam formation. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced by yeast during prise de mousse and maintained inside the bottle up until wine consumption. Mannoproteins, which are released from the yeast cell wall during winemaking, have been shown to increase the body, sweetness, roundness and mouthfeel of sparkling wines, retain aroma compounds, reduce astringency and improve the foaming properties of sparkling wines (Alexandre and Guilloux-

V2 9N 4

Benatier 2006). Wine evaluation is commonly performed by winemakers at the wine production and blending stages (Langstaff and Kilcast 2010). In this paper, we discuss the development and results from a prototype automated procedure to assess sparkling wine foam and bubble characteristics using a robotic pourer (FIZZeyeRobot) coupled with digital cameras and automated image analysis techniques. Digital images were analysed using a semiautomated and automated computational method developed in Matlab® (Mathworks Inc., Matick, Massachusetts, USA) to obtain morphometric characteristics of the foam formed in the glass,

Australia & New Zealand Leading Industry Directory

IN PRINT & ONLINE • 7,000 Industry listings • 9,000 Personnel • 3,100 Wineries • 4,800 Wine brands • 1,500 Grapegrowers • 2,200 Buyers’ guide listings • 280 Distributors & retailers • 180 Writers & media PLUS

+ Statistics + 2014 Overview + Calendar of events + Wineshows + Courses + Organisations

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

NEW 2014! & account listings To order your copy: Ph: +618 8369 9509 E: orders@winetitles.com.au Visit: www.winebiz.com.au

www.winebiz. com . au

25


W I NE M A K I N G

S parkli n g wi n e

and foam and collar stability in time. Data from image analyses were contrasted with more established methods, such as judging panels and chemical analysis in the laboratory, to assess wine quality traits. Results have shown that the automated pouring and image analysis method offers a rapid and cost-effective sensor technology to obtain parameters of foam and bubble dynamics that can be related to quality attributes of sparkling wine, specifically to foam stability and estimative protein content. This methodology was developed within The Vineyard of The Future initiative. A video of the pourer in action can be seen at www. vineyardofthefuture.wordpress.com. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Table 1. Sparkling wines used for the study. Wines were selected based on price, vinification method and origin. Wine

Method

Label

Tirage time (months)

1

Transfer

T2

24+

2

Champenoise

C2

24+

3

Champenoise

C2

24+

4

Champenoise

C2

24+

5

Transfer

T1

9-22

6

Champenoise

C1

9-22

7

Champenoise

C2

24+

8

Champenoise

C2

24+

9

Champenoise

C1

9-22

10

Champenoise

C1

9-22

11

Champenoise

C1

9-22

Sparkling wine material Random selections of 11 wines from 25 wines sampled using the robotic pourer at the 2013 Royal Melbourne Wine Show were used for this research. All sparkling wines were produced in Australia. Robotic pourer description A robotic pourer (FIZZeye-Robot) was designed and constructed to normalise the pouring in standard glasses. The pourer consisted of a chamber to hold the wine bottle, which was lifted by an electrically powered motor with a lift capacity of five kilograms (Figure 1). The lifting mechanism was controlled using an Arduino® Uno mini programmable board (Arduino Inc., Rome, Italy). This program allows controlling the pouring, either manually or automatically, by activating a switch. The automated pouring can be calibrated to the original position for the bottle and then allowed to be tilted up to a 30o angle from vertical. By pressing the controlling button, a first pour of 50mL of wine is delivered to the glass. If pressed again, a second pour of 50mL is delivered. The specific bottle size and mass can be entered into the Arduino program to increase the accuracy of the pour. This paper describes the image analysis of foam formation and stability for only the first pouring per sparkling wine bottle. Glass material and standardisation The shape of the glass influences the losses of dissolved CO2 (Liger-Belair et al. 2012). Therefore, to avoid glass variations, international standard wine tasting glasses (ISO wine glass) were used. The glasses used were Luigi Bormioli ISO wine tasting glasses. The glass dimensions are: rim diameter 46mm, height 155mm, volume 220mL. Moreover, cellulose fibers present in glass are the main origin of nucleation sites which create bubbles in the glasses,

26

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the robotic pourer (FIZZeye-Robot) and the image analysis technique using Matlab®.

Image capture and analysis Images from the glass were captured at a rate of one per 0.5 seconds using an IPEVO View 2 camera (IPEVO, Sunnyvale, California, USA). The camera was connected directly to a laptop computer and images were captured automatically using the Image Acquisition Toolbox® from Matlab. The main aspects of foam that need to be evaluated are its ability

to form in the glass (foamability) and its stability (Prud’homme and Khan 1996). Several parameters were evaluated automatically in order to assess foamability and foam stability. Those parameters were evaluated by using image analysis algorithms developed using Matlab, ver. 2013b (Mathworks, Inc, Matick. MA, USA). The images were analysed semi-automatically by selecting the foam limits (top and bottom) to account for foam and wine volumes using the normalised algorithm developed for the standardised glass: the algorithm transforms the set of pixels obtained by the line corresponding to the height of the foam, for a particular image, into volume of foam. For each set of images, one picture was captured every half a second. The automated procedure recognises the boundaries of the foam and extracts metrics from this region of interest (ROI). The plotted values of the volume of foam (mL) versus time (seconds) are obtained from the data extracted (Figure 2, see page 28). The graphs obtained were subsequently used to estimate the values for the foam parameters automatically (Table 2).

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4

presenting natural effervescence (LigerBelair et al. 2007). Thus, the glasses were etched to provide a continuous flow of bubbles and avoid random bubbling nucleation. The glasses were washed at 45oC for 30 minutes and blow-dried in a dishwasher (Bosch Group, Stuttgart, Germany). The etching and glass washing technique was performed in order to standardise the effervescence process in the experiment. Dimensions and volumetric content of the standard glass were mathematically standardised and incorporated in the customised code to assess foam morphometrics and volume automatically from image analysis, regardless of the camera used or its position.


S parkli n g wi n e

W I NE M A K I N G

Foam parameters obtained The following is a short description for each parameter calculated (Table 2): • Foam volume (Vf): represents the maximum volume of foam formed, in mL (Figure 2). • Average foam lifetime (Lf): (Robillard et al. 1993), represents the average lifetime duration of foam, in seconds. It was calculated by dividing the area A (Figure 2) by Vf; where Vf is the maximum volume reached by the foam; t1 is the time taken to reach the maximum volume of foam; Ft is the duration time of the foam; A is the area below the curve of the graph foam volume versus time (Figure 2). •F  oam height (Fh): represents the maximum height reached by the foam, in mm (Figure 2). • Foam time (Ft): represents the duration of time of the foam, before forming the collar, in seconds. •F  oam velocity (Fv): represents the velocity of dissipation of foam (Cilindre et al. 2010). It was obtained from the derivative of the function representing foam height versus time, limited by the time t1 to Ft, where t1 is the time corresponding to reach the maximum volume of foam and Ft is the duration time of the foam (Figure 2). •C  ollar velocity (Cv): represents the velocity of dissipation of the collar (Cilindre et al. 2010). It was obtained from a derivative of the function representing foam height vs. seconds, limited by the period of time Ft to tc, where Ft is the duration time of the foam; tc was the time corresponding to reach zero mm of collar, or a value of 300 seconds was used when a collar was still present (Figure 2). •D  rainability (Dr): represents the ability of the liquid present in the foam to flow away from the foam (Burapatana et al. 2003). The drainability was calculated by the derivative of the function representing volume of wine in the foam versus time (Figure 3), where vw is the volume of wine in the foam; t1 is the time corresponding to reach the maximum volume of foam; Ft is the duration time of the foam. •V  elocity of CO2 escape (CO2v): represents the velocity, which CO2 present in the foam escapes after bubble burst. It was calculated by the derivative of the function representing volume of CO2 in the foam (vCO2) versus time (Figure 3). The volume of CO2 in the foam is calculated by subtracting the volume of wine in the foam (vw), from the volume of foam (vf). •S  mall bubbles (Sb): represents the count of small bubbles (diameter of 8-9, in pixels) in the foam. In order to calculate Sb a new algorithm was developed in Matlab to quantify bubbles in a section of the glass at the maximum foam formation (Figure 4). Using a derivative of the generalised ‘Hough Transformation’ algorithm, it is possible to segment the images to find boundaries for each bubble in the ROI selected. All bubbles are Table 2. Foam and collar parameters obtained automatically from image analysis for different sparkling wines. Parameters

Name

Abbreviation

1

Foam volume

Vf

2

Foam average lifetime

Lf

3

Foam height

Fh

4

Foam time

Ft

V2 9N 4

5

Foam velocity

Fv

6

Collar velocity

Cv

7

Drainability

Dr

8

Velocity of CO2 escape

CO2v

9

Small bubbles

Sb

For further information, please contact Kauri NZ Tel: 0800 KAURIWINE NZ Fax: 04 910 7415 Email: winery@kauri.co.nz

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

AUS Tel: 1800 127 611 AUS Fax: 1800 127 609 Website: www.kauriwine.com

www.winebiz. com . au

27


W I NE M A K I N G

S parkli n g wi n e

Figure 2. Maximum volume reached by the foam was denoted by Vf; t1 is the time required to reach the maximum volume of foam for a specific wine; Ft corresponds to the duration time of the foam; tc is the time corresponding to reach zero mm of collar height (a maximum value of 300 seconds was used when a collar was still present); A corresponds to the area below the curve.

a

b

Figure 4. Illustrative process used to quantify the percentage of small bubbles present in the foam. First, a section of foam is selected at the image corresponding to the peak of foam formation (a); subsequently, bubbles are detected from the segmented image; finally, a histogram shows the number of bubbles according to their diameter in pixels (b). quantified according to their diameter (in pixels). A histogram shows the number of bubbles according to their diameter. After detecting the number of small bubbles (diameter of 8-9, in pixels) for the selected section, this number was divided by the maximum volume of foam, in order to obtain an index of bubbles per volume. Wine protein content assessment Samples of 10mL from the 11 sparkling wines selected for this study were obtained after the pouring and image analysis. These samples were stored in a cooler with ice until the laboratory analysis. The protein concentration of different sparkling wines was determined by the bicinchoninic acid (BCA) method using the Pierceâ&#x201E;˘ BCA Protein Assay Kit (Thermoscientific, Rockford, Illinois, USA). Bovine serum albumin (BSA) was provided by the manufacturer and used as standard. The samples were ultra-filtered previously to remove non-protein, BCA interfering compounds, as previously done by Smith et al. 2011. Absorbance was determined at 562nm and corrected by sample blanks. The wine protein content was the average of three independent measurements, expressed in mg L-1 equivalent to BSA. Statistical analysis Multivariate analysis using principal component analysis (PCA) was used to obtain a hierarchy of variables analysed

28

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

Figure 3. Volume of wine in the foam versus time; and volume of CO2 in the foam versus time from a single pouring. The maximum volume of foam is represented by Vf, t1 represents the time corresponding to reach the maximum volume of foam, vCO2 is the volume of CO2 in the foam, vw is the volume of wine in the foam. The equation y=ax2+bx+c denotes the relationship between volume of both CO2 and wine versus time is a polynomial of second order.

Figure 5. Principal component analysis of 11 wines (Table 1) showing the cluster analysis and linkage between wines (a), score plot showing distribution of wines (b), loadings of different factors or variables (c) and the percentage of variability explained by different PCs. (d) Abbreviations of parameters from FIZZeye-Robot: CO2v = fraction of volume of CO2 in the foam; Fv = velocity of dissipation of foam; Dr = drainability; CO2v = velocity of CO2 loss from foam; Vf = volume of foam; Cv = collar velocity; Lf = average foam lifetime; Sb = small bubble fraction in foam. Parameters from chemometrics: pH = acidity of wines; TA = titratable acidity of wines; Protein = protein content of wines. Parameter from sensory: score = score giving by judges with a maximum of 100 points. (descriptors). The aim was to find patterns in the data and to classify any combination of variables that could explain the links between descriptors and any other parameters obtained from the automated sensory analysis recognition described above. For this purpose, a customised code using Matlab and the Statistical ToolboxÂŽ was created to analyse the data. Results from this code rendered graphs of the projection of variables on the factor plane obtained by the PCA (correlation loadings) and score plots. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS According to the data analysis, there were two main clusters of sparkling wines separated at a linkage distance of around 105 (Figure 5a). The top cluster corresponds to wines with high protein content, collar stability, average life of foam, higher score and small bubbles. The bottom cluster was characterised

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


S parkli n g wi n e

W I NE M A K I N G

by higher drainability, high foam velocity, higher CO2 velocity loss, less protein content and less score by judges. From Figure 5b it can be seen that the winemaking method with higher protein content was Champenoise C2 (tirage time of more than 24 months), which can be explained by the contribution of soluble proteins probably originating from yeast, since these wines had more time in contact with lees. The FIZZeye-Robot descriptors and the judge’s scores, which separated two mayor clusters of sparkling wines in the x-axis, dominated the PC 1. On the contrary, PC 2 was dominated by factors from the chemometric analysis (Figure 5c). This same graph shows a correlation between the average life of foam, the score given by judges and the collar stability of sparkling wines. These factors were inversely correlated to the CO2 velocity. The total variability explained by the PCs was 67%, with PC 1 = 47% and PC 2 = 20% (Figure 5d). CONCLUSIONS The FIZZeye-Robot performance demonstrated that this method offers a cost effective, replicable and rapid assessment of foam properties and bubble metrics of sparkling wines. The total cost of working parts to construct the robotic system is equivalent to the cost of a single protein assay kit that is able to analyse 250 normal samples (or standards) without replication to get one parameter (protein content). The FIZZeye-Robot does not require any extra consumables and there are no extra costs for replication associated with the system. Results from the robotic pourer were comparable to chemometrics and sensory panels conformed by professional judges. This technique can offer real time repeatable data that can be used by wineries to assess, for example, optimum tirage time, which can considerably reduce the time to make sparkling wine available to consumers, maximising product turnover and profits for wineries. REFERENCES Alexandre, H. and Guilloux-Benatier, M. (2006) Yeast autolysis in sparkling wine – a review. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 12(2): 119-127. Burapatana, V.; Butler, E.; Chauhan, G.; Hartig, S.; Kincaid, H.; Wang, T.; Samsudin, S. and Tanner, R. (2003) Effect of lidocaine on ovalbumin and egg albumin foam stability. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 108(1-3):905-911. Charters, S. (2005) Drinking sparkling wine: An exploratory investigation. International Journal of Wine Marketing 17(1):54-68,2. Charters, S. and Pettigrew, S. (2007) The dimensions of wine quality. Food Quality and Preference 18(7):997-1007. Cilindre, C.; Liger-Belair, G.; Villaume, S.; Jeandet, P. and Marchal, R. (2010) Foaming properties of various Champagne wines depending on several parameters: grape variety, ageing, protein and CO2 content. Anal Chim Acta. 660(12):164-70. Grainger, K. (2009) Wine quality [electronic resource]: tasting and selection. EBL. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Langstaff, S. and Kilcast, D. (2010) Sensory quality control in the wine industry. Sensory analysis for food and beverage quality control: a practical guide 236-261. Liger-Belair, G. (2013) Uncorked: The Science of Champagne (Revised Edition). Liger-Belair, G.; Beaumont, F.; Jeandet, P. and Polidori, G. (2007) Flow patterns of bubble nucleation sites (called fliers) freely floating in Champagne glasses. Langmuir 23(22):10,976-10,983. Liger-Belair, G.; Polidori, G. and Zeninari, V. (2012) Unraveling the evolving nature of gaseous and dissolved carbon dioxide in champagne wines: a stateof-the-art review, from the bottle to the tasting glass. Analytica Chimica Acta 732:1-15. Prud’homme, R.K. and Khan, S.A. (1996) Foams: theory, measurements, and applications. Edited by Robert K. Prud’homme, Saad A. Khan. Surfactant science series: v. 57. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. c1996. Robillard, B.; Delpuech, E.; Viaux, L.; Malvy, J.; Vignes-Adler, M. and Duteurtre, B. (1993) Improvements of methods for sparkling base wine foam measurements and effect of wine filtration on foam behaviour. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 44(4):387-392. Smith, M.R.; Penner, M.H.; Bennett, S.E. and Bakalinsky, A.T. (2011) Quantitative colorimetric assay for total protein applied to the red wine Pinot Noir. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 59(13):6871-6876. V2 9N 4

For further information, please contact Kauri NZ Tel: 0800 KAURIWINE NZ Fax: 04 910 7415 Email: winery@kauri.co.nz

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

AUS Tel: 1800 127 611 AUS Fax: 1800 127 609 Website: www.kauriwine.com

www.winebiz. com . au

29


wi n e maki n g

M I NE R A L I T Y

Perceived minerality in wine: a sensory reality? By Jordi Ballester1,2*, Mihaela Mihnea1, Dominique Peyron1,2 and Dominique Valentin1,3 1 Centre des Sciences du Goût et de l’Alimentation, 15 rue Hugues Picardet, 21000 Dijon, France. 2 IUVV Jules Guyot, Université de Bourgogne, 1 rue Claude Ladrey, 21078 Dijon, France 3 AGROSUP Dijon, 1 Esplanade Erasme, 21000 Dijon, France. * E-mail: jordi.ballester@u-bourgogne.fr

Sensorially judging minerality in wine has divided wine experts in blind tasting conditions. INTRODUCTION

I

n 2009, Sally Easton MW published a fascinating article on the trendiest wine descriptor of the beginning of the 21st century: minerality. The use of this descriptor, or its variant ‘mineral’, in wine guides or on back labels of wine bottles has skyrocketed in the last decade. International wine journalist Cees van Casteren recently reported that the descriptors mineral and minerality appeared twice as often as the descriptor fruity in a corpus of 259,000 reviews on www.winespectator.com

PRINT & ONLINE

Essential reading for wine industry professionals. Covering vine to market. Subscribe today at www.winebiz.com.au/wvj 630 Regency Road Broadview South Australia 5083 www.winebiz.com.au

30

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

Our study aimed to investigate whether wine experts shared the same representation of the concept of minerality. Does that mean that the taste of wine has changed worldwide in a few years? This is not likely. The current infatuation with minerality looks more like a sociological phenomenon, rather than a viticultural or oenological revolution. Paradoxically, there is a distinct lack of experimental data and scientific publications on this topic, with little clarity as to precisely what the descriptor means to wine professionals or consumers. This contrast between the ubiquity of minerality and the lack of consensual definition explains why some people have become sceptical with regard to this descriptor. One of the main difficulties is that minerality seems to be a multimodal descriptor (i.e., combines different sensory modalities like aroma, taste and touch). According to a number of wine guides and writers, minerality is linked sometimes to aromas (gunflint, oysters, iodine, smoky...), to tastes (sourness, saltiness, bitterness) or to more tactile sensations (chalky). Moreover, minerality is often expressed by metaphors like ‘crystalline minerality’, ‘mineral purity’ or ‘mineral tension’. Minerality is often associated with terroir, in terms of soil and climate. Although most people, whatever their expertise level, use or understand minerality in an analogical way, a small number of winemakers and wine writers claim actively that wine minerality is the sensory result of mineral salts present in the wine and come directly from the minerals of the soil. Unfortunately, as far as we know, no scientific study supports their claim by significantly linking a specific type of soil to a high level of perceived minerality in the resulting wines. According to geologist Alex Maltman (Maltman 2013) it is rather unlikely that such a direct link between soils and other aspects of vineyard geology (e.g., stones; fossils) and perception of mineral characteristics in wine exists. Other researchers suggest that minerality could result from volatile compounds and be defined basically through smell. For instance, Tominaga et al. (2003) showed that a sulfur compound, the benzenemethanethiol, was responsible for the gunflint notes of a number of wines, in particular for Sauvignon Blanc and Chardonnay. In summary, different sources report minerality as being either an aroma or a purely palate experience, while other sources seem to claim that minerality is a combination of both.

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


M I NE R A L I T Y

wi n e maki n g

A published study of sensory characteristics of New Zealand and French Sauvignon Blanc wines (Parr, Green, White and Sherlock 2007) showed that, among 10 descriptors employed to describe Sauvignon Blanc aroma and flavour intensity, ‘mineral’ was the only descriptor to show separate sensory expression when judged by nose alone and when judged by palate. Our study aimed to investigate whether wine experts shared the same representation of the concept of minerality. Our approach was twofold. First, we evaluated the agreement among winemakers when assessing minerality intensity in a blind wine. In order to gain insight into which sensory modality is the most appropriate to assess minerality, the minerality assessments were performed under two separate conditions: orthonasal condition after swirling the wine in the glass, and palate condition when wearing a nose-clip in order to prevent the perception of retronasal aroma. Secondly, we asked the same wine experts to give us their own definition of minerality and to indicate how they assess wine minerality: by nose only, in mouth, or both. The combination of these two tasks allowed comparing experts’ mental representation of minerality with their actual sensory minerality assessment of the samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS The wines The researchers selected 16 Chardonnay wines from Burgundy according to their descriptions in wine guides and producers’ websites (Table 1). Half of them were explicitly described as mineral while, for the other half, minerality was not mentioned in the descriptions. This a priori characterisation was not taken for granted; it was just a way to increase the likelihood of having a sample set showing differences in minerality (Table 1). Code

Sub-region

Vintage

V1

Montagny *

2008

V2

Chablis *

2008

V3

Montagny 1er Cru*

2008

V4

Petit Chablis*

2007

V5

Chablis*

2009

V6

Saint-Véran*

2009

V7

Chablis*

2009

V8

Petit Chablis*

2009

V9

Chablis 1er Cru

2008

V10

Mâcon

2008

V11

Bourgogne

2009

V12

Bourgogne

2009

V13

Saint-Véran

2009

V14

Petit Chablis

2009

V15

Viré-Clessé

2009

V16

Mâcon-Fuissé

2009

List of the wines used in the study with their codes, regions, and vintages (*wine a priori described as mineral). The panels Two different panels participated in this study: an expert panel and a trained descriptive panel. The expert panel consisted of 34 wine experts from all around Burgundy (all V2 9N 4

For further information, please contact Kauri NZ Tel: 0800 KAURIWINE NZ Fax: 04 910 7415 Email: winery@kauri.co.nz

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

AUS Tel: 1800 127 611 AUS Fax: 1800 127 609 Website: www.kauriwine.com

www.winebiz. com . au

31


wi n e maki n g

M I NE R A L I T Y

The wine aroma description was performed using a method adapted from the frequency of citation method proposed by Campo and co-workers (2010). The trained panellists had to smell each sample and check on a list of descriptors the ones they thought described best the odour of the sample. They were then asked to rate the intensity of sweetness, acidity, bitterness and alcohol burn using sixpoint structured scales anchored at the endpoints with the terms ‘absence’ on the left end and ‘very intense’ on the right end. Figure 1. List of the most relevant words collected in the definition task and their frequencies.

Figure 2. Wines minerality average scores computed for each expert cluster in the orthonasal condition (coded OC1, OC2 and OC3).

Figure 3. Minerality average scores for each experts cluster for the nose-clip condition (coded NCC1, NCC2 and NCC3). participants were experienced with the production and tasting of Chardonnay wines). The trained panel consisted of 33 panellists (18 females and 15 males). A dozen of them had previous experience of sensory evaluation of wines. Procedure Wines were presented at room temperature, in black ISO glasses identified only by random three-digit codes. The poured volume per sample was 25mL. Samples were presented according to a Williams Latin Square (McFie et al. 1986). Evian water and unsalted crackers were available for palate rinsing. Participants were asked not to swallow the samples, but to expectorate in wine spittoons. All

32

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

sessions were conducted in ventilated rooms and in individual booths to prevent communication between assessors. The experts were first asked to rate the mineral character of the wines orthonasally after swirling the wine in the glass, on a 10-point structured scale anchored at the endpoints with ‘absence’ and ‘very strong’. Afterwards, wine experts assessed again the mineral character of the wines, presented in a different order and with different codes, this time on the palate while wearing a nose clip. At the end of the tasting experts filled out a questionnaire in which they were asked to indicate how they assess minerality (nose, palate or both) and to provide a short definition of minerality. W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

RESULTS Verbal definitions of minerality We analysed experts’ verbal definitions of minerality by computing the frequency of citation of the words and expressions elicited. Figure 1 show the words cited more than twice by the expert panel. The relative diversity of the elicited words could lead to the conclusion that there is no consensus at all on the definitions of minerality. However, if we consider the semantic relationships between words, we can easily notice that 53% of the cited words can be related only to three semantic fields which could be the main sub-components of wine minerality; 21% stone-related terms (in grey), 17% acidity-related terms (in yellow) and 15% seashore-related terms (in green). Therefore, we can conclude that experts share a common representation of minerality but that this common representation might be expressed differently by different experts. Sensory minerality ratings In order to explore the consensus between experts in the way they perceived minerality in wine, we performed a principal component analysis (PCA) on the raw minerality scores for each condition (orthonasal and nose-clip). Then, PC1 and PC2 coordinates of the experts were submitted to a hierarchical cluster analysis (CHA). The CHA performed on the orthonasal assessment yielded three clusters of experts that represented three different ways of rating wine minerality on the nose. The three different ways to evaluate minerality are illustrated in Figure 2. By looking at this figure we can see that wines judged the most and the least mineral on the nose were different for each cluster. Moreover, no significant correlation was found between the three clusters of experts. This result suggests V29N4


M I NE R A L I T Y

that there is not one consensual way of rating minerality among the experts, but three, which could correspond to three different sensory representations of wine minerality on the nose. The same statistical approach was used for the nose-clip condition and again three clusters of experts emerged from the HCA. Again, strong disagreement was found between clusters (Figure 3). Interestingly, the composition of the clusters was quite different between the two evaluation conditions: Experts who clustered for the orthonasal condition did not necessarily cluster for the noseclip condition. Moreover, no significant correlation was found between individual expert orthonasal and palate minerality assessment. This lack of correlations suggests that both judgments are quite independent. Yet, it is difficult at this point to conclude on the existence of two separate minerality concepts (on the nose and on the palate) or a unique one combining olfactory, taste and mouthfeel sensations. Wines description The wines were described by a trained panel in order to better explain the differences of minerality ratings between the groups of experts. Aromatic descriptions were analysed using correspondence analysis. This analysis provided a sensory map of the wines on which we superimposed the average minerality assessment of each expert cluster. Figure 4 represent in a simplified way the results of this analysis. The wines judged as more mineral by the experts of cluster 2 are described with gunflint, lactic, iodine, and reductive notes. This description is quite consistent with experts’ main semantic fields (Figure 1) as well as with a number of wine guides and wine writers (Coutier 2007, Easton 2009, Coutier and Marchand 2011). Experts from cluster 3 gave higher minerality scores to wines described as smoky, spicy, oaky and also reductive notes. This result is partially in agreement with the results of Tominaga et al. (2003) who showed that benzenemethanethiol could play a role in the gunflint and smoky notes in white wines. The wines judged the more mineral by the experts of cluster 1 where described as fruity and floral.

wi n e maki n g

Figure 4. Relationships between odour description and minerality scores for the orthonasal condition of each cluster of experts. This unexpected result is quite difficult to explain. A plausible interpretation is that for these experts minerality is synonymous with quality and thus, they attribute it to the wines they think have the highest quality. However, this interpretation is quite speculative and further work based on deep interviews might help clarify this point. Concerning the nose-clip condition the minerality scores of experts from NCC1 positively correlated with acidity (r= 0.65, p< 0.05) and negatively with sweetness (r=-0.77, p< 0.05). This result is in agreement with the “acidityrelated” semantic field given by experts in the definition task. On the other hand, minerality scores of NCC3 were positively correlated to bitterness (r= .68, p< .05) which was only cited twice in the definition task. No significant correlation was found for NCC2. CONCLUSION Our results showed that despite the apparent consensus in the verbal definitions of wine minerality, the sensory minerality judgments of a group of wines in a blind tasting led to strong disagreement between wine experts, both in orthonasal and noseclip conditions. However, several ways of judging wine minerality have emerged from the expert panel. Overall this study

gave interesting hypotheses to be tested in further sensory chemical research on the origin of perceived minerality. In particular it would be interesting to explore the link between reductive notes resulting from sulfur compounds and perceived minerality. Moreover, further studies on wine minerality should also include global minerality assessments (i.e., allowing the perception of the aroma, taste and mouthfeel at the same time) in order to better understand how the different sensory modalities interact when judging wine minerality. REFERENCES Easton, S. (2009) Minerality. Drinks Business, May 2009. Tominaga, T.; Guimbertau, G. and Dubourdieu, D. (2003) Contribution of benzenemethanethiol to smoke aroma of certain Vitis Vinifera L. wines. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 51:1373-1376. Campo E.; Ballester J.; Langlois J.; Dacremont C. and Valentin, D. (2010) Comparison of conventional descriptive analysis and a citation frequency-based descriptive method for odour profiling: An application to Burgundy Pinot Noir wines. Food Quality and Preference 21(1):44-55. Coutier, M. (2007) Dictionnaire de la langue du vin. (Cnrs éditions. Paris. France). Coutier, M. and Marchand J-P. (2011) Petit manuel du goûteur de vin. (Ed. Vesoul, FC Culture et Patrimoine. Vesoul, France). Parr, W.V. ; Green, J.A. ; White, K.G. and Sherlock, R.R. (2007) The distinctive flavour of New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc: Sensory characterisation by wine professionals. Food Quality and Preference 18:849-861. WVJ

Products and Services PHONE 1300 360 353

info@vinvicta.com | www.vinvicta.com V2 9N 4

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

33


A W R I

Vintage 2014 - trends from the AWRI helpdesk By Adrian Coulter, Geoff Cowey, Peter Dry, Marcel Essling, Matt Holdstock, Creina Stockley, Con Simos and Dan Johnson. The Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia

Managing director Dan Johnson

The AWRI helpdesk provides technical support to Australia’s grapegrowers and winemakers and monitors technical trends across the nation’s wine regions. During vintage 2014, helpdesk enquiries were dominated by issues related to extreme weather events including frosts, heatwaves and bushfires. A regulatory issue concerning changes to the limits for copper, iron and manganese in wines exported to China also raised significant concern. The helpdesk responds to individual queries on a confidential basis, but also provides the latest information to industry via emails, the AWRI website, webinars and face-to-face extension events. Technical support a phone call away

T

he AWRI’s technical helpdesk is a key service offered to grapegrowers and winemakers across Australia. It provides rapid, confidential support on a wide range of topics, including winemaking, viticulture, health, regulatory and trade issues. Industry personnel can contact the helpdesk by phone or email to ask advice, seek information or discuss issues. Samples can be submitted for problem-solving investigations which may involve sensory, chemical or microbiological analysis. The helpdesk team includes winemakers and viticulturists with extensive industry experience and detailed knowledge of grape and wine technical issues. By identifying and quickly resolving issues as they arise, volume, quality and reputational losses can be minimised. Because of its close relationship with industry, the AWRI helpdesk is in a unique position to capture knowledge and trends associated with the technical issues that are encountered each vintage. Each month, the team monitors the type and nature of queries and investigations against industry trends observed over the last 20 years. This allows the team to observe, react to and communicate any current issues to Australia’s grapegrowers and winemakers; to develop targeted new extension content; to implement any required emergency response; or to communicate ideas for new research projects to the AWRI research team. This report provides an overview of the major technical issues encountered within the Australian wine industry during vintage 2014. Dominant issue for vintage 2014: weather extremes Vintage 2014 was dominated by weatherrelated challenges across Australia’s

34

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

AT A GLANCE • Vintage 2014 was characterised by a range of extreme weather events. • Frosts significantly reduced yields in a number of regions, particularly in Victoria and New South Wales. • While major bushfires occurred, levels of smoke taint have been relatively low. Q&A sessions on smoke were hosted in three states. • Heatwaves were generally managed well via irrigation and other strategies, but those that occurred around veraison may have contributed to subsequent issues with uneven ripening. • Wines to be exported to China should be tested for copper, iron and manganese to ensure that new limits for these metals are met. wine regions, and queries to the helpdesk reflected this trend. Taking an overview of conditions for the 2013-14 growing and harvest season across Australia, Western Australia had a dry and warm summer in the south-west (eighth and tenth warmest for maximum and minimum temperatures, respectively), South Australia experienced extreme temperatures throughout summer (sixth warmest on record; record 13 days reaching 40°C or more in Adelaide), Victoria had its third hottest summer, and NSW experienced its driest summer in 30 years and fifth warmest on record. Delving a little deeper, a month-bymonth breakdown reveals some key points: • September 2013. Warmest on record for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures nationally, particularly in the first half of the month. This, combined with higher than average temperatures in August, resulted in earlier than average budburst in most regions. • October 2013. Well above average maximum and minimum temperatures. NSW had the worst bushfires since 1968. Rainfall was below average except in Tasmania and south-western Victoria. Southern NSW and north-eastern W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

Victoria experienced several severe frosts resulting in significant yield loss. There were strong winds in late October in south-eastern SA and Victoria. • November 2013. Above average maximum and minimum temperatures. Above average rainfall on east coast and below average rainfall in SA, inland NSW and Victoria. Many regions experienced an early start to flowering due to a combination of early budburst and high mean temperature from budburst to flowering. In southern Australia, a period of low temperature in early November coincided with the flowering period. • December 2013. Above average maximum and minimum temperatures and well below average rainfall. • January 2014. Above average maximum and minimum temperatures for all states except WA—the 18th consecutive month with above average temperatures. Below average rainfall in southern and eastern Australia. Three significant heatwaves during this month resulted in heat damage to fruit. Bushfires from midJanuary in Victoria, NSW and SA. Harvest commenced in some regions due to early flowering. V29N4


A W R I

• February 2014. Above average temperatures in south eastern Australia and WA and below average rainfall in southern Victoria. Bushfires continued in Victoria. Thunderstorms occurred midmonth in SA. Harvest commenced earlier than average due to early flowering. • March 2014. Variable conditions across the country: above average temperatures for south-western WA; warmer than average in the first half, cooler days and nights in second half for SA; warmer in Victoria; and slightly warmer in NSW. Rainfall was average for south-western WA, below average for SA and Victoria and weather was wet and cloudy in NSW. This vintage of extremes presented a number of viticultural and winemaking issues. Smoke taint One of the biggest issues of vintage 2014 was smoke taint. The bushfires experienced in SA, Victoria and NSW created significant concern among growers and winemakers, resulting in a high percentage of calls to the helpdesk (18% of calls received to date in 2014, Figure 1.). While some callers required general information about smoke taint and others sought advice on when to sample and conduct testing, many callers sought interpretation of analytical results from testing volatile phenols and their nonvolatile glycoside precursors. Figure 2 shows the AWRI’s interpretation of the potential risk of smoke taint based on the results of smoke taint analysis of grapes, juice and wine. Given that many of the vineyards in question were exposed to smoke prior to veraison, the majority of results were either similar to, or only slightly higher than, levels that might be expected for non-smoke exposed vineyards. Consequently, the risk of smoke taint development was considered to be nil or low for the majority of wines tested. In the case of some wine samples, interpretation was complicated by the fact that the wines had been in contact with oak, which can also contribute volatile phenols to wine. To respond to the high levels of concern, in November an eBulletin was distributed and two smoke taint question and answer sessions were held in NSW and Victoria. A further Q&A session was held in the Barossa Valley in January in response to bushfires experienced in that region. Information about smoke taint and analysis was also updated on the AWRI website. Overall, despite significant concern about smoke during vintage 2014, the timing and duration of smoke exposure meant that many producers appear to have ‘dodged a bullet’, with their wines not seriously affected. V2 9N 4

Figure 1. Percentage of queries regarding smoke taint by year, highlighting years 2003, 2009, 2013 and 2014. Note that the final percentage for 2014 may change by the end of the year.

Figure 2. Interpretation of risk of potential smoke taint based on the results of smoke taint analysis of grapes, juice and wine. ‘Oak influence’ indicates the risk was difficult to assess due to contact of the wine with oak. Frost Significant frosts were experienced in October 2013. Growers from large and small vineyards were affected, with reports from widely divergent regions across WA, NSW, Victoria, ACT and SA. ‘Radiation’ frost conditions were prevalent with dry, clear nights and little or no wind. To respond to the frost issues encountered, a number of strategies to reduce frost risk were provided—including pruning, irrigation, cover crops and soil management. In November, the helpdesk issued an eBulletin covering these strategies and organised for a webinar to be delivered on managing frost in the vineyard. Post-frost management strategies were also delivered in later presentations. As the climate warms, W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

causing earlier grapevine development and drier spring weather, risks of frost are likely to increase. Heatwaves Heatwaves were another major feature of vintage 2014. Three significant heatwaves occurred during January 2014. In early January, the helpdesk sent out an eBulletin, alerting growers across southern Australia of the severe heatwaves that had been forecast. This was written in conjunction with the Bureau of Meteorology and featured an early application of its new heatwave forecasting tool. Growers who were able to increase irrigation from early January to maintain vine canopies and leaf condition were www.winebiz. com . au

35


A W R I

able to limit heat damage to bunches. Those who had been proactive in canopy management and use of ‘sunscreen’ sprays also experienced minimal damage. Most regions reported minimal to small losses from sunburn, even in regions such as the Yarra Valley where exposed fruit is common. For some variety and region combinations, the heatwaves coincided with veraison. This did not appear to cause significant yield loss because bunches have low susceptibility to sunburn at this stage. However, it is likely that it was a contributor to the uneven ripening (also known as ‘sweet and sour’ condition) that was seen later in the season. Fruitset Most indications are that potential bunch numbers in 2013-14 were average to slightly above average; however, lower than average yields and uneven ripening were experienced in many regions. In some areas, frosts in October caused yield losses of 5-100%. The worst-affected areas were in NSW and north-eastern Victoria, for example, an 80% loss in the Canberra district. In part, the severe damage was caused by advanced shoot development as a consequence of higher-than-average temperature in early spring. Another cause of low yield was a high incidence of both coulure (failure of grapes to develop after flowering) and millerandage (bunches with significant variation in berry size and maturity). Both of these effects were caused by low minimum temperatures at flowering. Millerandage was also one of the causes of the uneven ripening observed in the 2013-14 season. An ‘Ask the AWRI’ article about uneven ripening was published in the February 2014 edition of the sister publication of the Wine & Viticulture Journal, Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker. Powdery mildew Despite the thunderstorms of February, there were no reports of significant yield losses due to fruit splitting and bunch rot. However, 2014 was a season that favoured powdery mildew, a common vine disease that is well understood and largely controllable. Growers should be proactively implementing a protective program and monitoring to ensure that the disease is under control. Once established, powdery mildew is difficult to control because it thrives in the denser, less exposed sections of the canopy that can be difficult to reach. To avoid the development of agrochemical resistance, the registered agrochemicals should only be used for prevention and not as curatives. In the lead up to harvest and in periods of very hot and dry weather,

36

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

ripening may advance quickly so it’s important to be aware of withholding periods to ensure all regulatory requirements are met. In January, an eBulletin was sent out in response to a number of queries about the use of elemental sulfur to prevent powdery mildew, and concerns about the effect of any residues on fermentation. A withholding period of 30 days was recommended for elemental sulfur. Manganese Not all of the major issues encountered during vintage 2014 were weatherrelated – one significant one related to exporting wines to China. In March 2014, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority (formerly known as Wine Australia) issued a warning to wine exporters regarding increased scrutiny of manganese, iron and copper levels in wine by Chinese authorities. Chinese authorities are now imposing maximum regulatory levels of 2mg/L for manganese, 1mg/L for copper and 8mg/L for iron. The new limit for manganese in wine has caused concern across wine-exporting countries. It is well established that there are natural background levels of this metal which vary significantly across vintages, regions and varieties. However, there is currently not sufficient information to reliably predict if any particular region, soil type or set of environmental conditions will be at higher risk of producing wines which exceed the 2mg/L level. There is also evidence that while manganese is not directly added during the winemaking process (as it is not a permitted winemaking additive or processing aid), certain viticultural and winemaking processes may contribute to the levels found in finished wine. Since the introduction of the limit, the AWRI has analysed the manganese levels of more than 800 wines. A significant number of wines were found to exceed the 2mg/L limit, with higher manganese levels seen in red wine than in white wine. Wines from the 2014 vintage have generally had similar manganese levels to the 2012, 2011 and 2010 vintages, and lower than those from the 2013 vintage, where potentially 20-25% of wines may exceed the 2mg/L level. The AWRI has also tested a number of wine fining treatments for their effects on manganese concentration. To date, none tested have shown a satisfactory impact on reducing the manganese concentration of wine. Work is continuing to assess other possible processing and fining options. In the mean time, the current recommendation is that all wines destined for export to China should be tested for copper, iron and manganese. W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

Most unusual query for the vintage From time to time the AWRI helpdesk will receive a ‘left field’ query never encountered before. The most unusual one during vintage 2014 was from a winemaker who wanted to add blue colouring to a wine (presumably to obtain a marketing edge). The answer to this query isn’t as straightforward as you might think. ‘Brilliant blue’ food colouring is not a permitted additive under Standard 4.5.1 Wine Production Requirements (Australia only). It would be permitted, however, if the product was a wine-based beverage rather than a wine according to Standard 2.7.4 Wine and Wine Products. A wine product must be based on wine but other permitted foods such as colourings and flavourings can be added, and brilliant blue is permitted under Standard 1.3.1 Food Additives. If such an addition was made, the product in question could not be labelled a wine, but must be labelled as a wine-based product. Queries about labelling should be directed to the Australian Grape and Wine Authority to ensure compliance with current labelling laws. A vintage to remember Despite the challenges posed up by frosts, fires and heatwaves, many regions are reporting excellent quality for their 2014 wines, even if grape yields in some areas were low. The AWRI helpdesk will continue to provide support to winemakers and grapegrowers now that vintage has wound up, malolactic fermentations are going through and thoughts turn to packaging. The knowledge gained during vintage 2014 and previous vintages will feed into future seminars and workshops, eBulletins and eNews items, helping industry to deal with similar issues next time they occur. In particular, the AWRI’s current workshop 'Adapting to Difficult Vintages', provides tools for both viticulturists and winemakers to manage the types of weather-related issues encountered during 2013-14. The AWRI has also launched a new extension program. Opportunities in a New Climate which provides tailored information to help grapegrowers and winemakers build sustainable businesses in the face of changing economic and climatic conditions. Acknowledgements This work is funded by Australia’s grapegrowers and winemakers through their investment body, the Australian Wine and Grape Authority (formerly known as the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation), with matching funds from the Australian Government. The AWRI is a member of the Wine Innovation Cluster in Adelaide, South Australia. The authors thank Ella Robinson for her editorial assistance. V29N4


I R R I G A T I ON

viticultur e

Water - can you afford it? By Tony Hoare

Hoare Consulting, PO Box 1106, McLaren Flat 5171 South Australia. Email: tony@hoareconsulting.com.au

The drought is over yet Australian grapegrowers are now paying record high costs for water.

G

rapegrowers in South Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Clare Valley are now paying up to $3400 per megalitre for irrigation water. The total cost of water for some Clare growers now represents more than 50% of their annual operating costs. At this price, the decision to irrigate has become more significant than in the past. Why have water costs increased by 355% over the past nine years in the Clare Valley and is this sustainable for growers into the future? With growers already adopting benchmark water use efficiency, fluctuating seasonal rainfalls, the increasing incidence of extreme heat events and restrictions on seasonal storage, growers are being forced into reducing water because of its increasing cost. What are the implications of reduced water applications with irrigation on the short and long term growth of vineyards? Australian winegrape growers have

V2 9N 4

one of the highest dollar returns per litre of water when compared with other irrigated agricultural crops and agricultural sectors. They have contributed industry funds into research for water conservation methods with a focus on water sustainability. Innovations such as regulated deficit irrigation, partial rootzone drying, drip irrigation, subsurface irrigation, soil moisture monitoring technology such as that available through Sentek and MEP Instruments, use of plant cell density mapping and soil surveys - most of which have been developed through investment and then adoption by Australian grapegrowers - have further enhanced their efficiency. Current research largely funded by the Australian wine industry is focussed on the development of drought-tolerant rootstocks and varieties to counteract the effects of increased extreme W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

heat, radiation and reduced water resources and the associated effects of increasing soil salinity and sodicity. As an agricultural sector, Australian grapegrowers have been responsive and adaptive to recent seasonal conditions of drought cycles and extreme heat events and been able to survive severe water allocation reductions. They have selffunded private pipelines and treatment plants and have been at the forefront of using reclaimed water. Not a bad record when it comes to being a responsible industry which appreciates the true value of water. Why, then, are water providers and policy makers making water increasingly more expensive and eroding grower profitability? The Clare Valley example The Clare Region Winegrape Growers Association has recently begun discussions with SA Water to www.winebiz. com . au

37


viticultur e

I R R I G A T I ON

“explore the possibility of third party access arrangements for the transport of water during the ‘peak’ period (December to April)”. The discussions have been initiated by the Clare grower representatives after a 355% increase in the cost of peak water supply from $970/ ML to $3450/ML in the last nine years. The effect of this price increase is that water is now the major operating cost for many growers and means using the water is financially unviable for many growers. In response to the high price of water, some growers have reduced applications to a bare minimum. The implications of reduced water applications with irrigation on the short and long term growth of vineyards The implications of an unaffordable water supply for irrigation during peak periods of demand based on the Clare experience has been a reduction in water usage from the supplier and an increase in the use of native water. Increasing use of native water not only has a detrimental effect for the natural environment but it also has some negative consequences for vineyard owners where water quality is reduced. The high price of water has also forced growers to reduce their water applications to reduce their water bill. Unfortunately, this response by growers to save water will have both a short

and long term negative effect in their vineyards. Winegrapes require water at various stages of growth to supplement deficits in soil from rainfall. The peak period of demand for water requirement with winegrapes occurs in many Australian wine growing regions with the lowest rainfall months. Winegrape water demand is highest from fruitset to harvest (see Figure 1). Demand is due to maximum water loss through evapotranspiration from a full canopy and increased requirement for developing and ripening fruit. This peak demand occurs during the hottest and driest periods of the season in most winegrowing regions in Australia. This situation is made worse with the increased occurrence of extreme heat events as experienced in South Australia in the 2013-14 growing season with 12 days over 40°C. Vineyards are ideally planted on shallow soils for improved fruit quality and this means there is a greatly reduced buffer in soil water storage capacity, meaning the soils are more prone to drying out in a short period of time. Without supplementary water availability to counteract these conditions during these growth stages, there are negative consequences for vineyards. Short and long term effects of lack of water availability in winegrapes Canopy: Water stress results in defoliiation or the loss of leaves. This contributes to an inability for the vine

to ripen fruit and photosynthesise to produce carbohydrates for the current crop, future crops and healthy vine growth. Cane growth is reduced and the following year's yield is reduced as a result. Yield: There is a parallel correlation between winegrape yield and water inputs. The current year’s crop can be reduced through berry shrivel which can occur through dehydration caused by sunburn and radiant heat as well as a lack of available water in soil for vine uptake to satisfy demand and maintain berry turgidity. The following year’s crop can be reduced by a lack of water at flowering when bud initiation is occurring. Carbohydrates are not produced efficiently during water stress periods and the vine will subsequently have less reserves for budburst and canopy growth the following season. This will result in sub-optimal cane growth which in turn leads to overexposed fruit, smaller bunches/less yield, more rapid ripening, altered or reduced flavour and aroma production and reduced profitability. Fruit/wine quality: Defoliation also exposes fruit to more direct sunlight and radiant heat which has the effect of causing yield loss through berry shrivel and reduction in wine ▶

Figure 1. Grapevine growth stages and the approximate water requirement at each stage (adapted from NSW Agriculture 2004).

38

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


MILES AHEAD

THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

Over 20 years of proven hands free growth straight to the wire, with quick and easy assembly using our Zip-Safe seal. It’s no wonder GroGuard is Australia’s biggest name in vine establishment technology. Designed and manufactured locally for Australian conditions, our legendary strength and reliability is backed by a 3-year guarantee. Contact your local rural store or

freecall 1800 644 259 www.groguard.com.au


viticultur e

I R R I G A T I ON

quality through higher baumes, stuck ferments, uneven bunch ripeness as well as over-ripe flavour and aromatic characters. Salinity: A reduced water budget will force growers to prioritise water usage. Maintaining the crop yield and quality is always the priority and growers will generally allocate water reserves to the peak period of growth between fruitset and harvest. Lack of water post harvest means that growers do not have the ability to apply leaching fractions of irrigation to flush salinity from the rootzone of their vineyards. This in turn leads to an accumulation of salts in the rootzone which are then taken up by the plant prior to dormancy when there is a final flush of rootgrowth. Worse still is that the vine will accumulate salts while ripening fruit which will result in levels of salt in fruit that may exceed the acceptable tolerance levels of wineries. Salt accumulation has the immediate effect of defoliation and reduced plant health and the longer term effects of killing the plant. Disease: Water stressed vines are weaker and more likely to become susceptible to trunk diseases such as Eutypa lata, Esca and Botrysphaeria. The buildup of trunk diseases reduces yield and fruit uniformity, produces dead, brittle wood which damages machinery and eventually the overall viability of the vineyard. Other: The Australian wine industry is a major employer and economic driver in regional economies. Without affordable water, communities will suffer from a reduction in the profitability of the wine industry. It has been estimated that it takes an average of three litres of water to produce 750mL of wine in Australia. It is easy to see the reliance the industry has on affordable water for its future growth and prosperity let alone survival. SA Water responds to questions regarding the cost of water to South Australian grapegrowers

What percentage of your total water sales are to primary producers and in particular the South Australian wine industry? While we can’t break figures down to specific industries, SA Water provided approximately 15.3 gigalitres to agriculture customers (which includes primary producers) in 2012-13.

jobs .com.au

Incorporating mywinejob.com.au

The Wine Industry’s leading Online Job Site For further information contact jobs@winebiz.com.au or phone +618 8369 9500 post your job online at winejobs.com.au created and managed by PROVIDING SOLUTIONS TO THE WINE INDUSTRY

40

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

What is the cost per megalitre of water for your organisation to produce/supply? Information regarding the cost to produce is commercial in confidence. Primary producers, including grapegrowers, who are SA Water customers, pay the state-wide price of $3.32 per kilolitre for all the mains water they purchase from SA Water. This cost per kilolitre is the same for all of SA Water’s customers who purchase mains water, regardless of where in the state they are located. The commercial cost to supply or transport water to the growers is much higher than the state-wide price of $3.32 per kilolitre. If SA Water provides an off-peak transportation service to the viticulture industry where SA Water transports the irrigator’s water under their River Murray licence (between April and Nov) the price is $1.16 per kilolitre. SA Water prices are set within a revenue cap determined by the Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA). ESCOSA independently assesses SA Water’s costs to ensure they’re prudent and efficient before they are recovered through prices. What is the percentage profit per megalitre of water based on peak water supply? This information is commercial in confidence, therefore we’re not able to provide it. Can you provide a breakdown of the costs associated with supply of water to regions such as the Barossa Valley, Clare and McLaren Vale? This information is commercial in confidence, therefore we’re not able to provide it. Do you engage with any stakeholders or industry representative organisations to understand the effect of water costs on their businesses? Yes. In December 2012 the SA Water Business Customer Advisory Group was established to provide input, advice and feedback to SA Water on issues of importance to business customers. The group includes a representative from several organisations including Urban Development Industry Association SA, Australian Industry Group SA, Business SA, Property Council of SA and Primary Producers SA. We have also had ongoing meetings and engagement with the Clare Region Winegrape Growers Association. Is there any planned future assessment/review of current water pricing to the South Australian wine industry, in particular, grapegrowers during peak periods? While SA Water is unable to adjust the statewide price, it is currently working with the Clare Region Wine Grape Growers Association to explore if there is an opportunity to transport the irrigators’ water through a transportation agreement during the peak period at a lesser price than the state-wide price. Conclusion There is a disparity in some wine regions between the cost of peak water and its return on investment. This situation means a reduction in both water use and profitability for growers and water suppliers alike. Unless the situation changes, vineyards will not be able to survive and water suppliers will have priced themselves out of the market. A common sense approach will hopefully result in a system where growers will be able to afford to irrigate to appropriate levels to remain viable in the face of increasing climatic and market pressure. WVJ

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


C OV E R

C RO P S

viticultur e

Cover crop water use in relation to vineyard floor management practices By Michela Centinari2, Ilaria Filippetti1, Taryn Bauerle2, Gianluca Allegro1, Gabriele Valentini1, and Stefano Poni3* 1 Dipartimento di Colture Arboree, Sezione Viticola del Centro Interdipartimentale di Ricerche Viticole ed Enologiche, Università di Bologna, Viale G. Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy 2 Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, 134A Plant Sciences Building, Ithaca, New York, United States 14853 3 Istituto di Frutti-Viticoltura, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29100 Piacenza, Italy * Corresponding author: email: stefano.poni@unicatt.it

An Italian study compared water losses associated with different floor management techniques, namely tillage/bare soil, unmowed and mowed, to help understand if mowing (vs. tillage) could be recommended to maintain the benefits of a cover crop while reducing its water use and, thus, competition with the vine root system.

C

over crops are widely used as a floor vineyard management practice due to the many agronomic and environmental benefits they provide over other practices, such as weed control through soil tillage or herbicide spray. However, apprehension over excessive soil resource competition between cover crops and vines has limited the use of cover crops in areas characterised by dry summers, such as Mediterranean regions. A previous study conducted in France (Celette et al. 2005) reported that consecutive mowing along with decreased soil water availability resulted in a decline in cover crop growth rate and potentially cover crop evapotranspiration (ETcc). While it has been established in other agricultural systems that a reduction in leaf area would result in reduced ETcc, no data is available on the decrease in ETcc obtained through mowing or on ETcc rates during cover crop regrowth. This information is critical if mowing is to be used as a soil water conservation strategy. The present experiment took place in 2007 at the University of Bologna, Italy, in a two-year-old Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.) vineyard grafted to SO4 rootstock. The vines were spaced 1m and 2.8m along and between the rows. A vegetation-free strip (0.6m wide) was maintained under the vines. Three treatments were established in the inter-row area: 1) inter-row soil tillage (ST); 2) inter-row cover crop periodically mowed (MG); 3) inter-row cover crop unmowed (UMG) (Figure1, see page 42). ETcc and soil evaporation (Es) were determined using a gravimetric approach (minilysimeters, MLs) (Boast and Robertson 1982) and a portable gas-exchange chamber (Centinari et al. 2009) operating as an open system (Figure 2, see page 42). Daily MLs measurements were conducted for approximately one month in the three treatments (ST, MG, UMG) starting the day before mowing the cover crop (DOY141170). Soil water content was periodically monitored inside and outside the MLs and it was always above the wilting point, resulting in plant available water for evaporation. Moreover, soil water content did not differ between MLs and the surrounding area. Chamber readings were used to assess the reduction in ETcc obtained through mowing in relation to cover crop height and clipped biomass and to monitor hourly ETcc and Es trends in the UMG, MG, and ST treatments. V2 9N 4

A 30% reduction in ETcc was observed in the MG compared with the UMG MLs over the first four days after mowing. However, from day eight to the end of the study period differences between the MG and UMG decreased, ranging from 13-20% (Figure 3, see page 42). Chamber readings taken immediately after mowing the cover crop showed a marked decrease in ETcc, ranging from 35-49%.

4.9% HORTICULTURE FINANCE OFFER*

QUANTUM MIST™: THE ULTIMATE PERFORMER IN GRAPES

The Quantum Mist offers outstanding spray application and improved efficiency. The fans produce high-volume, turbulent, directional air for excellent coverage. >> Minimise drift >> Increase coverage >> Reduce fuel use >> Lower application rates >> Run at lower rpm >> Increase spraying speeds Select from Croplands Quantum Mist features and options to ensure the best setup for your vineyard. >> 1500 to 4000 litre tank sizes >> Single, two, and three row configurations >> Hydraulic outer-row adjustment >> Left and right terracing kits controlled from the cab >> Self-steer drawbar for tighter turns Freecall 1800 999 162 Email sales@croplands.com.au Freefax 1800 623 778 www.croplands.com.au *4.9% finance offer across the horticultural range for orders placed by 30 September 2014 with delivery by October 2014. 1/3 deposit on delivery, 1/3 payable after 12 months (2015), 1/3 payable after 24 months (2016). Offer applicable to approved applicants only, conditions apply. Applies to all Croplands trailing horticultural sprayers of 2000 litres or larger. Offer does not apply to 1000L and 1500L trailing or any linkage models.

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

41


viticultur e

COVER

CROP S

Figure 1. View of the vineyard inter-row floor management treatments (mowed; unmowed and bare soil).

Figure 2. View of A) one minilysimeter, and B) the portable gasexchange system used in the study.

Figure 3. Vertical bars represent the daily water use (E, mm/day) for the unmowed cover crop (UMG), mowed cover crop (MG), and bare soil (ST) measured using the mini-lysimeters (MLs). ML measurements were taken the day before mowing (-1) and during the 28-day period following the mowing (1-28). Points (•) indicate the daily average solar radiation (W/m2). E data are mean values ±S.E. (n = 12). Arrows indicate the occurrence of rain events.

The ETcc reduction mostly depended on the amount of clipped biomass and initial cover crop height (16-30cm). An exponential relationship between the percentage of ETcc reduction and dry clipped biomass was observed (r2 = 0.97; Figure 4). However, 19 days after mowing, chamber ETcc measurements

taken in the MG and UMG plots show similar hourly ETcc rates between the two treatments. Therefore, regardless of the methodology used, MLs or portable gasexchange chamber, results showed that mowing was effective at reducing ETcc. Not surprisingly, in the period following

42

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

mowing, the extent of the ETcc reduction decreased as the cover crop regrew. Although the cover crop’s leaf area was always higher in the UMG than in the MG plots, several layers of leaves in the UMG were in the shade. Thus, similar amounts of sun-exposed green leaf area may explain the lack of difference in ETcc V29N4


C OV E R

C RO P S

viticultur e

Figure 5. Hourly trend of cover crop evapotranspiration and soil evaporation (E, mm/hour) in the mowed (MG) and bare soil (ST) within the inter-row. E rates were determined using a gas-exchange chamber system. Points (O) indicate hourly solar radiation values (W/m2). Data were collected two days (A) and one month (B) after soil tillage was implemented in the ST treatment. Within a single measurement session, significant differences between treatments are denoted by asterisks (p < 0.001). E values are mean values ±S.E. (n = 3).

Figure 4. Relationship between the percentage of cover crop evapotranspiration (Ecc) reduction and dry biomass (g/m2) clipped at the time of mowing (DOY 142; 214). rates observed in the two cover crop treatments. In other studies, mowing the cover crop resulted in a strong vegetation reduction due to low soil water availability, which was not able to recover until the fall (Celette et al. 2005, Monteiro and Lopes 2007). However, it may be possible that the low soil water content observed in those studies had a stronger effect in reducing ETcc than mowing. ML data showed that ST Es and MG ETcc were similar after a rainfall event. However, after the shallow soil layers dried out, Es dropped quickly, becoming V2 9N 4

35% and 48% lower than MG and UMG ETcc, respectively (Figure 3). Chamber measurements taken in the ST and MG plots confirmed the differences in water fluxes from bare soil and cover crops when used as an inter-row floor management system (Figure 5). Therefore, under the present study’s environmental conditions including non-limiting soil water content, mowing was not a viable alternative to bare soil management practices as a means to reduce ground water loss. However, an accurate scheduling of mowing frequency and timing could be used as a short-term soil water conservation technique.

Quiet , Reliable, Ef f icient

References Boast, C.W. and Robertson, T.M. (1982) A ‘microlysimeter’ method for determining evaporation from bare soil: Description and laboratory evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:689-696. Celette, F.; Wery, J.; Chantelot, E.; Celette, J. and Gary, C. (2005) Belowground interactions in a vine (Vitis vinifera L.) - tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) intercropping system: Water relations and growth. Plant Soil 276:205-217. Centinari, M.; Poni, S.; Filippetti, I.; Magnanini, E. and Intrieri, C. (2009) Evaluation of an open portable chamber system for measuring cover crop water use in a vineyard and comparison with a mini-lysimeter approach. Agr. Forest. Meteorol. 149:1975-1982. Monteiro, A. and Lopes, C.M. (2007) Influence of cover crop on water use and performance of vineyard in Mediterranean Portugal. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 121:336-342. WVJ W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

Andrew: +64 212 769 963 Office: +64 6 879 7312 Email: info@nzfrostfans.com

AUSTRALIAN Ben: +61 4 4811 1384 Office: 1800 797 629 Email: info@aussiefrostfans.com.au www.aussiefrostfans.com.au www.nzfrostfans.com www.winebiz. com . au

43


viticultur e

vi n e sal e s

Varieties and clones – what’s hot and what’s not for planting By Sonya Logan

We asked the nation’s key suppliers of vine planting material to share their latest sales figures as well as those from five years and a decade ago, to get a snapshot of the trends in varieties and clones being favoured by our wine industry when planting new vineyards or replanting existing ones.

NEW sna pmax VineGuards

Pre-assembled protection… in a SNAP

Snapmax now comes pre-assembled ready to use. Simply press to open and install. It’s quicker, smarter & competitively priced. See video at: www.snapmax.com.au • Trains straighter to the wire • Easy to open and close on the vine • Protects from vermin • Translucent to see vine • Easy to install and remove

National 03 9555 5500 SA & WA Sales 0401 560 550 Email info@grapeworks.com.au

www.grapeworks.com.au

A

round 80% of Australia’s vine planting material is sourced through vine improvement groups. Even private nurseries purchase most of their propagation material from such groups. So, a look at their sales of Vinifera cuttings gives a good indication of which varieties and clones are most popular in the wine industry for planting new vineyards or redeveloping existing ones. For a snapshot of what’s hot and what’s not in Victoria, we turned to the Victorian and Murray Valley Vine Improvement Association (VAMVVIA); for New South Wales, the MIA Vine Improvement Society (MIAVIS); for South Australia, the Riverland Vine Improvement Committee (RVIC), Adelaide Hills Vine Improvement (AHVI), Barossa Grapegrowers’ Vine Selection Society (BGVSS) and McLaren Vale Vine Improvement Society (MVVIS); for Western Australia, the Western Australian Vine Improvement Association (WAVIA); and Tasmania, Woodlea Nursery, the main source of vine planting material in the state. Not surprisingly given the recent state of the Australian wine industry, total sales from all of these organisations, excluding Woodlea Nursery, have fallen dramatically over the last 10 years. Due to a recent and unfortunate loss of its computer records, the MIAVIS was unable to provide any historical sales figures. But total sales of Vinifera cuttings for 2013 numbered just 51,000. Across the border in Victoria, the VAMVVIA recorded a total of 101,400 in cutting sales, a drop of 6% on the same

Table 1. Vine sales from the MIA Vine Improvement Society for 2013. Varieties listed in order of sales for 2013. NB. Sales for 2008 and 2005 unavailable. Variety/clone Cabernet Sauvignon Muscat Hamberg Durif

44

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

figure in 2008, and a 43% fall on the 2005 figure. In South Australia, a combination of the sales from the RVIC, AHVI, BGVSS and MVVIA reveals that 864,275 cuttings were sold in the state in 2013, down 19% on 2008 and 60% on 2003. A similar decline in cuttings has also occurred in the west of the country, from 48,992 in 2003 to 13,040 in 2008 and 6780 in 2013, falls of 73% and 86% respectively on the 2003 figure. Across the Tasman however an increase in cuttings was recorded by Woodlea Nursery between 2004 and 2013 of 6% to 124,456. In Victoria the top three varieties sold in 2013 were Shiraz PT23, Shiraz SARDI 3, and Cabernet Sauvignon G9V3 (versus Shiraz PT23, Muscat Gordo Blanco J2HT and Pinot Noir D2V5 FSAC in 2008 and Muscat Gordo Blanco J2HT, Viognier 642 and Semillon BVRC14 in 2005). In NSW the top three in 2013 were Cabernet Sauvignon, Muscat Hamberg and Durif; in SA they were Shiraz 1654, Shiraz R6WV28 and Rubired (versus Sauvignon Blanc F4V6, Shiraz R6WV28 and Shiraz 1654 in 2008 and Chardonnay I10V1, Shiraz 1654 and Chardonnay I10V5 in 2003); in WA, Durif H7V13, Barbera AT84 and Tempranillo 1964R made the top three in 2013 (versus Cabernet Sauvignon G9V3, Barbera F4V6 and Shiraz 12 in 2008 and Sauvignon Blanc FV14V9, Chenin Blanc and Sauvignon Blanc F4V6 in 2003); in Tasmania, 2013’s top three were Chardonnay I10V1, Pinot Noir MV6 and Pinot Noir 115 (versus Pinot Noir 777, Pinot Noir MV6 and Pinot Noir 115 in 2004).

2013

Shiraz

5000

Canada Muscat

2500

13,000

Matara

4700

Barbera

2000

8000

Grenache

4000

Traminer

7500

Chardonnay

4000

TOTAL

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

300 51,000

V29N4


vi n e sal e s

viticultur e

Table 2. Vine sales from the Victorian and Murray Valley Vine Improvement Association for 2013, 2008 and 2005. Varieties listed in order of sales for 2013. Numbers in brackets for years 2008 and 2005 denote sales ranking for top 10 varietiesin those years. Variety/clone

2013

2008

2005

Shiraz PT 23

8600

23,000 (1)

11,000 (4)

Shiraz SARDI 3

7000

0

0

Cabernet Sauvignon G9V3

5700

5700 (5)

5000 (6)

Chardonnay 76

3000

2000 (9)

1700 (8)

Shiraz 712

3000

0

0

Montepulciano FSAC

2500

0

Savagnin Galicia

2500

0

Gamay RVC12 FSAC

250

0

0

Arneis Non Clonal

0

0

200

Cabernet Franc C7V15 FSAC

0

0

1000 (10)

Cabernet Sauvignon 125 FSAC

0

2000 (9)

0

Chambourcin Q106-35B

0

1000

0

Chardonnay 95

0

2800 (8)

0

0

Chardonnay G9V7 FSAC

0

700

0

0

Chardonnay I10V1

0

1000

0

0

Chardonnay I10V3

0

350

0

Chardonnay I10V5 FSAC

0

1000

0

Chenin Blanc C4V16 FSAC

0

100

0

Durif

2100

0

Shiraz 1127

2100

0

0

Merlot

2000

0

4600 (7)

Shiraz 1654

1600

0

0

Chenin Blanc F6V13

0

100

0

Chardonnay 96 FSAC

1500

500

0

Petit Manseng Merbein

0

100

0

Tempranillo D8V13

1500

800

0

Pinot Blanc 54

0

100

0

Pinot Noir 777

1400

2000 (9)

0

Pinot Noir 386

0

3100 (7)

5000 (6)

Nebbiolo

1300

200

300

Pinot Noir 521

0

100

0

Verdelho Kosovich

1000

0

0

Pinot Noir D1V7

0

0

5000 (6)

Gruner Veltliner FV14V16

700

0

0

Pinot Noir D2V5 FSAC

0

11,000 (3)

0

Gamay BGW19 FSAC

650

0

1100 (9)

Pinot Noir MV6 FSAC

0

5500 (6)

5000 (6)

Gamay 222

500

0

0

Riesling F8V13 FSAC

0

0

1000

Rousanne Vassel

500

1000

0

Sauvignon Blanc H5V10FSAC

0

7500 (4)

7000 (5)

Viognier 642

500

1800 (10)

30,000 (2)

Semillon BVRC14

0

0

21,000 (3)

Muscadelle

300

0

0

Siergerrebe I10V13

0

200

0

Muscat Gordo Blanco J2 HT

300

11,600 (2)

37,000 (1)

Tannat H9V3

0

100

0

101,400

107,470

176,800

TOTAL

Table 3. Vine sales for South Australia for 2013, 2008 and 2003. Varieties listed in order of sales for 2013. Numbers in brackets for years 2008 and 2003 denote sales ranking for top 10 varieties in those years. Figures supplied by Riverland Vine Improvement, Adelaide Hills Vine Improvement, Barossa Grapegrowers’ Vine Selection Society and McLaren Vale Vine Improvement Society VARIETY/CLONE

2013

2008*

2003**

Riesling D2V2/GM198

11,090

11,300

42,050

10,080

20,600

158,000 (4)

Shiraz 1654

135,700

76,250 (3)

355,680 (2)

Shiraz 1125

Shiraz R6WV28

87,000

92,400 (2)

61,650 (6)

Tempranillo SAVII 03

9100

0

0

Rubired

71,600

0

0

Pinot Noir 114

8700

6600

13250

Cabernet Sauvignon CW44

46,200

36,800 (8)

21,500

SaperaviI 11V10

8500

1000

2400

Merlot Q45-14

36,800

19,150

18,450

Shiraz 2626

8380

7000

1900

Cabernet Sauvignon Reynell

36,500

0

0

Shiraz BVRC12

8280

0

54,500 (10)

Cabernet Sauvignon LC10

34,650

12,600

6600

Chardonnay SAVII 02/95

7200

30,300

4170

Pinot Noir MV6

34,300

15,900

0

Riesling GM239

6000

200

6600

Pinot Noir 777

31,200

76,200 (4)

0

Chardonnay I10V5

5800

2000

202,850 (3)

Pinot Noir D4V2

25,700

0

0

Chardonnay SAVII 03/96

5000

4600

0

Pinot Gris SAVII 02

18,750

6850

0

Shiraz d’Arenberg

5000

0

0

Durif H7V13

18,700

6600

2300

Tempranillo D8V12

4550

36,550 (9)

47,550

Pinot Noir 115

16,600

37,750 (7)

7900

Fiano SAVII01

4500

6000

0

Pinot Gris D1V7

15,000

27,800

0

Vermentino H62.1.LN

4400

2500

1100

Mataro R2V13

14,800

1000

2500

Cabernet Sauvignon G9V3

4200

3300

2000

Cabernet Sauvignon SAVII 01

14,300

10,000

0

Shiraz SAVII 17

4200

450

0

Shiraz BVRC30

14,110

8000

17,350

Carmenere SAVII 01

4000

100

0

Shiraz Hardy

13,600

0

0

Petit Verdot G7V1

3900

3700

9500

Pinot Noir D5V12

13,200

14,800

12,450

Grenache BVRC38

3800

11,300

55,530 (9)

Traminer 456

12,800

5200

0

Sauvignon Blanc H5V10

3800

7750

0

Cabernet Sauvignon SAVII 02

12,000

13,700

0

Montepulciano 8434

3400

0

0

V2 9N 4

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

45


viticultur e

vi n e sal e s

Table 3 continued. Semillon DA16162

900

0

0

Montepulciano SAVII 01

3350

16,650

0

Shiraz PT15

3300

7950

47,700

Semillon TO9081

900

0

0

Barbera F6V4

3300

0

0

Sauvignon Blanc I4V9

800

53,700 (5)

64,900 (5)

Shiraz PT23

3000

0

0

Verdehlo Kosovich

800

2500

0

Shiraz 1127

2950

2700

35,550

Cabernet Sauvignon Q390-05

800

0

0

Cabernet Franc Pen 58

2810

600

2500

Nebbiolo SAVII 03

700

0

0

Pinot Noir D2V6

2750

0

0

Shiraz SAVII 19

700

0

0

Cabernet Franc 1334 Bord

2600

1300

0

Merlot FPS8

600

6750

5000

Sangiovese SAVII 04

2250

2200

0

Colombard F13V8

600

2200

46,700

Orange MuscatC13V1

600

0

0

Dornfelder 1052-02

500

200

0

0

Limberger H7V11

495

0

0

800

0

Dolcetto CVTAL 275

15, 450

7000

1450

Malbec WA

2200

0

0

Sauvignon Blanc F4V6

2100

93,550 (1)

56,890 (8)

Sangiovese SAVII 03

2050

1600

Barbera AT84

1850

Graciano SAVII 01

1800

16,800

270

Zinfandel C11V7

450

1200

1000

Malbec Kalimna3

1800

0

0

Grenache LCE12

450

0

0

Gruner Veltliner HHWA1-2

1750

0

0

Barbera CVTAT424

400

1000

1200

Tannat H9V3

1700

4100

4300

Chenin Blanc Stellenbosch

400

100

100

Savagnin Galicia

1650

26,700

0

Malbec Kalimna2

400

0

0

Meunier H10V5

400

0

0

Shiraz 712

400

0

0 0

Riesling D2V3

1600

5800

4000

Pinot Blanc 54

1600

750

0

Mataro R2V7

1500

5300

9700

Shiraz SAVII 57

300

2600

Cabernet Franc C7V15

1500

4300

450

Shiraz SAVII 60

300

2600

0

Lagrein H9V9

250

0

2000

Sauvignon Blanc 5385

200

42,200 (6)

17,000

Semillon BVRC14

200

3900

59,100 (7)

Petit Manseng 8309

1500

1700

0

Viognier HTK

1450

3600

12,300

Arneis CVT CN 19

1350

100

1600

Chardonnay SAVII 01/76

1300

10,200

18,390

Chardonnay SAVII 11/124

200

1000

0

Rousanne SAVII 01

1300

600

0

Lagrein H9V7

200

800

1450

Pinotage SAVII 01

1300

0

0

Muscadelle 32HT

200

600

0

Tempranillo D8V13

1200

25,100

1050

Brachetto 34266

180

39

0

Touriga E6V12

1150

400

0

Sauvignon Blanc F7V7

150

3400

0

Gordo 173

1100

9300

18,500

Arneis CVT CN 15

150

800

1300

Riesling I10V15

1100

1400

4400

Sangiovese SAVII 05

150

750

0

Gamay 15

150

100

0

Grenache LCN6

150

0

0

Muscat Blanc F3V14

100

2300

600

Gruner Veltliner HHWA1-3

100

0

0

Malvasia Bianca F1V9

100

0

0

Muller Thurgau H9V10

100

0

0

Shiraz SAVII 98

100

0

0

Gruner Veltliner Sel. Iby

1100

0

0

Zinfandel F11V6

1000

1000

600

Canada Muscat 1970/CX

1000

0

0

Chambourcin Q106-35B

900

850

25,300

Lot 15 Whitings Road, McLaren Vale (Blewitt Springs) 21.2Ha (52.4 Acre) Commercial Vineyard For Sale $1,250,000

Tinta Cao 8014

100

0

0

• Excellent red/white varieties.

Alicante Boushet C1V3

80

0

0

• Superb elevated home site.

Sousao G1V4

75

200

1000

• Panoramic outlook to sea.

Riesling GM110

50

0

3400

• 15 m/l recycled water.

Chenin Blanc C4V16

35

300

0

Muscat Blanc 72-13

0

31,250 (10)

700

Pinot Noir Mariafeld

0

13,700

0

Viognier 642

0

8200

130

Merlot D3V14

0

7450

43,600

Pinot Noir 18GM

0

4800

0

• Separate bore. • Shedding.

Contact Mike Stillwell for planting/crop details 0413 742 344 | sales@southernvales.com.au | www.southernvales.com.au

46

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

RLA245784

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


vi n e sal e s

viticultur e

Sauvignon Blanc SAVII 59

0

4000

0

Chardonnay 84 Antav

0

0

19,600

Muscat Blanc 73-7

0

3830

0

Chardonnay I10V3

0

0

14,900

Gordo LC3

0

3800

700

Riesling 138

0

0

13,500

Shiraz SAVII 13

0

3500

0

Riesling BVRC 8

0

0

13,000

Muscat Blanc 147

0

3200

0

Chardonnay Q233-03

0

0

9575

Gordo 131

0

2850

0

Verdehlo 168

0

0

8100

Nebbiolo 230CVT

0

2500

4150

Chardonnay SAVII 04/277

0

0

5750

Riesling I10V14

0

2300

18,450

Chardonnay Q390-09

0

0

5450

Chardonnay I10V1

0

2100

361,200 (1)

Riesling 29

0

0

5080

Sangiovese H6V9

0

2000

16,700

Cabernet Sauvignon 125

0

0

4000

Gordo E4 5

0

2000

0

Malbec CW14

0

0

3400

Traminer 457

0

1600

0

Sultana M12

0

0

2800

Gordo G5

0

1350

0

Semillon 147

0

0

2100

Gordo J2

0

1350

0

Muscadelle C1V15

0

0

2000

Semillon D10V12

0

1200

200

Pinot Meunier H10V5

0

0

2000

Traminer C3V15

0

1000

3050

Dolcetto CN69

0

0

1350

Doradillo 123

0

1000

0

Merlot D3V5

0

0

1000

Traminer H8V9

0

900

0

Merlot D3V7

0

0

1000

Primitivo SAVII 01

0

500

0

Semillon LCR147

0

0

1000

Riesling SAVII 02

0

500

0

Colombard F13V7

0

0

500

Malbec Kalimna1

0

400

1000

Semillon I11V14

0

0

500

Muscadelle 2056

0

300

3500

Tarrango H47-40

0

0

300

Parellada H60LN

0

200

0

Aleatico D7V7

0

0

40

Verdehlo WA1

0

200

0

864,275

1,061,069

2,168,905

Chardonnay SAVII 05

0

100

0

Chardonnay G9V7

0

0

24,500

Riesling BVRC 17

0

0

21,200

TOTAL

*2008 figures do not include sales from McLaren Vale Vine Improvement Society **2003 figures do not include sales from Adelaide Hills Vine Improvement or McLaren Vale Vine Improvement Society

Table 4. Vine sales from the Western Australian Vine Improvement Association for 2013, 2008 and 2003. Varieties listed in order of sales for 2013. Numbers in brackets for years 2008 and 2003 denote sales ranking for top 10 varieties in those years. Variety/clone

2013

2008

2003

Chardonnay I10V3

0

1400 (4)

6220 (4)

Durif H7V13

1000

120

200

Sauvignon Blanc 5385

0

0

3212 (5)

Barbera AT84

700

0

100

Semillon FVD10V12

0

0

2600 (6)

Tempranillo 1964R

700

0

0

Cabernet Sauvignon126

0

60

2200 (7)

Vermentino H62-1LN

600

1500 (3)

100

Shiraz 1654

0

0

2200 (7)

Brachetto H102

600

0

100

Shiraz PT15

0

0

2100 (8)

Pinot Noir 115

460

0

100

Sangiovese H6V9

0

0

700 (9)

Pignoletto 2

450

0

0

Shiraz 12/S/BVRC

0

0

600 (10)

Pinot Noir G8V3

370

0

0

Chardonnay FVG9V7

0

0

180

Pinot Noir 114

365

0

0

Sauvignon Blanc FVF4V6

0

0

130

Arneis CVT CN15

300

320 (9)

100

Fiano Merbein

0

1200 (5)

100

Petit Verdot G7V1

240

0

0

Cabernet Sauvignon LC9

0

200 (10)

100

Verdelho Kosovich 2

200

140

100

Pinot Noir G5V15

200

0

0

Cabernet Sauvignon LC10

0

200 (10)

100

Grenache 38

0

140

100

Semillon 32

0

110

100

Graciano WA6V6 

115

0

0

Lagrein H9V9

100

0

200

Merlot D3V7

100

100

100

Malbec Kalimna 1

100

30

0

Malbec BX1056

100

0

0

Biancone WA

80

0

0

Sauvignon Blanc FV14V9

0

0

9350 (1)

Chenin Blanc

0

0

7600 (2)

Sauvignon Blanc F4V6

0

0

7500 (3)

V2 9N 4

Mataro R2V13

0

30

100

Sousao G1V4

0

20

100

Touriga E6V12

0

20

100

Alicante Bouschet C1V3

0

0

100

Ansonica WA5V6

0

0

100

Brown Frontignac

0

0

100

Brown Muscat

0

0

100

Chardonnay Gin Gin

0

0

100

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

47


viticultur e

vi n e sal e s

Dolcetto CN

0

0

100

Tempranillo D8V12

0

0

100

Fernao Pires C12V2

0

0

100

Tinto Cao UCD

0

0

100

Gamay 284

0

0

100

Viognier HTK

0

0

100

Harslevelue LN B

0

0

100

Zinfandel WA

0

0

100

Lambrusco H9V12

0

0

100

Cabernet Sauvignon G9V3

0

2200 (1)

0

Malbec C6V11

0

0

100

Barbera F4V6

0

1600 (2)

0

Malbec E2V2

0

0

100

Shiraz12

0

1600 (2)

0

Merlot D3V5

0

0

100

Albarino Galicia

0

800 (6)

0

Mondeuse F3V15

0

0

100

Semillon D10V12

0

500 (7)

0

Nebbiolo CVT230

0

0

100

Tannat H9V3

0

400 (8)

0

Pinot Blanc ENTAV54

0

0

100

Bastardo E7V1

0

100

0

Pinot Noir 18/NXGM

0

0

100

Meunier H1VO5

0

100

0

Pinot Noir 386

0

0

100

Fer10.26A1

0

80

0

Pinot Noir 777

0

0

100

Muscadelle C1V15

0

40

0

Sauvignon Blanc H5V10

0

0

100

Cabernet Franc C24

0

30

0

Sciaccarello UCD

0

0

100

TOTAL

6780

13,040

48,992

Table 5. Tasmania vine sales for 2013 and 2004. Numbers in brackets for 2004 denote Sales ranking for top 10 varieties in that year. Source: Woodlea Nursery. Cutting sales (2013)

Cutting sales (2004)

Chardonnay I10V1

13,592

1860

Pinot Noir MV6

12,844

15, 074 (2)

Pinot Noir 115

12,705

7689 (3)

Chardonnay Penfolds 58

10,524

975

Variety/clone

Pinot Noir D5V12

8055

2870

Pinot Gris D1V7

7365

5423 (5)

Chardonnay 95 or SAVI 02

7298

0

Pinot Noir D4V2 pommard

6900

0

Pinot Noir ABLE

6220

0

Pinot Noir 667

5072

0

Pinot Noir D4V2 pommard SM clone

3937

0

Pinot Noir 114

3634

6412 (4)

Shiraz R6WV28

3500

0

Chardonnay I10V3

100

0

Montepulciano (clone unknown)

100

0

Pinot Noir 18 GM

100

0

Lagrein H9V7

64

0

Grenache Old Vine

40

0

Pinot Noir 777 (tissue culture)

0

20,375 (1)

Sauvignon Blanc F4V6

0

4861 (7)

Riesling 198GM

0

4470 (8)

Pinot Noir G8V3

0

3627 (9)

Malbec (ex Yalumba)

0

3000 (10)

Sauvignon Blanc I4V9

0

2280

Riesling 239GM

0

1660

Nebbiolo CN111

0

1530

Sauvignon Blanc H5V10

0

1050

Pinot Gris E6V3

0

1000

Chardonnay Bernard 95

0

900

Viognier HTK

0

730

Tempranillo D8V12

0

660

Cabernet Sauvignon 2217

0

500

Cabernet Sauvignon CW44

0

500

Chardonnay 2305

0

500

Traminer (clone unknown)

0

450

Pinot Noir 8104

0

400

Sangiovese H6V9

0

360

Zinfandel C11V7

0

360

Malbec 1056 HT162

0

350

Malbec 1056 HT174

0

350

Verdelho 168

0

270

Merlot D3V14

0

225

Nebbiolo CN230

0

180

Sangiovese Mudgee

0

180

Nebbiolo 230CVT

0

152

Nebbiolo 111CVT

0

147

0

140

Pinot Noir 777

3247

5368 (6)

Pinot Noir D2V5

3000

2408

Savagnin Galicia

2500

0

Pinot Noir 521

2000

0

Chardonnay I10V5

1820

0

Pinot Noir G5V15

1500

1420

Shiraz R6WV28 Grafted

1100

0

Pinot Noir 386

1000

0

Shiraz (clone unknown)

800

0

Chardonnay 76 or SAVI 01

793

0

Pinot Meunier H10V5

782

0

Dornfelder (clone unknown)

750

0

Schonberger (clone unknown)

600

0

Pinot Blanc 54

500

240

Gruner Veltliner

380

0

Gamay 222

300

0

Mueller Thurgau H10V9

300

0

Tempranillo D8V13

224

0

Riesling I10V15

160

1610

Dornfelder 1052-02

150

0

Aglianico Taurasi VCR23/420AMillardet

Riesling D2V2 GM198

150

0

Malbec 584

0

100

Riesling D2V3 GM 110

150

0

Malbec 971

0

100

Riesling GM239

100

1720

Muscat

0

50

Riesling I10V14

100

1200

TOTAL

124,456

117,396

48

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


VARIETIES

viticultur e

Carignan – the unmasking of an imposter By Peter Dry1 and Nick Dry2 1 The Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064 2 Yalumba Nursery, PO Box 10, Angaston, South Australia 5353

The story behind the recent investigations that have proven that, at least in South Australia, any Carignan planted or propagated from vines planted before 1966 is unlikely to be true Carignan, and some advice on how to spot the pretenders. Introduction

T

he 1970s were a time of great change for the winegrape variety scene in Australia. It was the decade when new imports such as Chardonnay, Merlot, Colombard, Ruby Cabernet, Petit Verdot and Traminer started to become prominent. It was also the time when many of the varietal mistakes were corrected. One example of this was when Clare Riesling was shown to be Crouchen in 1975 (Antcliff 1975). In 1976, French ampelographer Paul Truel visited vineyards in many regions, accompanied by Allan Antcliff, of CSIRO (Australia’s foremost ampelographer of the time). Their findings were surprising, to say the least. For example, all Semillon in Western Australia and the variety known as Albillo in South Australia turned out to be Chenin Blanc. Much of the Malbec in SA was Tinta Amarella, and most of the Malbec

V2 9N 4

in Victoria was Dolcetto. Cabernet Gros in SA was actually Bastardo syn. Trousseau and many other varieties were found, for the first time, to be present in Australian vineyards (Antcliff 1977). Most importantly, in the context of this story, the Carignan in SA turned out to be Bonvedro. This finding was not a total surprise because Boehm and Tulloch in Grape Varieties of South Australia, published in 1967 stated “… there is some doubt about the authenticity of the South Australian Carignan. It does not exactly fit the European description…the lower surface of the leaf carries more wool”. This was a significant discovery because there were at least 100ha of Carignan in SA in the early 1970s, most of which was planted in the Barossa Valley. The consequent varietal name change process seems to have taken place relatively quickly, without much ado. However, there were a few instances

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

where producers retained the former varietal name (referred to as an ‘invalid synonym’ in Dry and Coombe 1989) for one reason or another. Perhaps it was simply in ignorance because apart from the single article in the Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker (Antcliff 1977), there was neither much publicity nor any program by the governing bodies to expedite the changes. The unmasking Fast forward to 2013 when Peter Dry tried the first vintage of the Ulithorne Wines’ Immortelle, made by Rose Kentish, in Corsica, in 2011. This wine was a blend of Syrah (synonym Shiraz) with Nielluccio, Carcajolo and Minustellu. The latter three are Corsican synonyms for Sangiovese, Bonvedro and Graciano, respectively, so it would be possible to make the same blend here. At the same time, we had seen an increase in

www.winebiz. com . au

49


viticultur e

VARIETIES

DNA testing has confirmed that what Angove’s believed was Carignan growing in its McLaren Vale (top) and Nanya vineyards in the Riverland (bottom) is, in fact, Carignan. The variety was first planted by Angove’s in its Nanya vineyard between 1969 and 1970 from cuttings sourced from the South Australian Department of Agriculture. Cuttings from these original vines were planted last year in the company’s Warboys Vineyard, in McLaren Vale. Photos courtesy Angove’s.

producers of Carignan wine, particularly in the Barossa Valley—some of whom claimed to be using fruit from “...more than 100-year-old vines”. Also there were articles in 2013 by at least one prominent wine writer extolling the virtues of Carignan, particularly the wine from old vineyards in Australia. And finally, there had been an increase in enquiries for Carignan planting material. This got us pondering just how much Bonvedro was actually left in SA and how much Carignan really was Carignan. Armed with the knowledge that the first

50

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

true Carignan vines may not have been imported into South Australia (originally from California) until the mid-1960s (Nicholas 2006), we decided to investigate further. In spring of 2013 we visited two of the largest blocks of Carignan in the Barossa Valley. They are both used as a source of fruit by several wine producers. We will call them blocks A and B for convenience. Block A was planted with cuttings taken from an old vineyard (planted before 1962). Block B (said to be 120 years old) has been used as a source of cuttings W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

for other vineyards, for example, for top-working carried out in 2008 by Shadowfax Wines, in Victoria. Based on published descriptions and photographs of Carignan (Galet/Morton 1979, Kerridge and Antcliff 1999) and by comparison of samples of leaves from known Carignan vines, we concluded that Block A was Bonvedro but Block B didn’t exactly match with any known variety. Samples were then sent to the Institut Francais de la Vigne et du Vin (IFV), in France, for DNA analysis. The results showed that Block A was Bonvedro and V29N4


VARIETIES

Block B was Mataro. The Mataro result was definitely a surprise because, while it had some features in common with Mataro, it was not an exact ampelographic match. How much true Carignan exists in Australia? The following timeline summarises the facts that enable us to answer this question. • 1866: Bests of Great Western plant Carignan vines in nursery vineyard from material sourced from Geelong (identity confirmed by DNA analysis in 2011). • 1877: Phylloxera detected in Geelong. • 1878: South Australia bans the importation of grapevine material (Boehm 1996). • 1942: Francois de Castella reports that there are 240ha of Carignan in South Australia. • 1963: South Australia lifts ban on vine imports (Boehm 1996). • 1966: First official import of a Carignan clone (D9V11) into South Australia from UC Davis California; followed by imports in 1968 (F11V11), 1974 (D9V13) and 1975 (F2V15). No DNA typing of the clones has been undertaken to our knowledge. • 1976: French ampelographer Truel

confirms that (non-UC Davis imported) Carignan in South Australia is actually Bonvedro. •1  980: Bonvedro and Carignan listed in the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association report of 1980 with 207t and 858t, respectively. For Bonvedro, 84% was from ‘irrigated Victoria’ and 16% ‘non-irrigated SA’, whereas for Carignan, 49% was from ‘irrigated SA’, 26% ‘non-irrigated SA’, 14% ‘irrigated NSW’ and 10% ‘irrigated Victoria’. •1  987: Vine Pull Scheme in SA. •1  996: South Australian Vine Improvement Scheme: Registered Source Areas for Planting Material publication does not list any clonal Carignan source blocks (Nicholas et al. 1996) •2  014: The 2014 Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Directory lists 18 wine producers who use ‘Carignan’: 11 in the Barossa Valley, three in McLaren Vale, and one each in Margaret River, Riverland, Riverina and Mudgee. The Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of SA website lists ‘Carignan’ with 5.09ha in the Barossa Valley, 4.26ha in the Riverland and 2.61ha in McLaren Vale—but only 0.57ha of Bonvedro, in the Barossa Valley.

A new generation in harvesting

Based on the above information it appears that, at least in South Australia, any Carignan planted before 1966 or propagated from vines planted before 1966 is unlikely to be true Carignan. The only possible way that it could be true Carignan is if the material had entered South Australia prior to the ban on importation of vine material into the state in the late 1800s. This means that the 240ha of Carignan reported by de Castella in 1942 is likely to be the Bonvedro that Truel identified in 1976. Any vineyard planted using material imported from UC Davis is likely to be Carignan. This assumes that these imports are actually true Carignan because, to our knowledge, there has been no DNA analysis with use of French standards. However, the ampelographic characteristics match closely with those in Galet/Morton (1979). Given that the area of Carignan has fallen sharply in the 40 years since the 1966 importation and the fact that there have not been any registered source blocks of the Californian imports since 1996 (thereby forcing growers to access bud-wood from old vineyards), it is unlikely that there is much true Carignan in South Australia. As for the other states, the situation is less clear.

Unrivalled quality

˃ 25% increase in productivity ˃ Protection of vegetation ˃ No loss of juice ˃ 99% petioles, MOG and other waste removed

Eco-performance

˃ Up to 43% fuel saving per hectare ˃ Quick and easy maintenance ˃ Less CO2 emissions

For more information contact: Pellenc Australia Pty Ltd 14 Opala St, Regency Park SA 5010 P | 08 8244 7700 F | 08 8244 7788 E | admin@pellenc.com.au

V2 9N 4

viticultur e

Easy-Tech Piloting

˃ 310° panoramic cabin ˃ 95° EASY-TURN system ˃ Touch-screen control panel ˃ Closest cabin to the row

Multifunction

˃ Carry out your vineyard work all year round with a variety of attachments available for Optimum

www.pellenc.com.au

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

51


viticultur e

VARIETIES

Table 1. Comparison of mature leaf characteristics of Carignan and Parraleta, synonym Bonvedro Carignan

Parreleta

Lobe number

5

3 to 5

Petiolar sinus

Narrow U, generally open

Lyre, closed

Hair on lower surface

Sparse

Dense

Petiole length (relative to blade)

Short

Long

Other

Crimped at petiolar sinus

Not crimped

There is good news and there is bad news The good news is that we have a ‘new’ variety that exists as old and venerated vines in the Barossa, and perhaps elsewhere. Bonvedro is widely dispersed around the Mediterranean and on the Iberian Peninsula. Robinson et al. (2012) used the prime name Parraleta because this is what it is known as in the region of Somantano in north-eastern Spain, its likely place of origin. Other synonyms include Carcaghjolu and Carcajolo Nero, in Corsica (France); Carenisca, in Sardinia (Italy); and Bomvedro, in Portugal. DNA analysis has also shown that it is the same as Tinta Caiada, in Alentejo. In 2010 there were 162ha as Tinta Caiada, in Portugal; 119ha as Caricagiola, in Corsica; and 56ha as Parraleta, in Spain (Anderson 2014). In both Portugal and Spain there has been recent expansion due to renewed interest—and some consider that Parraleta makes better wine than Carignan. Coincidentally, the Riverland Vine Improvement website lists Tinta Caiada as a recent import from Portugal. The other piece of good news is that there is a quasi-clone of Mataro that obviously makes good wine. Shadowfax winemaker Matt Harrop says that it “ … doesn’t look like the Mataro that we have here. Also it ripens later and the fruit tastes different.” Perhaps this quasi-clone is a descendant of the vines that used to be called Morrastel in SA. When de Castella visited SA in 1941-42 he noted that Mataro and Morrastel were very similar

52

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

in appearance. Subsequently, Truel confirmed that Morrastel was indeed Mataro, based on ampelography (Antcliff 1975). The bad news is that producers of Carignan will need to determine if they have true Carignan or not. This can only be done with certainty by DNA analysis. This is done by sending a sample (namely a smear of green tissue on an FTA card—treated filter paper that can store nucleic acids at room temperature) to a diagnostic laboratory. Yalumba Nursery’s preferred lab is IFV, in France. The cost is approximately A$130 per sample. Of course, if required, wine labels will need to be changed to comply with regulations set by the Australian Grape and Wine Authority (formerly known as Wine Australia). In the meantime, ask yourself when does your Carignan ripen? If it is very late then it could be true Carignan (or Mataro). If it is mid-season then it is not Carignan and most likely to be Bonvedro (or something else, e.g. Bastardo). Also you could do some ampelography yourself. Carignan and Bonvedro share more morphological similarities than differences—but those listed in Table 1 are the best ones for mature leaves. The crimping of the leaf blade near the petiole is a distinctive characteristic of Carignan. The photograph of the Carignan leaf in Kerridge and Antcliff (1999) clearly shows this feature.

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

Conclusions There will be some producers of Carignan wine who would have preferred to let sleeping dogs lie. Perhaps some already suspected that they didn’t have real Carignan. It is our belief that it is better to sort this out now while there are still relatively few producers—and we certainly do not want a repetition of the Albarino/ Savagnin situation. If you have a ‘Carignan’ vineyard that is older than 1960, or planted with cuttings sourced from old vineyards, i.e., planted before 1960, you should get the DNA checked. If it turns out that you actually have Bonvedro, make the most of it. And perhaps we should adopt the prime name Parraleta. References Anderson, K. (2014) Which Winegrape Varieties are Grown Where? University of Adelaide. http:// www.adelaide.edu.au/press/titles/winegrapes/ Antcliff, A.J. (1977) Variety identification in Australia. Aust. Grapegrower Winemaker (160) 82, 86, 88. Boehm, E.W. (1996) The Phylloxera Fight: Protecting South Australia from the Phyllloxera Threat. Winetitles. Boehm, E.W. and Tulloch, H.W. (1967) Grape Varieties of South Australia. Dept. of Agric., SA. de Castella, F. (1942) Grapes of South Australia. Report to the South Aust Phylloxera Board. Dry, P.R. and Coombe, B.G. (1989) Grape variety nomenclature in Australia. Aust. N. Z. Wine Ind. J. 4(l):99-101. Galet, P. (translated by Morton, L.) (1979) A Practical Ampelography. Grapevine Identification. Comstock Publishing Associates/Cornell University Press. Kerridge, G. and Antcliff, A.J. (1999) Wine Grape Varieties (revised edition). CSIRO Publishing. Nicholas, P. (ed) (2006) National Register of Grape Varieties and Clones. Australian Vine Improvement Association. Nicholas, P. et al. (1996) South Australian Vine Improvement Scheme: Registered Source Areas for Planting Material. PIRSA. Robinson, J.; Harding, J. and Vouillamoz, J. (2012) Wine Grapes. HarperCollins.

V29N4


S O I L

&

W I NE

viticultur e

Smarter thinking on terroir By Rob Bramley, CSIRO AgricultureFlagships, Waite Campus, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, SA 5064 Email: rob.bramley@csiro.au

Measuring the effect of soil on wine is problematic since soil properties may vary markedly over quite short distances. In this article - which is based on a presentation delivered to a soil and wine symposium held in Adelaide late last year organised by the South Australian branch of the Australian Society of Soil Science - a series of examples will be used to show how an understanding of vineyard variability through the use of the tools which have become known as Precision Viticulture (PV), may offer some useful insights. These examples also raise questions about the scale and way in which the concept of terroir should be used and thought about.

I

t is now more than 10 years since the predecessor to this magazine, The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal published an article (Bramley 2003) in which I drew attention to the opportunities afforded by inexpensive high resolution soil survey techniques as a means of gaining a much better understanding of soil variability in vineyards, by comparison with the conventional 75m grid approach. The title of that article – 'Smarter thinking on soil survey' – was intended as a humorous jibe at Richard Smart who, in two of his own articles, had sensibly advocated soil survey, albeit at much coarser scale, as a useful tool in vineyard design (Smart 2002a,b). With apologies to Dr Smart on this occasion, this article and its title seek to encourage interested readers to reconsider the way in which they think about and use the term terroir and to debunk the increasingly common and somewhat mischievous use of this term in the Australian wine sector. Of course, terroir is not just about soil – or geology, as is apparently the view in some parts of the Australian wine sector. Climate is an important component through its controlling effect on phenology and especially the rate and timing of ripening. Some viticultural and winemaking practices

V2 9N 4

are steeped in tradition and provide a consequent social component to terroir, as is the case in much of Europe, and exemplified by the Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée system used in France and the associated Cahiers des Charges, which regulates the viticultural and winemaking practices in a particular (sub)region. However, the main focus of this article is a response to the fact that terroir (and its various elements – soil, geology, history, etc) has generally been considered and researched on a regional basis. Such an approach is problematic for elucidating the specific effect of soil on wine since soil properties may vary markedly over quite short distances (a few metres or tens of metres; Figure 1, see page 54). Here, a series of examples will be used to show how an understanding of vineyard variability, through the use of the tools which have become known as Precision Viticulture (PV), may offer some useful insights. These examples also raise questions about the scale and way in which the concept of terroir should be used and thought about. So, what do we know about soil and wine? Of course, soil survey by whatever means, and the understanding of vineyard soils that it should promote, is a good thing.

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

However, knowing that the soil in a vineyard varies and understanding how this variation affects the yield and composition of the grapes grown in it, or the wines derived from them, is not the same thing. So, what do we actually know about soil and wine and thus the effect of soil on terroir? In spite of the long history of wine production and, in the Old World, adherence to the notion of terroir or a ‘sense of place’ in connection with it, surprisingly little is known about the effect of soil and soil properties on either grape production, grape composition or the sensory attributes and composition of wine; quantitative relationships are almost impossible to find, with the effect of salinity being a possible exception (Lanyon et al. 2004). Indeed, recommendations as to the desirable values for various vineyard soil properties are seemingly based much more on expert opinion than robust quantitative research (Oliver et al. 2013, Riches et al. 2013). Nonetheless, in what has become regarded as a seminal paper on the role of soil in terroir, Seguin (1986) concluded that soil physical properties, and their effect on vine water stress, were of paramount importance, with "active calcium carbonate" the only mineral of importance due to its effect on soil structure. Seguin

www.winebiz. com . au

53


viticultur e

S O I L

&

W I NE

a

b

c

d

Figure 1. Some examples of vineyard soil variation. The soil samples shown in (a) were all collected from the same 7.3ha Coonawarra vineyard discussed by Bramley (2003), while (b) shows how topsoil colour, in this case redness, which is most likely controlled by varying amounts of iron oxide minerals in the soil, varies in an area being prepared for replanting in the Clare Valley. The pits shown in (c) and (d) were dug in the same vineyard block in the St Emilion region of France; these pits, containing markedly different soils, occurred approximately 50m from each other. v(1986) also concluded that "slopes are much better than flat land", although Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m not sure that the producers of the Mosel or even Eden Valleys would agree. Van Leeuwen and Seguin (2006) suggested that better wines generally came from poorer soils and, again, placed most of their focus on vine water stress; they noted the importance of nitrogen to vine vigour, grape yield, ripening and fermentation, but suggested that effects of other nutrients were "much less obvious", so long as there were no deficiencies or toxicities. Similarly, Deloire et al. (2005) suggested that there was no direct relationship between soil minerals and wine quality. Bodin and Morlat (2006) and Morlat and Bodin (2006) characterised the

54

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

viticultural terroirs of Anjou on the basis of soil depth, clay content and parent rock and suggested that weakly weathered soils of low clay content (i.e. low soil moisture retention/availability) led to more advanced phenology, lower yield, smaller berries, higher anthocyanins, lower acids and higher sugar content, with other authors (e.g. Van Leeuwen et al. 2004) reporting somewhat similar results. Meanwhile, whereas Vaudour (2002) advocated the use of soil maps at a scale of 1:25,000 to assist in the definition of "functional terroir units", Van Leeuwen and Seguin (2006) stated that "it is generally not possible to equate a soil map of a given region with a map of quality potential for vine-growing". W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

An easily forgotten and potentially important consideration in trying to make sense of this French research is that it was conducted in places where irrigation is neither used nor permitted, so it is no surprise that soil effects on vine water stress were emphasised. Arguably of greater importance is the historical fact that, in the Old World, vines were generally never grown on more fertile land that was suitable for growing food, something which is not true of many non-European winegrowing regions today where the cash value of the crop is generally paramount. It may well be true that better French wines tend to derive from poorer soils, but that does not mean that very good wines cannot derive from fertile soils. V29N4


S O I L

a

&

b

W I NE

viticultur e

c

Figure 2. Variation in (a) the gross margin achieved from grapegrowing, and (b) in the bulk electrical soil conductivity as measured using EM38 in a 30ha Chardonnay vineyard near Griffith. The map shown in (c) is obtained by clustering the data in maps (a) and (b) and strongly suggests that a soil constraint is affecting the profitability of grapegrowing in some parts of the block. A greater problem, in my opinion, is the scale at which these studies were considered. As Figure 1 illustrates, soils may vary markedly over short distances – distances that are much smaller (a few tens of metres) than the dimensions of the winegrowing regions (several kilometres) whose terroir may be of interest, whether this interest derives from the need to understand vine performance, set production rules, as in France, or from the pursuit of a marketing advantage which is increasingly the objective in Australia. Obvious questions that arise include: which of the samples in Figure 1a most reflects the terroir of Coonawarra?; from where in Figure 1b should one take a soil sample that characterises the soil component of Clare Valley terroir?; and how do the contrasting soils shown in Figures 1c and 1d help us to characterise the influence of soil on the terroir of St Emilion? Given the marked spatial variability of most soil properties, how can a few samples taken from within a region be used as the basis for unequivocal statements about the effects of these properties on grapes, vines and wines? To use the analysis of such samples as the basis on which soil physical properties are considered important, but V2 9N 4

soil fertility is deemed essentially irrelevant, does not make much sense to this soil scientist. Clearly, consideration of terroir at regional scale, as is typical in discussion of the topic (‘Cabernet Sauvignon from Margaret River is different to that from Bordeaux or Coonawarra’) is not particularly helpful in understanding the effect of soil on either vine performance or grape and wine composition. So, what might promote better understanding, and why should we care? Soil is important! Figure 2 shows a yield map and the results of a high resolution electromagnetic soil survey from a 30ha vineyard in the Griffith region of NSW which was under conventional uniform management. The yield map was obtained by running a yield monitor on the harvester during vintage. In this example, it has been converted to a map of the partial gross margin achieved from grapegrowing, knowing the costs of production and price received for fruit (Figure 2a). The soil map (Figure 2b) was obtained through the use of an EM38 sensor and reflects variation in the bulk W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

electrical conductivity of the soil, which may be affected by variation in salinity, wetness, clay content or some combination of these. Also shown in Figure 2 is a map produced by ‘clustering’ the data underpinning the yield and soil maps using a statistical technique known as k-means clustering. This groups data in such a way that the variation within a cluster is minimised, whilst the difference between the clusters is maximised. As can be seen in Figure 2c, areas of this block that run at a loss for grapegrowing are associated with soils that return a significantly higher EM38 sensor value than the more profitable parts of the block. Clearly, in this example, soil is of critical importance to vine performance and thus financial viability. Whether the soil variation shown in Figure 2b also affects grape or wine composition has not been evaluated in this vineyard to my knowledge. In Figure 3 (see page 56), a somewhat similar example is shown. Here, the same kind of high resolution (EM38) soil survey has been used, along with both yield maps and remotely sensed imagery (PCD) collected over a four-year period, to delineate two zones in an 8.2ha vineyard in the Murray Valley. (PCD, or plant cell density, has been shown to be closely www.winebiz. com . au

55


viticultur e

S O I L

&

W I NE

Figure 3. Variation in topography, soil properties, vine vigour assessed by remote sensing (PCD) and yield in a 8.2ha section of a block of Cabernet Sauvignon in the Murray Valley. The data were used to identify zones (top map layer) in which sampling areas were identified for small-lot winemaking. The wines derived from these were shown by sensory analysis to be markedly different. Data of Bramley (2011). correlated with vine vigour. PCD maps are readily commercially available in Australia). Analysis of the soils, grapes and small-lot wines produced from fruit harvested from these zones was the subject of a recent study (Bramley et al. 2011) in which sensory analysis showed the wines from the two zones to differ markedly – despite the management of the entire block, and the winemaking protocols used, being uniform. The wines from the characteristically higher vigour, higher yielding parts of the block, where deep sandy topsoils overlay imperfectly drained heavier clay subsoils, were typical of bottled Murray Valley Cabernet Sauvignon table wine. In contrast, the wines from the lower vigour, lower yielding ‘hill’, where the soils are much shallower and sandier, were more highly regarded by the sensory panel and showed more appealing fruity characters than those from the higher yielding zone which were described as having green attributes and ‘meaty’ aromas. Analysis of volatile compounds in the headspace of these wines enabled these attributes to be associated with certain chemicals or groups of chemicals. Importantly, however, this study produced evidence (requiring further corroborating study) of links between soil, grape, vine and wine

56

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

attributes. Relationships were explored between sensory and wine chemistry attributes on the one hand, and soil, grape and vine attributes on the other. While the statistics involved must be regarded as circumspect due to a lack of replication, many apparently significant relationships were identified with soil extractable iron and manganese and grape berry phenolics predominating among soil and grape attributes, with the aroma sensory attributes ‘red confection’, ‘fresh berry’ and ‘floral’, and the wine compounds 2-nonanone, and ethyl decanoate prominent among the sensory and chemical attributes. The analysis also emphasised the differences between the two zones; that is, their terroir is different.

Figure 4 shows the results of another recent study (Trought and Bramley 2011). In this work, vine vigour was assessed using a Crop Circle™ proximal canopy sensor. This is a tractor-mounted sensor which also enables measurement of PCD and thus assessment of vine vigour; the information it provides is similar to that obtained from remote sensing. Previous work had shown how, in this Marlborough

(New Zealand) Sauvignon Blanc vineyard, vine vigour could be used to model changes in grape berry soluble solids (brix), juice pH and titratable acidity in the period between veraison and harvest. This earlier work had also shown how vine vigour was related to soil properties, with higher vigour vines tending to occur in the silty hollows which dissect the Wairau River floodplain where shallow, gravelly soils otherwise dominate. A survey of Marlborough winemakers also enabled preferences for different values of these juice attributes to be determined in addition to the relative weighting given to them in harvest decision making. The results of this survey enabled construction of a ‘juice score’ as a surrogate measure of quality. By combining these two bits of work, the PCD image could be used to examine how the juice score varied both spatially and temporally in the period between veraison and harvest. Figure 4 shows the base PCD map, a map of the maximum juice score attained and also a map of the date in the modelled season on which that maximum was reached. Previous work aimed at identifying opportunities for selective harvesting have used an approach similar to that illustrated in Figure 3 to identify two (or more) zones that might be harvested into

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4

Spatial and temporal variation in juice ‘quality’


S O I L

&

W I NE

viticultur e

separate product streams. In Figure 4, the map of maximum juice score might suggest that fruit harvested from the areas shaded blue could be assigned to a higher value product than the areas with lower juice scores. However, the top map in Figure 4 indicates the date on which the fruit should be harvested in order to maximise the quality of this higher value product. In other words, in addition to this vineyard exhibiting spatially variable terroir (i.e. fruit from different areas suitable for different wines), the expression of this terroir is influenced by the timing of harvest. Clearly, such an understanding of within-vineyard variability in space and time raises questions about the more conventional regional consideration of terroir. Adding some pepper and spice to the terroir debate My last example of the importance of vineyard variability derives from some work initiated by the late Nathan Scarlett. Shiraz wines produced in the Grampians region of Victoria are known to be ‘peppery’, with this pepperiness seen as both a desirable attribute and also evocative of the Grampians terroir. Scarlett wanted to know whether this pepperiness was spatially variable at the vineyard scale and therefore whether strategies such as selective harvesting could be used to manage the pepperiness of wines. Figure 5 shows a map of the concentration of the pepper compound ‘rotundone’ in a 6.1ha Shiraz vineyard in the Grampians region; the data underpinning this map were obtained during vintage 2012 by analysing the concentration of rotundone in berry samples collected from 177 geo-referenced ‘target vines’ (Scarlett et al. 2014). Analysis of the rotundone map in conjunction with maps of soil and topographic (slope, aspect) variation is suggestive of a soil effect on the concentration of this grape-derived flavour and aroma compound, and especially a major effect arising from topographic variation (Figure 5) – most likely due to its effect on variation in ambient temperature and/or the amount of incident solar radiation. Like the other examples used in this article, the vineyard shown in Figure 5 is under conventional uniform management, yet as Figure 5 illustrates, the ‘pepperiness’ of the grapes grown in it is markedly spatially variable and related to variation in the land underlying the vineyard. Figure 5 also suggests that a strategy such as selective harvesting may enable a winemaker to exert some control over the pepperiness of final wines. But what does such a strategy say about the V2 9N 4

Figure 4. Variation in vine vigour, as measured using a Crop Circle™ sensor (bottom map) and predictions from this of the maximum juice quality score (centre map) and the date on which a score of 4.4 was obtained (top map) in a 5.9ha block of Sauvignon Blanc in the Marlborough region of New Zealand (Trought and Bramley 2011). See text for explanation of how the juice score was calculated and predicted.

Figure 5. Variation in the ‘pepper’ compound rotundone (Rot) in a 6.1ha Shiraz vineyard in the Grampians region, vintage 2012, and the possible influence of soil and topography on this. The bottom map was derived from high resolution soil survey using an EM38 sensor and shows the bulk electrical conductivity (ECa) of the soil. The elevation model of the site (obtained using a survey-grade kinematic GPS whilst doing the EM38 survey) enabled maps of both slope (Sl) and aspect to be derived; here, aspect is expressed in terms of deviation from north (fN). When these map layers are clustered together (top map), three zones are identified with significantly different average values of ECa, and contrasting slopes, aspect and average berry rotundone concentration. The areas of greatest pepperiness are those with the lowest values of ECa, on medium slopes, and orientated furthest from north. Data of Scarlett et al. (2014). terroir of such wines? Interestingly, the map of berry rotundone produced in the 2013 vintage showed an almost identical spatial structure to that seen in Figure 5, even though the mean concentration of rotundone was approximately 40-fold W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

lower. In other words, seasonal effects led to variations in mean rotundone concentrations and thus the expression of terroir across the two years, but the spatial variation in this ‘terroir effect’ was constant. ▶ www.winebiz. com . au

57


viticultur e

S O I L

Smarter thinking The examples of vineyard variability presented in this article are strongly supportive of the terroir effect being real; that is, variation in the land (soil, topography) supporting the vineyard impacts on the grapes produced in it and the wines derived from them. Some elements of this terroir effect may therefore be manageable. However, the scale of this variation is ‘short range’ and totally inconsistent with the regional scale at which some wine marketers and writers talk about the expression of terroir. It may well be that those with appropriate expertise can distinguish between wines produced in different regions. However, whether these differences are due to soil-derived expressions of terroir is a moot point. The fact that very different wines, which do indeed reflect the terroir of whence they came, can be produced from grapes grown in different parts of the same block, raises a significant problem for the terroirists. It is therefore my opinion that, at regional scale, terroir is a largely meaningless concept, with a relevance that is mainly confined to wine marketing (especially in the New World) in which robust science clearly plays a very minor role. In contrast, at the sub-block scale, an understanding

&

W I NE

of terroir could be a powerful tool in optimising grape and wine production. Such understanding might also provide an evocative basis for marketing based on a true ‘sense of place’. Truth in advertising? Now there’s a thing!

Oliver, D.P.; Bramley, R.G.V.; Riches, D.; Porter, I. and Edwards, J. (2013) A review of soil physical and chemical properties as indicators of soil quality in Australian viticulture. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 19:129-139.

References

Riches, D.; Porter, I.; Oliver, D.P.; Bramley, R.G.V.; Rawnsley, B.; Edwards, J. and White, R.E. (2013) A review of soil biological properties as indicators for soil quality in Australian viticulture. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 19:311-323.

Bodin, F. and Morlat, R. (2006) Characterisation of viticultural terroirs using a simple field model based on soil depth I. Validation of the water supply regime, phenology and vine vigour, in the Anjou vineyard (France). Plant and Soil 281:37-54.

Scarlett, N.J.; Bramley, R.G.V. and Siebert, T.E. (2014) Within-vineyard variation in the ‘pepper’ compound rotundone is spatially structured and related to variation in the land underlying the vineyard. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, in press.

Bramley R. (2003) Smarter thinking on soil survey. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 18(3):88-94. Bramley, R.G.V.; Ouzman, J. and Boss, P.K. (2011) Variation in vine vigour, grape yield and vineyard soils and topography as indicators of variation in the chemical composition of grapes, wine and wine sensory attributes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 17:217-229. Deloire, A.; Vaudour, E.; Carey, V.; Bonnardot, V. and van Leeuwen, C. (2005) Grapevine responses to terroir: A global approach. Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et Vin 39:149-162. Lanyon, D.M.; Cass, A. and Hansen, D. (2004) The effect of soil properties on vine performance. CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 34/04. www. clw.csiro.au/publications/technical2004/tr34-04.pdf [accessed March 2014]. Morlat, R. and Bodin, F. (2006) Characterisation of viticultural terroirs using a simple field model based on soil depth II. Validation of the grape yield and berry quality in the Anjou vineyard (France). Plant and Soil 281:55-69.

Inter-row mulching Organic and efficient. Machine outrigger width adjustable to your needs.

Seguin, G. (1986) Terroirs and pedology of wine growing. Experientia 42:861–873. Smart, R. (2002a) New World responses to Old World terroir. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 17(4):65–67. Smart, R. (2002b) The French way. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 17(5):29–30. Trought, M.C.T. and Bramley, R.G.V. (2011) Vineyard variability in Marlborough, New Zealand: Characterising spatial and temporal changes in fruit composition and juice quality in the vineyard. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 17:79-89. van Leeuwen, C. and Seguin, G. (2006) The Concept of terroir in viticulture. Journal of Wine Research 17:1-10. van Leeuwen, C.; Friant, P.; Choné, X.; Tregoat, O.; Koundouras, S. and Dubourdieu, D. (2004) Influence of climate, soil and cultivar on terroir. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 55:207–217. Vaudour, E. (2002) The quality of grapes and wine in relation to geography: Notions of terroir at various scales. Journal of Wine Research 13:117-141.

*

* Contact us for your closest dealer International Mowers Pty Ltd Ph 03 9799 9511 sales@intmowers.com.au www.intmowers.com.au

* Touch sensitive retracing outriggers. * Cultivator heads available.

58

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

* V29N4


alternatIVe varieties

viticultur e

Albariño – one of life’s more interesting journeys By Doug Bell, grapegrower, and Simon Nunns, winemaker, Coopers Creek, Kumeu, New Zealand

In 1989, the CSIRO imported into Australia what was believed to be Albariño from the National Germplasm Collection in Spain. Twenty years later, DNA profiling confirmed this planting material was, in fact, Savagnin Blanc – a rude shock given it had been the source of Albariño for most of the growers in Australia who believed they were producing it. With Australia’s experience in making genuine Albariño in its infancy, we looked across the Tasman to hear about Coopers Creek’s experience with the variety, having made some award-wining wines from it. The grapegrower’s view – Doug Bell

I

n 2002 my wife Delwyn and I visited the Barossa Valley and attended the Viognier Conference at Yalumba. Viognier was a new variety in Gisborne and we wanted to learn as much as we could from the masters, and also try the range of Viognier wines from around the world. Viognier was important to us, as it was the first of a range of new and interesting varieties we had decided to plant in our vineyard. We had developed a series of ‘tick boxes’ beside each of the criteria we felt were important in choosing the varieties we would plant. The list included: • produces wine we enjoy • is respected by wine critics • is unusual or rare • withstands wet weather reasonably well • has a good association with seafood, or matches it well. Albariño ticked all the boxes! So, while at the conference we spoke with nurseries prepared to supply some buds, which we planned to import through the NZ Government’s quarantine service. Seven years would elapse before we got plants to put in the ground. In the interim, Australia’s Albariño was found to be not Albariño, instead a rogue vine but very similar. My immediate reaction was to have the nursery assure us we had actually got the real deal. DNA tests proved it to be Albariño and in doing so we became the first to plant the variety in Australasia (I believe the first in the Southern Hemisphere). Albariño is a very different vine to grow. With four vintages now under our belt we are still learning very fast how we should deal with such a vigorous and strong willed teenager. Our efforts V2 9N 4

The 2013 Coopers Creek SV Albariño won the ‘Other White’ Trophy in last year’s Air New Zealand Wine Awards. Pictured with the award are, from left, winemaker Simon Nunns and growers Delwyn and Doug Bell. to restrict vigour have been successful but have involved methods such as companion-planting fescue and, now, saying no to herbicides to allow weeds to compete for water and nutrients. We feel it is important to load the vine with crop as another means of getting the vine to work harder and maintain a reasonable bud internode distance. Albariño has very strong laterals and these will produce ‘second set’ bunches. The primary bunches have a habit of producing not only the bunch of fruit but frequently a lateral, often with a later set bunch attached. We remove these before harvest. Harvest time is early, similar to young Chardonnay, and it appears to stand up well to wet weather, with thick skins and many seeds in a small berry. Bunches tend to be reasonably open in structure, W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

but we still go to the bother of removing leaves in the fruit zone (and will also remove laterals this next year) to assist with drying and sprayer efficacy. We feel lucky to be associated with Coopers Creek who, over many years have become friends as well as business associates. Their enthusiasm for trying new varieties matches ours and to date they have done well in all the shows entered, which is what we both set out to do. That is, produce the very best fruit and wine so the public’s reaction is “wow!” The winemaker’s view – Simon Nunns Coopers Creek considers itself to be very lucky to be associated with Doug and Delwyn Bell. We share their enthusiasm for the new and the unusual, www.winebiz. com . au

59


viticultur e

alternatIVe varieties

ALBARIÑO By Peter Dry Viticulture Consultant The Australian Wine Research Institute Background Albariño (ahl-bah-REEN-yo), or Alvarinho, originated in Galicia, in north-west Spain, or in northern Portugal. The high degree of phenotypical diversity of Albariño in northwest Iberia suggests that it is an old variety. In Spain, both Albariño and Albarin Blanco (a different variety) have been mistaken for Savagnin (Blanc)—but they are not related, based on DNA analysis. It is possible that there is some Savagnin grown as Albariño in Galician vineyards. Synonyms include Albelleiro, Alvarin Blanco, Azal blanco, Galego, Galeguinho and Paderña. Alvarinho is the preferred international prime name. From just 200 hectares in the mid-1980s, Spain now has 3500ha, nearly all in Galicia and particularly in the Rias Baixas DO. There has also been much recent expansion in Portugal (960ha), where it is more widely planted: mainly in the Minho in the north, but also further south in Ribatejo, Dao and Setubal. There are small areas in Uruguay, Argentina, USA (52ha in California where it was planted in the early 2000s; Oregon, Washington and Virginia) and New Zealand (first planted in 2009 with clones sourced from Portugal). Most people in the Australian wine industry are aware that the initial introduction of Albariño to Australia was actually Savagnin. True Albariño has been introduced in recent years. Viticulture

Winemaking

Budburst is early to mid-season (two weeks after Chardonnay in California) and ripening is early (similar to Chardonnay in California). Bunches are small and compact with small thick-skinned berries. Vigour is high. Yield is low to moderate. Spur pruning can be used, although cane pruning is most common. It is tolerant of Botrytis bunch rot due to its tough skin, but susceptible to powdery and downy mildews. Bunches are sensitive to sunburn and it is prone to ‘second crop’. It is adapted to sites with fertile soils and high growing season rainfall. In north-west Iberia it has been traditionally grown on an expansive pergola system, but there are now some newer vineyards with VSP. Wine In Spain, most Albariño wine is single variety. In Portugal, Albariño is often blended with Loureiro (a close relative) and Trajadura—as in the Vinho Verde DOC. It may also be used for sparkling wine. The best wines are aromatic, combining fruity and floral characters, have fresh acidity and firm structure. Descriptors include orange blossom, honeysuckle, apricot, peach, pome fruit and melon. If harvested at relatively low Brix, there is more citrus with crisp freshness; at higher Brix, wines are more like Viognier with apricot and peach characters and full body.

For further information on this and other emerging varieties, contact Marcel Essling (marcel.essling@awri.com.au; tel. 08 8313 6600) at The Australian Wine Research Institute to arrange the presentation of the Alternative Varieties Research to Practice program in your region.

Albariño in the vineyard owned by Doug and Delwyn Bell and located just outside of Gisborne.

60

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

and we are also in awe of their abilities as grapegrowers. For some years now, Coopers Creek has been actively pursuing alternate cultivars. Thus far, we have been the first winery in New Zealand to market Arneis, Gruner Veltliner, Albariño, Marsanne and (soon) Vermentino. Thus far we have had excellent success with Albariño. The 2012 and 2013 vintages have collectively amassed nine gold medals and six trophies in wine shows. Albariño has a number of things going for it. It handles bad vintages (2012) and good vintages (2013 and 2014) with aplomb. It handles rain well, and as Doug said, is a relatively early ripener. It produces wines with clearly definable flavours and these wines are a great match with all types of seafood. Also, it has a name that people can say without tuition. I believe that this last point is very important. Wine drinkers do not want to appear to be ill-educated, and I believe that if people are confronted with a grape variety that they can’t say, then many people will simply choose something else.

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

The fruit is hand harvested into 400kg slotted bins. These bins are sent overnight on chiller transport to arrive in Auckland early the following morning. The fruit is whole bunch pressed and we have done a press cut for the last two years. The juice is settled with a fining agent and racked clean a few days later. Ferment has been conducted with Enartis Ferm Aroma White and the ferments have usually shown some sulfide production. The wines have been sulfured at dryness and bottling has usually been relatively early (April in 2013 and June in 2014). Residual sugar has been in the 4-8g/L range. A lot of our thinking of late has been whether or not it is worthwhile including a pressings component in the finished wine. With Albariño, more so than any other cultivar we deal with, there is a striking difference between the free run and pressings parcels. The pressings do have a lot of flavour, but this is offset with very high levels of phenols and a strong suspicion that wines containing a pressings component age much more quickly than those made just from free run. In 2013 and 2014 our Select Vineyard Gisborne Albariño has been made from free run parcels only. The acid structure in the finished wines seems to sit somewhere between Sauvignon Blanc and Riesling. The 2014 wine is going to bottle with a pH of 3.30 and a TA of 7.7g/L. The wines have a distinct acid backbone, which makes them great with seafood and enjoyable in summer. V29N4


alc o h o l prici n g

business & marketing

Economic research studies on heavy drinking and alcohol prices: what do systematic reviews demonstrate? By Dr. Jon P. Nelson, Department of Economics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Pennsylvania, United States. Email: jpn@psu.edu

A systematic review of studies into the effect of alcohol prices on heavy drinking fail to support a priceconsumption relationship that can be used as a sound basis for public policy.

N

umerous economic studies examine basic relationships between alcohol consumption and alcohol prices, including many studies for wine and specific varietals. These studies demonstrate that higher prices reduce the quantity demanded, meaning the ‘law of demand’ generally holds for alcoholic beverages (Nelson 2013a, 2013b). However, the degree of price responsiveness or elasticity can vary by individuals or by drinking pattern. This heterogeneity is important for public policies designed to reduce harmful alcohol consumption, including drinking by under age youth, binge drinking, and chronic heavy consumption. Recent policy proposals, such as minimum pricing and higher taxes on alcohol, ignore differences among individuals. Research cited in support of these proposals typically is drawn from studies that use aggregate price-consumption data for countries, regions, or states. Numerous survey-data studies for individuals are omitted. This is misleading. Evidence-based polices should be based on information that most directly addresses the public issues in question. Systematic reviews are required that examine surveydata research on individual drinking patterns and alcohol prices. Suppose that prices for all alcohol beverages are increased as a result of government tax policy. The policy is designed to reduce social costs associated with the use of alcohol. Suppose also there are only two types of drinkers: heavy or abusive drinkers and moderate or light drinkers. A successful policy depends on the price responsiveness of heavy drinkers. The paradox of taxation is V2 9N 4

that moderate drinkers may have more price elastic demands and also account for a smaller share of social costs. If heavy drinkers have inelastic demands, higher alcohol prices impose costs on moderate drinkers and do little to reduce abusive drinking or social costs. An open question is the price responsiveness of heavy versus moderate drinkers. Most policy analyses ignore these differences and simply assume all drinkers have equally elastic demands for alcohol, regardless of age, gender, drinking behaviour, or beverage. The success of taxation and other pricing policies depends importantly on the price responsiveness of heavy or abusive drinkers.

Recent policy proposals, such as minimum pricing and higher taxes on alcohol, ignore differences among individuals. This article summarises two recent systematic reviews of the economic literature on heavy alcohol consumption and alcohol prices (Nelson 2013c, 2014). Methods used in systematic reviews are described first and this is followed by summaries of findings in each of the reviews. Two types of systematic reviews are available in public health and economics. First, meta-analyses use statistical methods to extract and measure a quantitative relationship for ‘effect sizes’ and interventions. For example, Nelson (2011) measures the relationship between youth alcohol usage and various methods of alcohol W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

promotion and marketing, while Nelson (2013a, 2013b) examines price and income elasticities for alcohol beverages. Meta-analyses require that empirical results in question are comparable, so they can be combined statistically using a variety of methods, such as weighted means. Secondly, where comparability is lacking or less important, researchers use narrative reviews, which are conducted in a systematic manner with protocols for literature searches, extraction and selection of relevant studies, and systematic summaries. The first step in a systematic review is a thorough search of the literature, which requires use of electronic databases (e.g. PubMed), search engines such as Google Scholar, and keywords. A thorough literature search can take several months to complete. However, public health researchers have failed to recognise that economic studies are reported in a manner that is different to health-related studies and, consequently, they often fail to obtain a comprehensive database of relevant studies. Sometimes there are hundreds of omitted economic studies in public health reviews (see Nelson 2013a). Secondly, after a database of primary studies is assembled, the list of studies is narrowed using relevance and quality criteria, such as effect or outcome examined and statistical methods employed. This helps ensure that the final sample is representative of a particular population, drinking pattern, or policy issue. Finally, primary studies are summarised in a systematic manner, with categorical results usually reported in tabular form. Supplemental tables are frequently used to provide more complete details about the studies www.winebiz. com . au

61


business & marketing

alc o h o l prici n g

and their findings. Based on summaries, conclusions can be obtained for a particular population or policy issue. In a metaanalysis, this can be a single number. In a systematic review, it is a summary of the distribution of results or modal result. In a series of studies, I report results from meta-analytic and systematic reviews for economic studies that examine effects of alcohol prices on alcohol consumption and drinking patterns. Meta-analyses for aggregate price and income elasticities cover beer, wine, spirits, and total alcohol. Drinking pattern studies use empirical studies based on individual surveys and cover heavy drinking behaviours and binge drinking, with separate results reported by

first, average number of drinks consumed daily (e.g. chronic or ‘heavy’ use is two or more drinks per day); and, secondly, binge drinking (e.g. five or more drinks on one occasion). Several studies combine two measures or report empirical results for both variables. Special statistical methods are employed to represent discrete binary choices (non-drinkers vs. drinkers) and numerous control variables are typically included (age, gender, race, income, marital status and employment status, etc). Heavy-drinking adults are significantly and substantially responsive to prices in only two of 19 primary studies, and even these two studies contain mixed results. Several studies, including two Australian studies,

The cumulative evidence demonstrates that alcohol consumption by heavy drinkers is not very responsive to alcohol prices, which calls into question those public policies that rely extensively on population-based approaches. gender and age group (youth, young adults, adults). The complete database includes 578 primary studies, but analyses and reviews are based on smaller, homogenous samples, ranging from 114 for beer prices to only eight studies of heavy drinking by young adults. Overall, my studies provide an evidence-base for public policies that recognise important differences among beverages, individuals, and drinking patterns. The cumulative evidence demonstrates that alcohol consumption by heavy drinkers is not very responsive to alcohol prices, which calls into question those public policies that rely extensively on population-based approaches. Financial support for this research was provided by the International Center for Alcohol Policies, Washington, DC, whose support is acknowledged in all of my research papers. In Nelson (2013c), I examine heavy drinking by adults (ages 26+ years) and alcohol prices or taxes. Forty-eight primary studies of adults were extracted from the larger database and 19 of these provide comparable estimates. Thirteen studies use survey data for the US, two for Australia, two for Canada, and one study each for China and Switzerland. Drinking behaviours in survey data are self-reported and price data are obtained from various secondary sources or imputed based on tax rates. Individual beverages or beverage brands are not identified in survey data. Heavy drinking in the studies is defined in two basic ways:

62

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

report that moderate drinkers are price responsive, while heavy drinkers are not. Cumulative evidence indicates that chronic heavy alcohol use by adults is not responsive prices in all 15 cases and insignificant for binge drinking in seven cases. Moderate drinkers have elastic demands, but price or tax increases are unlikely to have noticeable effects on heavy or binge drinking by adults. In Nelson (2014), I consider differences in responses to alcohol prices by men and women. It is well known that males in general are less likely to be abstainers, more likely to drink frequently and consume greater amounts of alcohol, and are responsible for a greater share of alcohol-related problems. If males are less responsive to alcohol prices compared with women, across-the-board price increases will impose greater costs on women and do little to reduce social costs. Studies that contain separate results by gender are required to address this issue. From the larger database, 54 primary studies of alcohol demand by adults (ages 26-plus years) were extracted and 70 studies of alcohol demand by young adults (ages 18-26 years). Review of these studies reduced the numbers to 15 comparable studies for adults and eight for young adults. Thirteen studies use survey data for the US, three for China, two for Canada, two for Russia, and one study each for Italy, Ukraine, and the UK. Drinking behaviours include drinking participation, drinking levels, heavy alcohol W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

use, and binge drinking. Again, drinking and drinking levels are self-reported in survey data, but consumption of individual beverages or brands is not reported. Four results are obtained. First, adult men have less elastic demands compared with women. Secondly, there is little or no significant price response by heavy-drinking adults, regardless of gender. Thirdly, although the sample is small, price might be important for drinking participation by young adults. Fourth, cumulative results strongly suggest that heavy drinking and binge drinking by young adults, regardless of gender, are not easily dissuaded by higher alcohol prices. Seven sets of results (men or women) were obtained for binge drinking and drunkenness for young adults, with a significant price effect in only one study, mixed results in four studies, and insignificant results in two studies. Nonresponses to prices also extend to heavydrinking adults, and men (especially) and women. In conclusion, numerous analyses, including many conducted by the World Health Organisation, urge policymakers to increase taxes or prices for alcohol beverages in an across-the-board manner. In order for this policy to be effective, it must be the case that heavy or abusive drinkers have price elastic demands, implying that higher prices reduce alcohol consumption by a substantial amount. If demands by heavy drinkers are unresponsive to prices – highly or perfectly inelastic – then higher prices end up imposing costs on responsible drinkers, and do little to address alcoholrelated social problems and costs. My two systematic reviews provide cumulative evidence that heavy or abusive drinkers, regardless of age or gender, have demands for alcohol beverages that are highly inelastic. The evidence does not support higher prices or taxes as an effective alcohol policy. References Nelson, J.P. (2011) Alcohol marketing, adolescent drinking, and publication bias in longitudinal studies: a critical survey using meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Surveys 25(2):191-232. Nelson, J.P. (2013a) Meta-analysis of alcohol price and income elasticities – with corrections for publication bias. Health Economics Review 3:17. Open Access: www. healtheconomicsreview.com/content/3/1/17. Nelson, J.P. (2013b) Robust demand elasticities for wine and distilled spirits: meta-analysis with corrections for outliers and publication bias. Journal of Wine Economics 8(3):294-317. Nelson, J.P. (2013c) Does heavy drinking by adults respond to higher alcohol prices and taxes? A survey and assessment. Economic Analysis & Policy 43(3):265-291. Open Access: www.eap-journal.com/vol_43_iss_3.php Nelson, J.P. (2014) Gender differences in alcohol demand: a systematic review of the role of prices and taxes. Health Economics (in press). Early View: http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.2974/abstract V29N4


wi n e av o i d a n c e

business & marketing

Why do people avoid wine? Comparisons across Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States and India

By Linda Ovington1, Erica McIntyre1, Anthony Saliba1,2* and Johan Bruwer3 1 School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University 2 National Wine and Grape Industry Centre, Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales 2678 3 School of Marketing, University of South Australia * Corresponding author: asaliba@csu.edu.au

A study of drinkers in Australia, Canada, UK, US and India who rarely or never consumed wine revealed that wine avoidance as a phenomenon may be less culturally sensitive than first thought, and that gaining recommendations from others was a key factor in choosing wine.

W

ine aficionados can be found in many countries and much research is undertaken in an attempt to understand what attracts consumers to wine. Recently, we published an article (Saliba, Ovington and Gunaratne 2013) focussing not on those who drank wine, but on those who ‘avoided’ wine (though did consume other alcoholic beverages). That work reported on results from Australia. There is emerging attention paid to cultural differences in wine consumption, showing large differences in some areas (e.g. health perception, see Yoo, Saliba, MacDonald, Prenzler and Ryan 2013) and negligible differences in others. We extended the results obtained for wine avoiders in Australia to study other countries. Some countries were theoretically similar to Australia in terms of wine consumption, namely the United Kingdom, whereas, Canada and the United States have specific regulatory and societal factors that may lead to different results. Differences are highly likely to be found for India, where wine consumption is only just emerging. The results of this study will be useful to exporters and potential exporters who are considering marketing to emerging markets or consumers for whom wine is not usually their alcohol beverage of choice.

imported into qualitative analysis software NVivo 10 that was used to code key semantic themes. The themes were categorised to reflect the similarity of content, and were repeatedly checked for similarities and differences and categorised until it was agreed that the thematic categories best reflected the content. Results We did not find much variation in the demographic characteristics between countries, except for India. All Indian participants were male

The Pacifix

Muselet

Study method Adults who consumed alcohol regularly, within healthy limits, but rarely or never consumed wine, and were legal drinking age were recruited for this study. Eighty-three people from Australia, Canada, UK, US and India participated in the study across 15 focus groups; three focus groups within each country. The focus groups from each country were segmented into age generations: Millennials (18–30 years), Generation X (31–46 years) and Baby Boomers (47+ years) in order to make comparisons across each of the age groups. The legal drinking age differs across countries; the minimum age in the Millennials focus groups was 21 for the US and India, 19 for Canada, and 18 for Australian and the UK. Ages of participants ranged from 21 to 64 years, with a mean age of 41 years. The segmentation of focus groups is shown in Table 1 (see page 64). An Australian marketing research company recruited all participants and moderated the focus groups online. Each focus group joined an online discussion at an arranged time. The questions were posted in a chat window for all participants to respond to in writing. Group members were able to read and respond to other’s comments in the group. Thematic analysis was used to identify the key themes (see Table 2, see page 64) from the focus group interviews. These themes developed from the participants’ comments, and were not the opinions of those of the interviewer or authors. The focus group transcripts were V2 9N 4

• Plain plaque

• Fast delivery

• Printed plaque

• Precision component

• Plaqueless

• Australian made

• Plain or coloured wire

Proudly made in Australia by D.J. Young Pty Ltd 710 High Street Kew East VIC 3102 Telephone: +61 3 9859 4468 Fax +61 3 9819 7357 e-mail: sales@pacifix.com.au

www.pacifix.com.au

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

63


business & marketing

wi n e av o i d a n c e

Table 1. The segmenting of the focus groups for the comparison study. Australia

Canada

United Kingdom

United States

India

Number of participants (Males, Females) Age group 18-34 years (Millennials)†

6 (4, 2)

6 (3, 3)

5 (3, 2)

4 (1, 3)

8 (8, 0)

35-46 years (Generation X)

6 (1, 5)

7 (4, 3)

4 (3,1)

5 (3, 2)

5 (5, 0)

47+ (Baby Boomers)

7 (5, 2)

3 (1, 2)

6 (5, 1)

5 (2, 3)

6 (6, 0)

Table 2. Summary of categories and themes from perceptions and barriers to wine consumption. Main category

Primary themes

Secondary themes

Complications

Consuming

Context Effects

Purchasing

Confusion Price

Culture and social influence

Identity

Gender stereotypes Class/Cultural stereotypes Contextual stereotypes Advertising

Purpose

Pleasure Social

Food

Consumed with food Cooking with wine

Recommendations

Significant others Liquor store staff

Health benefits Wine characteristics

Sensory experience

Taste Smell

Alcohol content Other characteristics

Not refreshing Speed of drinking

Fake wine*

*Fake wine was a theme that only occurred in the Indian focus groups. and were more highly educated compared with the other countries. As participation criteria was that people had to consume alcohol other than wine, this requirement may have made it difficult to recruit females in India. The thematic analysis found that overall the reasons for avoiding wine were fairly similar, especially between the four Western countries. However, there were notable differences between the Western countries and India, as expected, which is still an emerging wine drinking country. For most people the reasons for avoiding wine were complex. Three main categories of wine avoidance themes were identified; each of these having a number of primary and secondary themes (see Table 2).

consuming and purchasing wine, compared with other types of alcohol.

Category 1: Complications

Consuming Within the primary theme of the complication with consuming wine, two secondary themes emerged, context and effects. The context where alcohol is consumed was either a barrier or an incentive to drink wine. A common response was that wine is not an easy drink to consume at a pub or bar, but more of a drink they would consume at home or at a restaurant. Most participants would drink wine at special events or a formal dinner, as other types of alcohol were not appropriate. The theme ‘effects’ encompasses the various complaints about how wine causes headaches, illness and more severe hangovers than other types of alcohol.

The category of complications arose from perceived difficulties related to

Purchasing Complications involved in purchasing

64

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

wine included confusion over what type of wine to purchase, and the price of wine. Most participants lamented that there are too many wine varieties and brands, making it difficult to choose. However, there was the acknowledgement that a lack of knowledge was the main reason why choice became a problem. The safe option, they suggested, would be to buy a ‘good quality wine’ but that these wines are too expensive. Price was a complication that was a problem across all countries. For example, the UK Generation X reported the high cost of buying wine by the glass when out at a restaurant or bar. They found purchasing wine by the bottle more cost effective. All three of the US focus groups complained the most about the high cost of wine. Indian participants also stated that the cost of wine was too high, although compared with spirits it was a cheaper option. Category 2: Culture and social influence The largest category emerging from the focus groups was around the cultural stereotypes and schemas people held about wine, including beliefs about who the wine consumer is, the purpose of wine, and that wine is a beverage mainly consumed with food. This category also reports the social influences that lead them to consume it occasionally such as asking for recommendations, and the health benefits of wine. Identity The theme ‘identity’ reflects the stereotypes participants hold about the ‘wine consumer’. Several believed (mostly men) that wine is a feminine drink and that beer is more for men. In addition, wine is believed to be a European drink and less popular in their respective countries. Across all countries, wine is believed to be for the ‘classy person’ or the wine connoisseur. Those from the Western countries did not identify with being this sort of person. While the Indian groups held the same opinions, they saw this as a positive rather than a negative stereotype. However, in certain contexts all groups considered wine a drink for everyone. These included business events, Christmas and other special occasions; although, it was not considered an everyday drink. Finally, several participants could not recall having come across wine advertising. As most wine companies cannot afford to advertise on television or in magazines, this is not surprising. Purpose When asked ‘what the purpose of wine was for’, the most common response across all countries was for pleasure and for promoting socialisation. In addition, the purpose of wine was to promote socialising at special events. V29N4


wi n e av o i d a n c e

Food A strong theme came from all countries and generations in regard to the association between wine and food. Many people stated the only time they would drink wine was at a dinner, and that wine enhances a food experience. Some suggested that they would like to learn more about how to pair a wine with a special meal. While the wine industry is currently making these suggestions, we believe that this practice could further benefit the wine industry by encouraging low wine consumers to purchase a wine to match their food, a practice which is commonplace in highly ‘evolved’ wine countries like France and Italy. Recommendations As these people generally lack knowledge about wine, there was a frequent comment that they relied on recommendations from significant others and from liquor store staff. Significant others usually meant a friend or colleague who regularly purchased wine. While many reported happily asking the liquor store staff for a suggestion on which wine would be good to try, others hinted at distrust about the knowledge staff had. We would recommend collaborative training between the industry and liquor store staff to improve staff knowledge of wine in order to assist those with a lack of knowledge to make a confidant choice and, therefore, repeat sales. Health benefits The health benefits of wine were widely discussed by all participants in the study. The most frequent comments related to benefits of red wine on cardiovascular health and stress reduction. Although, a few participants were concerned about health benefits being offset by over consumption of alcohol, and that maybe the reported health benefits were mainly coming from the wine industry. Overall, most accepted that wine was a healthier

alcohol choice and would like to learn more about these benefits. Some people stated that they would drink wine more often if it were proven to be good for their health. Category 3: Wine characteristics The category of ‘wine characteristics’ come from the experiences participants reported as barriers to wine consumption. These included their sensory experiences, the high alcohol content of wine, other characteristics such as the lack of refreshment and speed at which wine can be drunk. Specific to India only, there were reported issues of the sale of ‘fake wines’ that were not always easy to detect until after the beverage has been consumed. Sensory experiences Taste was by far the most commonly reported barrier to purchasing and consuming wine, from all the focus groups. The taste of wine was described as too bitter or too sour and even too strong. However, India differed as the taste of ‘authentic wine’ was liked across generations, and only ‘fake’ wines were disliked. A few from the Australian focus groups also stated disliking the smell, or liking the smell but not liking the taste. Alcohol content When asked about their reasons for not liking wine, several participants felt that the alcohol content was too high. This belief often came from previous experience where wine made them intoxicated too quickly compared with other alcoholic drinks. Unlike their Western counterparts, Indians lamented that wine was ‘too weak’ (in alcohol) and that they preferred stronger alcohol such as spirits. Other characteristics Many people disliked that they could not drink wine quickly and that it was not refreshing, so preferred to drink beer as it can easily be drunk faster and provides a more

business & marketing

refreshing, and thirst quenching experience. Wine on the other hand, needs to be sipped and lacks the refreshment that beer provides. Fake wine An unsurprising theme from the Indian groups was the existence of fake wine. There is also the issue of being able to detect the difference between a fake and an authentic wine. India participants frequently reported that authentic wine was difficult to buy. Authentic wines appear to be more available in the larger metropolitan areas. All of the Indian participants had encountered fake wines, but only some were able to identify these. Conclusion The similarities outweighed the differences in countries other than India. This was surprising given the regulatory and societal differences between Australia and the US and Canada, but perhaps not as surprising for the UK. These results provide confidence that understanding wine avoidance as a phenomenon may be less culturally sensitive than first thought. The next phase of our study involves a quantitative survey of all relevant countries; it will be interesting whether that work uncovers any differences between the developed wine drinking countries, and how it is able to characterise the differences between those and the emerging wine market of India. References Saliba, A.; Ovington, L. and Gunaratne, C. (2013) Why do people avoid consuming wine? Wine & Viticulture Journal 28(5)79. Yoo, Y.J.; Saliba, A.J.; MacDonald, J.B.; Prenzler, P.D. and Ryan, D. (2013) A cross-cultural study of wine consumers with respect to health benefits of wine. Food Quality and Preference 28(2):531-538. WVJ

NEW 2014 EDITION OUT NOW! PRINT and ONLINE To order your copy Call +618 8369 9522 VISIT www.olivebiz.com.au MEDIA

INDEPENDENT & AUSTRALIAN OWNED

V2 9N 4

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

65


business & marketing

c h i n a

Forget special occasions, it is time to relax in China By Dr Justin Cohen, Dr Armando Maria Corsi and Professor Larry Lockshin Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, School of Marketing, University of South Australia

H

aving an effective strategy for the Chinese market is top of mind for most wine producers and merchants not just in Australia, but globally. The Australian Grape and Wine Authority (formerly known as the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation) is conducting outreach with its China Insight’s program and we have been asked to deliver seminars, webinars and teleconferences to discuss our research. For more information on how to attend or to access the full reports, please contact AGWA. AGWA, under its former GWRDC title, has generously supported the China Wine Barometer (CWB) since 2013. This tracking program conducted by the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science (EBI) identifies the attitudes, perceptions and buying behaviour of Chinese wine drinkers. The data collection occurs biannually across a range of Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities in China. The topic of this article is derived from the analysis of the Wave 2 data (n=966), which focusses on the off-premise sector. The January/February 2014 edition of this journal presented results from Wave 1, which focussed on the on-premise sector. The Wave 2 data continues to tell the same story as Wave 1. France (98% awareness) and Bordeaux (83%) are dominant and known by virtually all wine drinkers in China. Australia is only known by about 75% of the wine drinking population, while Barossa Valley is known by slightly less than 50% of Chinese wine drinkers. Cabernet Sauvignon is the most well-known grape variety (82%), while Shiraz is still only known by one-third of the population. The majority (50%) of wines are purchased at less than RMB 200 (about A$35) per bottle in the off-premise sector, but there is a small space (9%) for more expensive (more than RMB 500) wines.

These results are encouraging. We are holding position in the Chinese market, which has experienced some recent volatility. Government anticorruption campaigns are taking its toll on gift giving and public displays of hedonistic behaviour. This is an opportunity for Australia. The topic of this article is how to reframe our thoughts on wine retail in China, so that Australia can be as competitive as possible. When exporting wine to China for the purpose of retail, the formats that exist in this channel are broad and much more complex than in Australia. Figure 1 demonstrates the penetration levels of the various retail channels across wine shoppers. The leading wine retail channels are hypermarkets, specialty wine stores and online wine retailers, however, wine shopping penetration is above 50% for all but one channel. These results demonstrate the formats where one can reach the biggest volume of shoppers, but, given the difficulties the majority of producers have in entering hypermarkets or supermarkets, it is interesting to note that there are other attractive opportunities worth exploring. For example, wineries can establish relationships through their distributor with the myriad of local wine shops, which are now widely present in Tier 1 cities, and also growing in Tier 2 cities. The relationship with these stores must be nurtured in order to make sure the wines are properly marketed to shoppers. Another opportunity worth exploring is online wine sales. The latest figures on the online market in China show that e-commerce increased by more than 70% in the past five years, with total transactions breaking US$200 billion in 2012. The sales
 volume
 of
 wine
 grew 
from
 US$15
million 
in 2010 to US$56
million
in
2012. Some of the biggest online wine retailers declare an average of

Figure 1. Retail channel penetration in China.

66

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


c h i n a

business & marketing

Figure 2. Frequency of wine consumption. 12,000-15,000 bottles of wine sold per day, with peaks of 500,000 bottles of wine sold for example, on 11 November (Singles’ Day) and 130,000 bottles of
wine sold
during the Chinese
New Year
period. Maybe not the panacea for all wine exporting issues in China, but certainly something worth exploring. For more detailed information on the perceptions of individual brick and mortar and online wine retailers in China, the Wave 2 report of the CWB can be accessed via AGWA. Focussing more on strategy, a key issue that has been raised is how Australia competes with the premium position of France. A previous article presented evidence of how France is dominant in the China market in terms of mental availability. But there is still an underlying question that remains. Does Australia want to be perceived as a premium or commercial producer? Our research has shown that France has a strong premium position, whilst China, for example, is perceived as a commercial producer. Chinese wine drinkers place Australia in the middle. Or a different way to interpret this is that Chinese wine drinkers are confused about what Australia stands for. There is great outreach being conducted by AGWA (formerly known as Wine Australia) in China through its A+ wine program. There are also many Australian wineries and businesses working to develop this. This strategy is commendable. It is important to raise awareness and increase the value of our wines in the eyes of consumers. However, recent insights from the CWB Wave 2 indicate that engagement strategies could be more effective if framed differently. Figure 2 shows the frequency of consumption occasions in China. Weekly consumption of wine is much more prevalent for ‘a relaxing drink at home’ or ‘with an informal meal’. Sure there is a market for hosting dinners and special occasions, but it is possible that fixating on developing our premium position to compete with France could limit potential category entry points for Australian wine. Australia is a great country with a high standard of living. Its people are known for their relaxed lifestyle. Other research conducted by the EhrenbergBass Institute for Marketing Science has demonstrated the connection between country image and wine image. Focussing on a strategy for Brand Australia around relaxing and informal consumption occasions could create congruent memory structures that are easier to imprint on memory and retrieve in purchase situations. In conclusion, there are many channels available to sell our wines to consumers in China. As the market evolves, there is evidence that wine consumption is no longer just an on-premise phenomenon. Shoppers are buying wines to consume at home. A source of competitive advantage for Australia could be to engage consumers V2 9N 4

with the most effective message linked with the highest frequency of consumption. There may be cause for some brands to stop battling to be at the apex of luxury and, rather, focus on being physically and mentally available to Chinese wine drinkers based on the most frequent drinking occasions. Australia produces quality, value-formoney wine. Let’s tell the Chinese this and show them how suitable it is for their frequent consumption occasions. WVJ

• Searchable • Easy to use • Wine industry personnel ONLINE PHONEBOOK VISIT www.winebiz.com.au/widonline to Access* *Wine Industry Personnel Phonebook available only to those who have purchased the Wine Industry Directory (purchase includes annual subscription to WID Online) Published by:

PROVIDING SOLUTIONS TO THE WINE INDUSTRY

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

To order your copy: Phone: +618 8369 9509 Email: orders@winetitles.com.au Visit: www.winebiz.com.au

www.winebiz. com . au

67


business & marketing

W I NE C ON S U M P T I ON

World wine consumption climbs again

F

ollowing declines in 2008, 2009 and 2010, global wine consumption rose again in 2011 after a peak in 2007, according to the latest statistics compiled by the Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV) and published in its recently released Vine & Wine Outlook 2010-2011. In 2011, the world consumed 244 million hectolitres of wine, a slight increase of 1.6Mhl on the previous year, compared with 2007’s peak of 255Mhl. Although consumption in Europe declined for the fourth consecutive year (totalling 155.8Mhl in 2011) it still remains by far the world’s leading consumer of wine, accounting for 64%. Between 2006 and 2011, wine consumption in Italy and France fell 15% and 11%, respectively, yet together these two countries represented 34% of wine consumption in Europe. Conversely, wine consumption in Asia grew 26% between 2006 and 2011, with main growth driver being China where consumption grew by the same percentage during the equivalent period. Consumption in the Americas also rose overall in 2011 by 1.2% over the previous year, where the US was easily the leading consumer with 28.4Mhl followed by Argentina with 9.8Mhl. However, Argentina consumed more wine per capita in 2011 with 24.1 litres per year compared with the US on 9.1L/year. France still had the world’s highest per capita wine consumption at 46.4 litres per

Figure 1. Per capita wine consumption per year for the top consuming countries of the world. Source: OIV Vine and Wine Outlook 2010-2011 year in 2011, followed by Portugal at 43.8L/ year and Italy at 37.9L/year. By comparison, Australia’s consumption per capita per year was 23.3L/year in the same year. The OIV’s Vine and Wine Outlook 2010-2011 also summarises the global wine import market, showing an increase of 7.4% in 2011 to 98Mhl compared with 92.3Mhl in 2010, and a 22% increase on the 2006 figure. The biggest importer of wine in 2011 was easily Germany with 16.1Mhl, followed by the UK with 13.3Mhl and the USA with 10.1Mhl. These three countries have increased their imports by 17%, 18% and 32%, respectively, since 2006. Asia continued to see its imports rise

in 2011 to almost 8Mhl (up 16% over 2010 and 86% on 2006). Numerous Asian countries experienced increases, including China (up 28% to 3.7Mhl) and Japan (up 7.4% to 2Mhl) – by far the region’s two biggest wine importers. Other notable increases in wine imports in Europe in 2011 included Hungary (up nearly 200% to 537,000hl in 2011), Romania (up 305% to 908,000hl), Spain (up 74% to 703,000hl) and Greece (up 90% to 203,000hl). Imports into Australia in 2011 climbed 11% on 2010 to 752,000hl, while across the ditch in New Zealand wine imports fell 15% to 277,000hl.

jobs .com.au

Incorporating mywinejob.com.au

more jobs more winery positions more viticulture positions more industry positions MORE OFTEN… and listed with DailyWineNews For further information contact Andrew Dawson at jobs@winebiz.com.au or by phoning +618 8369 9500 or post your ad online at winejobs.com.au Post your classified listings on the wine industry’s most trusted website, www.winebiz.com.au created and managed by PROVIDING SOLUTIONS TO THE WINE INDUSTRY

68

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


W I NE EX P O R T S

business & marketing

Global wine shipments down in volume but up in value By Mark Rowley, Industry Analyst, Wine Australia

A

ccording to the Global Trade Atlas, global wine shipments declined by 2% to 9.7 billion litres in the 12 months to February 2014. The total value of these shipments increased by 4% to US$33.9 billion. Three major forces drove volumes lower and prices denominated in US dollars higher. First, the United States recorded its second consecutive record crush, which lowered demand for imported wine into the country. Secondly, a low-yielding European harvest in 2012 resulted in scarcer supply and, hence, less wine available to export. This also contributed to pushing prices higher. Thirdly, the reporting currency, the US dollar, appreciated which implicitly pushed the values higher. Figure 1 illustrates the impact of the poor European vintage on the export performance of each of the major wine-producing countries. Italy (down 5%), Spain (down 8%), France (down 4%), Germany (down 0.1%) and Portugal (down 10%) recorded declines in the volume of wine exports. However, what Figure 1 does not reveal is that Europe experienced a bumper harvest in 2013 and exports have begun to climb off their lows. Spain, for example, has increased bulk shipments on an annulised basis by 13% from July 2013 to March 2014.

Figure 1. Total wine shipments by country, 2012 and 2013 Source: Global Trade Atlas

Our purpose is to provide buyers the best choice and sellers the best opportunities when dealing with Australian Bulk Wines.

POST - PO Box 1039 • Kent Town • South Australia 5071 OFFICE - 5 / 5-7 Union Street • Stepney • South Australia 5069 CONTACT - Ph +61 8 8363 5188 • Fax +61 8 8363 6188 • info@austwine.net.au

www.austwine.net.au V2 9N 4

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

69


business & marketing

W I NE EX P O R T S

Table 1. Average value of exports by country and container type (year ended February 2014). Source: Global Trade Atlas Bottle

Bulk

Sparkling

Total

USD/litre

Change

USD/litre

Change

USD/litre

Change

USD/litre

Change

Italy

$4.14

11%

$1.09

22%

$4.69

7%

$3.34

15%

Spain

$2.89

28%

$0.77

16%

$3.39

-1%

$1.85

16%

France

$6.48

3%

$1.56

21%

$20.80

5%

$7.13

6%

Chile

$3.18

-0.2%

$0.95

-14%

$4.18

4%

$2.18

-6%

Australia

$4.07

-7%

$0.99

-10%

$4.85

-5%

$1.50

-12%

South Africa

$3.07

-11%

$0.80

-10%

$3.63

-11%

$1.50

-12%

United States

$5.52

11%

$1.44

6%

$6.03

-14%

$3.77

8%

Germany

$3.55

7%

$1.83

8%

$4.17

-8%

$3.31

5%

Argentina

$3.91

3%

$0.92

-1%

$4.35

-5%

$2.77

8%

Portugal

$4.03

7%

$1.03

24%

$5.80

-4%

$3.24

17%

New Zealand

$6.83

1%

$3.24

11%

$6.83

-20%

$5.80

2%

Other

$5.41

-3%

$1.57

10%

$13.38

-7%

$4.74

-2%

Total

$4.47

6%

$1.07

7%

$8.80

-1%

$3.50

6%

It has also taken a huge price sacrifice, with prices crashing by 35% over the same period. The two biggest beneficiaries of Europe’s drop in production in 2012 was Chile (volume up 8%) and South Africa (up 23%). Chile consolidated its spot as fourth biggest exporter by volume and for the first time exceeded Australias exports in US dollar terms. Chile and South Africa (to a lesser extent) have trade advantages over Australia in many markets and have been utilising this advantage to win market share. For example, in China, Chile has a free trade agreement in place saving 14% depending on the container type and wine style, and South Africa avoids the €0.14 CCT charge into Europe. The average value of global wine exports increased in 2013. This was driven by a higher average for bottled (up 6% to US$4.47 per litre) and bulk (up 7% to US$1.07 per litre) wine exports, while sparkling wine exports offset some growth by declining by 1% to US$8.80 per litre.

While anaylsing changes in export value and average value (USD/litre), the reader must consider shifts in the exchange rate. The Euro was the only competitor whose currency appreciated against the US dollar during 2013. An appreciating currency can help the average value of wine increase if it reported in the depreciating currency. For example, if a €3 bottle of wine was shipped in 2012 when €1 bought on average US$1.29, the wine is valued at US$3.86 in US dollar terms. In 2013, the Euro appreciated by 3% against the US dollar and €1 then bought $US1.32. In 2013, the same €3 will now be worth US$3.98 in US dollar terms. This analysis assumes the wine price is constant but in reality, the appreciating currency may cause the wine price to depreciate in domestic currency terms. Hedging and contracts priced in over domiciles will also complicate the interpretation of the figures. Supporting evidence can be found in Table 1. All of the major European producers

recorded an increase in the average value of their exports. The US, whose currency depreciated against the Euro but was strong against the other producer countries’ currencies, also recorded growth in average value. Argentina recorded growth despite its currency depreciating sharply throughout the year. It is a special case as economic turmoil and high inflation may have necessitated price increases. New Zealand managed to ‘buck the trend’ and also recorded an increase. Meanwhile, countries whose currencies depreciated throughout the year - South Africa (down 24% against the USD), Chile (down 8% against the USD), Australia (down (6% against the USD) and the ‘other’ group of exportersrecorded a decline in average value. With the OIV reporting a large increase in the global production of wine in 2013, it can be expected that the volume of wine traded in 2014 will increase, but this will likely place downward pressure on prices, particularly for bulk wine.

Are you listed? Don't miss out in 2015! Gain maximum exposure with your free listing

Ensure the industry can find you and your company • Other industry personnel – Winemakers, Viticulturists, Marketers, Managers… • Wine show committees • Wine buyers, distributors & retailers • Print & Online coverage

The Directory is a POWERFUL MEDIUM because it stays on desks, by the phone, all year round!

Contact Winetitles on +618 8369 9500 or email wid@winetitles.com.au

70

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4


F R A N C E

O V E R S E A S

Wine tourism: the French exception By Damien Wilson, School of Wine & Spirits Business, Groupe Esc Dijon – Bourgogne, France. Email: Damien.Wilson@escdijon.eu

France is the most popular country for tourists in the world, yet tourism’s financial contribution to the French economy ranks third behind the US and Spain, and is only marginally ahead of China. Furthermore, only a small portion of tourists visit a French wine region to taste and discover wine, despite it being one of the most commonly linked products to the country. Damien Wilson explores how wine tourism in France could increase its contribution to France’s GDP.

F

rance has a number of elements that attract visitors from around the world. Attractions such as the history, landmarks, war memorials, gastronomy and Renaissance architecture contribute to making France the world’s most touristed country, receiving 83 million visitors a year (UNWTO 2014). Wine tourism is a subset within this set of appeals for the visitor, and with winegrapes being one of the five most important agricultural products by value to the economy, wine tourism is clearly an important potential contributor to France’s gross domestic product (GDP). For the French, that they receive the most tourists and produce the best wine exemplifies the ‘French exception’ perfectly. The ‘exception’, in this case, refers to a higher quality; that of being exceptional. However, in a disappointing expression of this sentiment, France’s wine tourism offer is more indicative of being labelled an exception for reasons other than high achievement. The challenge for the French is that even with the highest number of annual tourists, tourism’s financial contribution to the French economy (~US$56billion) ranks third behind the US (~US$140billion) and Spain (~US$60billion), and is only marginally ahead of China (UNWTO 2014). The image of Gallic prestige and luxury afforded to France and its products is not well supported in tourism expenditure. For all the interest and wonder that the world of tourism has for France, the service offering is neither regarded highly by tourists, nor greatly appreciated as a need by producers. Accordingly, although tourism is a major export earner, the fact that only a small portion of tourists visit a wine-growing region to taste and discover wine is one of the paradoxes of France’s attraction as a tourism destination. Further clouding the paradox of having high appeal, but comparatively low value, is that wine is one of the most commonly linked products with the image of France.

V2 9N 4

A tourist will plan his or her visit to a new country in such a way as to facilitate an evaluation of a perception. Along with cheese, Paris, the Eiffel tower, Eurodisney and the beret, the stereotype of France is a key behind understanding the motivations of tourists to visit the country. With such a strong image, and high number of tourists, it is difficult for the French to understand how tourists spend almost three times as much per visitor during visits to the most valuable country for tourism, the US. Analysing the problem There are two primary considerations explaining why France struggles to encourage wine tourism expenditure. These are simply defined as: the wine producer’s lack of interest in receiving tourists, and the tourist’s lack of interest in the winemaker. I’ll explain… French law prevents wine being made by anyone not trained in the art. Therefore, any tourist can be safe in the knowledge that a vigneron has at least had some sort of training in the process of creating and managing a wine business. In most cases, vignerons also have access to a number of local consultants, regional associations, state assistance and a wealth of advisory tomes such as the recent A practical guide to Wine Tourism by Resnick and de Roany (2014). Therefore, there are ample opportunities to develop the skills required to develop and exercise a wine tourism offer. Any approach to wine tourism also requires a common, and systematic approach at a regional level so as to facilitate the process of attracting tourists to the region. Each affected wine producer should be able to manage and develop his or her own offer for the benefit of the tourist. The provision of a common, regional strategy helps to facilitate the navigation of the region and the provision of services for the tourist (Resnick and de Roany 2014). W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

Wine tourists expect a requisite degree of service and infrastructure facilities in any wine region. The wine tourist expects to be able to make his or her way around a wine region, and for there to be sufficient accommodation, recreation and restauration options in order for those not attracted to wine to remain involved in the visit (Goodman 2012; Mitchell et al. 2000). Here is where the wine tourist’s lack of interest in the wine producer becomes relevant. France benefits from having the premier image as a wine tourist destination, but in what marketers call ‘moments of truth’, the French wine tourism offer is too often considered disappointing for the visitor. In simple terms, a ‘moment of truth’ is where the customer evaluates whether his or her perception of the offer corresponds with the reality. Sadly for the French, when you’re perceived as the most popular and greatest of wine producers, retaining and reinforcing this image is the most difficult. What the French need to do is to identify their leading exponents of wine tourism, and adapt these examples for the benefit of wine producers and their regions. The French exception Too often, tourists visit a wine region in France only to leave disappointed. Historical reports from tourists included these challenges: • none or poor signage • unknown opening hours • inability to communicate • poor service, and/or the serving of spoiled wine • unknown or horrendous transport charges. Anecdotally, tourists recalled that some winery owners simply decided to close for an unannounced holiday (leaving only a post-it note on the mailbox for visitor who may have travelled 10,000km just to visit). Those affected by such a decision will leave not only with disappointment, but also a reason not www.winebiz. com . au

71


O V E R S E A S

F R A N C E

to buy those wines again. For the tourist arriving in a wine region, simply being aware of a winery implies a positive effect on the tourism experience (Orth et al. 2012). But this positive intention is easily devalued as tourists recall their experiences of a region when presented with an opportunity to purchase wine in the future. In light of these challenges, the reputation afforded French vignerons would merit the description ‘wine tourist attraction’ an oxymoron. However, there are signs of the need to improve the approach to wine tourism being taken up. There are both numerous exceptions, and evidence that this situation is improving. The approach taken by Tourism Burgundy illustrates both a recognition of the challenges, but also the need to address them. There are now more than 700 wine producers adhering to a ‘Welcome Charter’ for visitors to the region. This charter compels the producer to adhere to the following conditions: • indicate the languages spoken at the establishment • adhere to the expressed opening hours • provide a range of wines that also cover modest budgets • provide or indicate where accommodation and/or restauration can be obtained. The charter also includes references to indicating local sites and/or businesses of interest, as well as the provision of information of note to the tourist. This sort of approach is exactly what tourists want to know. The signs of improvement are there to see. Further, it’s not just in Burgundy that this sort of example is being witnessed. On a recent excursion to Épernay I had a first-hand experience of wine tourism for both groups and individuals. In order to evaluate the offer from a variety of producers, our group visited the bigger houses of Domaine Drappier and De Castellane, as well as family businesses in Domaine Gerbais and Janisson Baradon. The journey home included a visit to the Coopérative of Passy-Grigny. The experiences were both frustrating and uplifting. The large producers were experienced in dealing with groups. In both locations, the signage was very good, and the image and welcome were both impressive and friendly. But the capacity to adapt and respond to the needs of the customers was where the smaller businesses really excelled. Domaine Gerbais was more difficult to find, but once there, we were welcomed, nourished and well informed. The cooperative was also an eye-opener. The welcome was warm and genuine, and even though the tour was standardised, there was both an innovation in the use of a promotional and informative video, but

72

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

also a customisation of the visit that was not seen in either of the larger houses. The real surprise was Janisson Baradon. This Champagne producer was an individual visit. I wanted to ascertain whether social media had been discovered in Champagne, and decided to find a producer to visit by using Twitter. I had low expectations, but I should not have. Within three minutes of tweeting for suggestions on where to visit at 9am the following morning, I received a response from Cyril, the co-owner and manager of Janisson Baradon. I arrived at the winery at 8h55 the following morning to find Cyril already with the door open and facing-up Champagne for the day. As I tried to butcher the French language with a greeting, he welcomed me into his contemporary shop-front in fluent English. On entering, the wall of family pictures conveyed a strong sense of tradition. The neat arrangements of the range of Champagnes on offer showed a business with a clear identity, and a recognition of the challenges facing modern wine businesses. Cyril invited me to sit and discuss his business with a glass or a taste of his Champagne. He’s adapted his offer to what his clients want. He also opens during lunch hours when most of his customers want to visit (because that’s when all the French visitors have lunch, and other businesses are quiet). His opening hours are indicated, but he works outside of them if customers are still with him (he normally opens at 10am, but opened earlier on this day because that’s when I was available). He knows the transport costs and shipping conditions of all his popular markets, and he informed me about local businesses of interest and the location of familiar sites. I could not have found a better example of what is required to succeed in wine tourism. The French exception does exist in wine tourism!

research study in the Coonawarra and McLaren Vale wine regions in South Australia measured the motivations for engaging in wine tourism and specific behaviours related thereto. The results of the study are exposited by means of a suggested conceptual motivational framework for wine tourism. The framework is a simple constant consisting of three main dimensions: the Visitor, Wine Region and Visit Dynamic (viewed in terms of first-time or repeal visitation. We know that the tourist is familiar with French wine, but as illustrated by Californian wine producers, as the region becomes more fragmented and niched in the consumer’s mind, not only does the connection to wine decline, but the perceived value that consumers attribute to the region falls as well (Gillespie 2005). The image of wine tourism in France needs to be clear, and consistent in order to continue to attract visitors. Secondly, even with the benefit of heightened appeal, the value of wine tourism is comparatively low in France when compared with other countries. This situation can be improved by adopting a focus on improving the facilities on a regional level to help the tourist navigate and appreciate the local environment. Further, each wine producer must then work to provide the experience that complements the wine they offer to their visitors. By providing the necessary local infrastructure and adopting a consistent and minimum level of service to the wine tourist, there is every chance that the French exception can be returned to the podium instead of remaining in the outhouse.

Conclusion

Gillespie, J. (2005) Consumer responses to regional labelling.

Having personally been refused entry to a winery open to visitors (because I didn’t look like I’d buy wine), and accused of being a spy and traitor to France for having had Australian wine shipped into France, I know how heated this topic can be for the French vigneron, when asked about the services required for the Francophile oenotourist. Thankfully, those experiences from a decade ago are becoming fewer and farther between. For a wine region to appeal to tourists, the region must be clear and salient in the mind of the tourist (Alant and Bruwer 2004; Orth et al. 2012)who visit wine regions in order to have wine-related experiences. An exploratory wine tourism

Goodman, S. (2012) Principles of wine marketing / by Steve Goodman. Winetitles, Broadview, S. Aust.

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

References Alant, K. and Bruwer, J. (2004) Wine tourism behaviour in the context of a motivational framework for wine regions and cellar doors. J. Wine Res. 15:27–37. doi:10.1080/0957126042000300308

Mitchell, R.; Hall, C.M. and McIntosh, A. (2000) Wine tourism and consumer behaviour, in: Wine tourism around the world: development, management and markets. Elsevier, King’s Lynn, Norfolk 115–135. Orth, U.R.; Stöckl, A.; Veale, R.; Brouard, J.; Cavicchi, A.; Faraoni, M.; Larreina, M.; Lecat, B.; Olsen, J.; Rodriguez-Santos, C.; Santini, C. and Wilson, D. (2012) Using attribution theory to explain tourists’ attachments to place-based brands. J. Bus. Res. 65:1321–1327. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.027 Resnick, E. and de Roany, J. (2014) Guide pratique de l’oenotourisme - Dunod/La Vigne [WWW Document]. URL http://www.dunod.com/sciencestechniques/sciences-techniques-industrielles/ agroalimentaireoenologie/ouvrages-professionnels/ guide-pratique--2 (accessed 6.8.14). UNWTO (2014) World Tourism Barometer (Volume WVJ 12), World Tourism Barometer. V29N4


e n gla n d

O V E R S E A S

Sparkling wine production in the southeast of England By Pascal Marty1* and Peter Dry2 1 Viticulturist, Nyetimber Vineyard, West Sussex, England, United Kingdom 2 Viticulture Consultant, The Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, South Australia * Corresponding author: pmarty@domaine-lafage.com Sparkling wine production worldwide

I

n 2010, 2.5 billion bottles of sparkling wine were produced which equalled 7% of the world's total wine production (FranceAgriMer 2012). A quarter was produced in France (of which 50% was in Champagne), 15% in Italy (a quarter of which was Prosecco) and also about 15% in Germany. The fourth largest producing country is Spain, making western Europe the main area of sparkling wine production. In France, besides the Champagne region, many regions produce some crémants (in the Bordeaux area, the Loire valley, Alsace…); others produce some very traditional wines like Blanquette de Limoux, in Languedoc, and Clairette de Die, in the Rhône valley. In Italy, the main sparkling wines are Asti Spumante produced in Piedmont, Franciacorta, in Lombardy, and Prosecco, in several north-eastern regions (Veneto, Friuli…). German Sekt is produced along the Rhine, but around 90% of German Sekt is made at least partially from imported wines from Italy, Spain and France. Most Spanish sparkling wines are Cava, almost entirely produced in the Penedès area in Catalonia. It is worth pointing out that important volumes of sparkling wines are also produced in Russia, next to the Black Sea, and the US, mainly in California, and that most wine regions worldwide produce some sparkling wine. English and Welsh wines are emerging with several recent significant international recognitions (e.g. best wine winning at Bollicine del Mondo 2009 and Decanter World Wine Awards Overall 2010). The producing area is, however, still very marginal with a total planted area of 1384ha in 2011 but growing quickly, nearly doubling since 2004 (EWP 2013). Sparkling wine production now exceeds still wine production and will certainly become the dominant sector in the near future, as most of the new plantings are for sparkling wine V2 9N 4

Figure 1. The 10-year moving average of the mean temperature over the growing season in the southeast of England. Source: MetOffice, 2012 production. Most premium sparkling wine producers are located in the southeast of England between the latitudes 50 and 51ON. This latitude has been commonly considered as the limit for viticulture in the northern hemisphere. However, the increase of local temperatures over the last three decades, as shown in Figure 1, and the specific requirements for sparkling wine production demonstrate that the boundary could be pushed further north. This graph corresponds to the 10-year moving average of the mean temperature over the growing season in the southeast. Historically, the temperature was around 13.5OC but has increased significantly since the 1980s, to an average of 14.5OC in the last decade. Physical and geographical aspects Figure 2 represents several wine regions including West Sussex, in the W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

heart of the southeast of England, according to the long-term average temperature and total rainfall over the growing season. Since the winter in the southeast of England is quite mild and the rain not strongly winter-driven, it can be indeed misleading to study only the annual data. West Sussex is part of a group including the Champagne, Alsace and Mittelrhein areas. By taking into account Figure 1 showing an average of 14.5OC during the growing season and how important half a degree’s difference makes during the growing season on this side of the graph, it can be said that the current temperature and rainfall conditions in West Sussex are very similar to the conditions historically found in Champagne (i.e., before the 1990s). The soils in the vineyards in Champagne are very much related to geology, as are those in the southeast www.winebiz. com . au

73


O V E R S E A S

e n gla n d

Plant material and phenology

Figure 2. The long-term average temperature and total rainfall over the growing season for various wine regions. Source: Aquastat, 2012

Figure 3. The various geological layers present in the southeast of England as a result of their formation and erosion. Source: SDNPA, 2012. of England. The bedrock in Champagne and the southeast of England both date back to the Cretaceous. During the Lower Cretaceous period, 112 to 121 million years ago, thick deposits of mud and sand accumulated in southern England (the Wealden Group), which now outcrop in Sussex, the Isle of Wight and East Dorset. These were overlayed by marine sands and clays (the Greensand and Gault Clay) associated with the rise in sea-level and establishment of marine conditions over much of Britain. Deepening of the sea in the Late Cretaceous marked the onset of the deposit of large amounts of calcareous ooze on the sea-floor. These deposits later formed chalk, which originally covered much of Britain, but following erosion over millions of years, now only form outcrops in eastern and southern

74

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

England. These chalk outcrops include the North Downs, which run from Surrey to Kent, and the South Downs, which run from Hampshire to East Sussex. Figure 3 shows the different geological layers present in the southeast as a result of their formation and erosion (SDNPA 2012). There is indeed a close correlation between the bedrock and superficial deposits in the southeast of England. The chalk from the South and North Downs tends to give free draining, shallow lime-rich soils over chalk, the greensand gives acid, sandy and loamy soils with good underlying drainage, and the Weald slowly permeable, seasonally wet, loamy and clayey soils. The Gault formation can result in soils with impeded drainage, not suitable for vineyards. W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

According to the UK Food Standards Agency, there are more than 60 grape varieties planted in the UK. However, Chardonnay and Pinot Noir represent about 40% of the total planted area (EWP 2013). Many German varieties are also used (Bacchus, Reichensteiner…) as well as hybrids (Rondo, Seyval Blanc…). The Judgment of Parson’s Green, which is an English and Welsh sparkling wines tasting event organised every year since 2011, demonstrates that the wines made from Chardonnay and Pinot Noir are consistently much better scored than those using other varieties. This is an observation widely shared among the UK wine industry, and future plantings for sparkling wine production will undoubtedly focus mainly on the ‘Champagne varieties’. Note that a wide range of rootstocks is used in the UK. SO4 seems to be the most widespread but Fercal, 41B, 3309C, 101-14MGt and Gravesac are also used. In the southeast of England, Chardonnay and Pinot Noir budburst is around mid-April, as in Champagne. Flowering usually occurs at the end of June, i.e., two weeks later than Champagne. Veraison starts at the end of August, and the average picking date is mid-October. The number of days between flowering and harvest is a good indicator to describe a wine region, since it is generally a constant figure in the long-term. While 95 days are required in Champagne, 105 days are necessary in England. Note the Winkler heat summation index equals 920 degree days (OC) from 1 April through to 31 October, and the Huglin index (HI) 1445 from 1 April through to 30 September in West Sussex over the last decade. HI equalled about 1500 historically in Champagne, but is now close to 1600 on average with peaks close to 1800 recorded in 2006 and 1900 in 2003 (Beltrando and Briche 2010). Vineyard practices Since there is no constraint regarding vineyard practices in the UK and the growers are keen to experiment, several planting densities and vineyard management strategies have been trialled. The trend is now to grow between 4-5000 vines per hectare, with a vine spacing ranging from 1-1.2m and a row width from 2-2.2m. The pruning style is usually single Guyot. The canopy is conducted in VSP, giving an exposed foliage area of approximately 12,000m2/ha. The ground is kept bare under the vines but with grass or cover crops in the inter-rows. V29N4


e n gla n d

In order to benefit the most from the 1200-1300 sunshine hours recorded from April to September, the main sparkling wine producers have been carefully selecting their sites with gentle slopes of 5-10% facing south and planting vines with north-south rows (Figure 4). Target yield ranges between 6-10t/ha. All the grapes for sparkling wines are picked by hand. English sparkling wine production in the future There is a wide range of quality within sparkling wines, from poor to iconic. Also, it is not possible to consistently produce premium quality sparkling wines without an optimum balance between the production area, the grapes and the vineyard practices. There is no recipe either. It is about understanding each site, adjusting the practices according to the current conditions, and experimenting. It is a never-ending learning process. English wine producers are now strongly involved in a process of increasing their understanding of the interactions between

factors such as soil, climate and vineyard practices in order to produce consistent and recognisable premium quality vintage after vintage. The United Kingdom Vineyards Association (UKVA) sponsors the Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) wine schemes. PGI refers to English regional quality sparkling wines, while PDO to English quality sparkling wines. PDO is more restrictive and ensures that the grapes have come exclusively from the named area and are only Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Pinot Noir Précoce, Pinot Meunier, Pinot Blanc and/or Pinot Gris, with a maximum yield of 80HL/ha. The production of the wine must also take place in the named area (UKVA 2014). Not all the growers adhere to these schemes though. The profiles of the English sparkling wines vary significantly between producers. Most producers, however, are developing specific qualitative characteristics which will certainly become soon a distinct English

O V E R S E A S

style. The next International C ool Climate Wine Symposium will be held in Brighton, England (26-28 May 2016), and details on the English identity should be revealed in due course. References Beltrando, G. and Briche, E. (2010) Changement climatique et viticulture en Champagne: du constat actuel aux prévisions du modèle ARPEGE-Climat sur l’évolution des températures pour le XXIe siècle. EchoGéo 14/2010. English Wine Producers [EWP] (2013) Statistics, key facts based on 2011 data. http://www. englishwineproducers.com/ FAO (2012) Aquastat - Climate Information Tool. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/ FranceAgriMer (2012) Le marché mondial des vins effervescents. Les synthèses de FranceAgriMer. Numéro juillet 2012/7. MetOffice (2012) Climate summaries - Regional values. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ South Down National Park Authority [SDNPA]. (2012) Geology and Landscape. http://www. southdowns.gov.uk/ United Kingdom Vineyards Association [UKVA] (2014) PDO and PGI Wine Schemes – Specifications. WVJ http://www.ukva.org.uk/

Figure 4. The UK’s major sparkling wine producers have been carefully selecting their sites with gentle slopes of 5-10% facing south and planting vines with north-south rows in order to benefit the most from the 1200-1300 sunshine hours recorded from April to September.

2014 Edition OUT NOW

PRINT & ONLINE Access via www.winebiz.com.au PROVIDING SOLUTIONS TO THE WINE INDUSTRY

V2 9N 4

To order your copy: Phone: +618 8369 9509 Email: orders@winetitles.com.au Visit: www.winebiz.com.au

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

75


vari e tal r e p o rt

Delivering delectable Dolcetto

The number of Australian wineries making straight Dolcetto are scarce to say the least but according to the panellists in our recent wine tasting (see results page 79), the following three are making stand-out examples so we asked their producers to fill our readers in on how they’re going about it. Justin Purser Winemaker Best’s Great Western Great Western, Victoria Wine: 2012 Best’s Dolcetto (RRP$25.00/bottle) VITICULTURE Best’s has two estate Dolcetto blocks as well as the original source vines in the Nursery Block, all located at the Concongella vineyard in Great Western, Victoria. Our first Dolcetto vines were planted in our Nursery Block in 1866, along with around 40 other varietals. The history of the Flinders Block plantings is a little hazy, but it is believed planting began in 1869 and continued through to the mid 1870s. The Briggs Block was planted in 1971 from cuttings taken from the Flinders Block. The Flinders Block is now approximately 0.53 hectares. In the late 1800s the Dolcetto plantings could have been as much as 5.4ha. The Briggs Block contains approximately 0.77ha. With the vineyard located in a cool climate growing region, the Dolcetto blocks experience warm days and cool nights during the growing season. Temperatures can reach upwards of 35°C during the day and fall to low 20°C of a night during the summer peak. Spring and autumn are characterised by clear, crisp days of 20-26°C and chilly nights of 8-12°C, meaning frosts can be particularly prevalent during these seasons. Frost can still be a problem in late November. The soil in the Concongella vineyard is varied. The surface soil (0-20cm) of the Flinders and Nursery Block is a fine, sandy brown loam (‘Stawell Loam’). The subsoil is a yellow/brown and yellow/red heavy clay (20100cm). The surface soil of the Briggs Block is fine, brown sandy loam (‘Stawell Loam’), turning yellow/red (0-50cm). The subsoil is a mottled yellow/red and yellow/brown medium clay, becoming fine sandy clay loam (50-100cm) The Dolcetto vines in the Flinders and Briggs Blocks are not on rootstocks. The vines in the Flinders Block are trellised to a single wire, with rows 2.7m apart, which were planted by Henry Best and have varying vine spaces, and are very short, gnarly old vines. In the Briggs Block, the Dolcetto is trained to a single wire with a catch wire, where rows are 3m apart and vines 1.5m apart.

76

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

Best’s has two estate Dolcetto blocks – just over half a hectare each in its Flinders Block’ and‘Briggs Block’ - as well the original source vines in its Nursery Block, which are all located at its Concongella vineyard in Victoria’s Great Western. No canopy management practices, such as shoot or bunch thinning, are required on either block. The Briggs Block is drip irrigated from dam water on the property with the frequency of irrigations weather dependant (on average it’s five hours each fortnight from November onwards during the growing season). The Flinders Block - Best’s original Dolcetto block - is dry-grown. A permanent sward of fescue is grown between rows ine Briggs Block, with undervine spraying and slashing taking place regularly. The vineyard team’s aim is to increase the organic matter infused into the soil and under the vines to encourage healthy bug activity. In the Flinders Block, natural grasses are cultivated with a straw mulch program to begin in the future to conserve soil moisture due to climate conditions becoming hotter and drier, and also encourage healthy bug activity. All the vines on the property in Great Western are hand-pruned by the Best’s vineyard team. Both Dolcetto blocks are cane pruned in August in an effort to delay budburst for frost protection – the Briggs Block to 26-30 buds per vine and the Flinders Block to 15-17 buds per vine. W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

Best’s winemaker Justin Purser. The Dolcetto vines don’t require any particular pest and disease management other than the normal measures we apply throughout the year to the whole vineyard. Downy and powdery mildew are our only real potential problems. A straw mulch program was started on our original Shiraz and Pinot Meunier vines last year. This has produced some V29N4


vari e tal r e p o rt

great results for these varieties and we will therefore now apply the program to all of our original vines, including the Dolcetto plantings. The Briggs Block yields an average of 4.5 tonnes per hectare while the Flinders Block yields an average of 1-2 tonnes per hectare Dolcetto is very susceptible to heat stress during summer. This was especially prevalent with the 2014 vintage, when we lost 60% of our Dolcetto crop due to a number of heatwaves that occurred in January. WINEMAKING The 2012 vintage was good for Dolcetto due to the mild autumn and good soil moisture, so we were able to fully ripen the fruit. The ‘continental’ climate, relatively unique in Australia, defined by cold nights and warm afternoons, means the fruit grown here develops flavours slowly through the day, building intense and varietal aromas and characters. The fruit was hand harvested on 15 March 2012. It was gently de-stemmed and fermented warm to hot with some hand plunging in open fermenters. It was then basket pressed and matured in old American oak puncheons for five months, followed by a few weeks in stainless steel before bottling in September 2012.

Parish Hill winemaker Andrew Cottell.

MARKETING Best’s Dolcetto sits within our Great Western Range, a collection of wines that provides an ideal introduction to the unique style of Great Western. These accessibly priced wines show detailed aromatic qualities set within a medium-bodied framework. Best’s Dolcetto is sold into select onpremise venues and directly through cellar door and the company’s website. Andrew Cottell Winemaker Parish Hill Adelaide Hills, South Australia Wine: 2010 Parish Hill Dolcetto (RRP$30.00/bottle) VITICULTURE The fruit for our 2010 Dolcetto was sourced entirely from our vineyard at Uraidla, in the Paccadilly Valley in the Adelaide Hills. The vineyard has an elevation of 500 metres and is on a steep slope facing west and north-west. Soils in the vineyard are variable but are mainly shallow clay over hard sandstone. The winter-dominant annual rainfall is around 1000mm. Frosts are rarely a problem. The ripening period post-veraison is characterised by warm to hot days with cold nights. The Dolcetto vines were established in 2006 and are a mix of Matura clones 3, 4 and V2 9N 4

The Dolcetto vines in the Parish Hill vineyard at Uraidla, in South Australia’s Adelaide Hills, were established in 2006 and are a mix of Matura clones 3, 4 and 5 on Richter 110 roostocks. W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

77


vari e tal r e p o rt

5 on Richter 110 roostocks. Vines are 1.2 metres apart and rows 2.3 metres apart. The vines are pruned to a unilateral cordon of between seven to 10 buds. Our Dolcetto tends to produce a lot of double buds and these are later thinned out. The vines have low to moderate vigour and are trained to a VSP canopy with four sets of foliage wires. The canopy is lightly trimmed twice. In December, Dolcetto leaves have an attractive feature in that the veins and petioles are dark red, similar to the colour of the wine. The vine row is sprayed with glyphosate and Basta twice during the growing season. The mid row is grassed and cut regularly. Dolcetto bunches are larger than many other varieties but loose and pendulous so create a good amount of exposure but still with some natural foliage cover. Leaf stripping is not needed. The clones we have are not overly fruitful and many shoots have only one bunch per cane. Bunch thinning is only done if there is too much fruit per vine or if there is bunch crowding and shading. Irrigation is applied if the vines appear stressed or as a preventative measure as well as an organic fertiliser applied as a foliage spray if a heatwave is predicted. Our Dolcetto is mildly susceptible to powdery mildew but is controlled with routine preventative sprays. Botrytis is not a problem due to the open nature of the bunches. Sulfur and copper sprays are not used. We prefer to use a yearly rotation of products such as Flute, Legend, Talendo, Revus, Bravo, etc. Budburst and flowering occurs between Chardonnay and Shiraz. We pick mainly on flavour, which is slow to accumulate but then comes in quickly. At this stage some berries are showing some bagging and the flavours are of prune, spice, raisin and ripe fruit characters, but not over-ripe or dead fruit characters. We don’t take too much notice of the TA or pH at this stage but typically they are: TA 5.5-6.0g/L pH 3.4 We usually make a wine about 13.0% alcohol but 2010 ripened very quickly and was 14.0% Yields average around 2kg/vine. We are currently experimenting with crop load, bunch exposure and shoot numbers from pruning to try to produce grapes that have plenty of flavour but at a lower Baume so we can make a wine of 12-12.5% ABV but still has some of the flavours we see at 13.514.0 Baume. WINEMAKING The grapes are crushed and de-stemmed and inoculated with a commercial yeast or left to wild ferment in some years. Dolcetto

78

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

can be reductive and is pumped over and plunged three times a day. There is a rapid extraction of anthocyanins. The warm wine is inoculated with a commercial malolactive culture at around 3.0Be and pressed off with fermentation and ageing finished in tank. There is no oak treatment involved. The wine is racked several times during the next six months and acid adjusted to a pH of around 3.6 and then bottled under screwcap. The young wine has a soft, low acid and low tannin profile with fruit characters of spice, prune, stewed cherry, liquorice and marzipan and a characteristic slight bitter finish. After a year or so in bottle the wine becomes more complex. MARKETING Dolcetto is a good stand-alone drink and goes well with most cuisines. Many first-time Dolcetto drinkers are aware of the fact that ‘dolcetto’ means sweet and initially think the wine will be sweet and are reluctant to try it, but when they do they like it. When asked at a public tasting what it is like, we usually say it is similar to Merlot. People who usually drink big, oaky Shiraz find Dolcetto a bit weak. Our Dolcetto is sold through our website, word of mouth and repeat customers. Melanie Kargas Senior Winemaker Salena Estate Wines Riverland, South Australia Wine: 2013 Salena Estate Ink Series Dolcetto (RRP$20/bottle) VITICULTURE The fruit for our 2013 Dolcetto was sourced from a contract grower in Langhorne Creek. The vines are on own roots and are grown in sandy loam soils. They are trained to a single-wire VSP, spur pruned and irrigated with drippers. WINEMAKING This fruit was machine harvested at night and transported to the Riverland for processing where it was crushed and destemmed immediately on arrival. Enzymes and acid adjustments as well as a small amount of fermentation tannin were added at the crusher. Juice was placed into a stainless steel fermenter with toasted French oak shavings. Yeast was added within 24 hours and pumped over three times daily with small tannin adjustments made if needed. The ferment was kept on skins for 7-10 days at temperatures between 2426°C. It was pressed in an air bag press, allowed to complete sugar fermentation, W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

Salena Estate’s senior winemaker Melanie Kargas. then racked and inoculated for malolactic fermentation. The juice was then racked and sulfured off malo lees and placed in full storage with a small portion going to second and third-use French oak. After approximately eight months the components were blended and the wine prepared for packaging. MARKETING This wine sits in our Ink Series Range of wines, which is made up of all alternative varieties. Not all varieties are made every year and only wines that fit the profile make it to bottle. It is sold domestically and on premise only. The challenges faced are like with anything new, getting people to try them. The Ink Series range of wines was originally developed around my passion for both food and wine. All the wines are made with food as the focus of how they are put together. With this in mind we only accept small parcels of fruit for this range. They are all single vineyard and the range does include some organic wines. The fruit comes from different parts of South Australia, and we have been fortunate enough over the past five years to have many different varieties offered to us. I find it hard to contain my excitement at WVJ the prospect of a new variety to try. V29N4


T A S T I N G NO T E S

Fragile Dolcetto takes on multiple forms According to Kym Anderson’s book ‘Which Winegrape Varieties are Grown Where?’, Australia boasts the highest plantings of Dolcetto outside of its native Italy – albeit a modest 154ha versus Italy’s 6128ha, based on the latest stats for 2010. Only a handful of straight Dolcettos are made in Australia, but we assembled a few of them, as well as a couple of Dolcetto-dominant blends and a sparkling style, for our latest tasting.

A

nyone unfamiliar with Dolcetto would have been left somewhat confused over the style it represents based on our recent tasting of Australian versions such was the degree of variation among them. The tasting included 10 straight varietals, four Dolcetto-dominant blends and a sparkling style which were blind tasted by Salena Estate’s senior winemaker Melanie Kargas, Annie’s Lane winemaker Alex MacKenzie, senior lecturer in oenology and sensory studies at The University of Adelaide Sue Bastian, and wine science student Naomi Verdonk. Alex Mackenzie has spent time working in Italy’s Piedmont region, the spiritual home of Dolcetto, where he said the variety was made into a serious, largely unwooded style. “Piedmont has a long, cool growing season. The Dolcetto comes off before Barbera and Nebbiolo. It’s kept on skins for a couple of days then inoculated and worked through fermentation before going to tank then bottled shortly after malo. So, 6-12 months after it’s picked it’s in bottle and you can get some quite serious wines, but they don’t look anything like we’ve made in Australia. “Over there it’s a $20 wine – a great pizza wine with nice fruit and structure. Early drinking, not too oaky, not too ripe, fairly fresh, with a bit of sourness and natural acidity. They’re not big styles – 13.5-14% alcohol - but they carry their fruit. It’s not made to drink five years down the track – it’s made to be consumed within two years. It’s not an age-worthy wine. They don’t put it in barrel as such except a small portion perhaps. “I’ve tried to work with Dolcetto here in Australia and at times I’ve made it as a rose just because i don’t think it’s going to hang in there; I’ve had to pull it off. If it gets too hot it doesn’t set properly. It needs a fair bit of water as well. It’s very fragile to grow. It takes a lot of work in the vineyard but that maybe symptomatic of the clones we’re growing in Australia.” MacKenzie said he thought cooler regions like the Adelaide Hills, Clarendon and Blewitt Springs in South Australia, and Tasmania, were likely to be ideal V2 9N 4

The panellists for the Journal’s Dolcetto tasting were (from left) senior lecturer in oenology and sensory studies at The University of Adelaide Sue Bastian, Annie’s Lane winemaker Alex MacKenzie, Salena Estate’s senior winemaker Melanie Kargas, and wine science student Naomi Verdonk. places to grow Dolcetto in Australia because it was early-ripening. “Somewhere like Clare is probably a bit harsh for it. It needs moisture. And I’m not sure whether 40°C or more would be kind to it either,” MacKenzie said. Melanie Kargas, who has produced two vintages of Dolcetto with fruit sourced from Langhorne Creek, added that Dolcetto was “super susceptible” to botrytis – even in years when the disease pressure for botrytis isn’t high. “It’s very thin-skinned which is probably its biggest downfall. But it doesn’t lose acidity in the vineyard – I don’t recall ever having to significantly boost it,” Kargas noted. “We had an Italian winemaker working with us recently who asked why we were bothering with Dolcetto. He hated the variety. You have to be so careful with the acid and tannin balance because the wines can be super tannic and drying if you’re not careful. But it has great potential,” she said. The panel’s top three wines of the tasting were Best’s 2012 Dolcetto, Parish Hill 2010 Dolcetto and Salena Estate’s 2013 Ink Series Dolcetto. W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

79


T A S T I N G NO T E S

Best’s 2012 Dolcetto

Parish Hill 2010 Dolcetto

Great Western, Victoria 12.5% v/v - screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle

Adelaide Hills, South Australia 14.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle

Best of tasting: Bright magenta colour with red hues. Hints of plum, cherry, currant, fig and spice on the delicate yet complex nose, with a floral soap character and a slightly plastic smell. Light to medium-bodied palate with cherry, Satsuma plum and floral notes. The flavours were even across the palate. Varietal in style with suede-like, powdery tannins. “The jubey fruit finish with marzipan and nougat right on the back palate was a nice surprise. This would be a lovely lunch wine,” one taster said.

Best of tasting: Deep rose in colour with a light red hue. A coulis, fresh raspberry character on the nose, with plum, mulberry, forest floor characters and a slightly bracken, compost aroma. “I really enjoyed the nose of this wine, which still seemed fresh for its age,” one taster said. Nice, medium-bodied mouthfeel with hints of spice and good complexity. Fruit flavours are holding together nicely, with savoury but even redcurrant characters. Lovely velvety, mouthcoating tannins. Average length with a warming finish, which one taster considered to be a sign that Dolcetto is best enjoyed in its early years.

k e n Ta mpl Sa Vineyard 28 2014 Dolcetto – tank sample Geographe, Western Australia 12.0% v/v RRP$17.00/bottle Youthful bright ruby in colour with a pink rim. An initial hit of sulfur on the nose, then bright cherry and raspberry lolly. Simple but intense in style, then softly approachable. Evident sweetness on the palate, with lots of lovely bright fruits, cut apple and rhubarb. “The acid seemed out of balance and, for me, it was too sweet. The punters will love it though,” one taster said. “An enjoyable, playful early release. Quaffable, without being too serious,” said another. The panel agreed that it would be interesting to try the wine chilled.

Hand Crafted by Geoff Hardy 2012 Dolcetto McLaren Vale, South Australia 14.5% v/v - screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle Deep ruby in colour with red brick hues. “Oodles” of sweet vanillin oak on the nose with attractive, complex, earthy, intense aromas of roasted salted nuts, rich plum, cherry, pepper and mixed spice. One taster questioned whether it was too oak dominant. A good mix of fruit and tannin on the palate with excellent length of flavour, but the oak dominated again. Not classic Dolcetto in style, but the wine was enjoyed by the panel and it scored well.

80

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

Salena Estate 2013 Ink Series Dolcetto Riverland, South Australia 14.0% v/v - screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle Best of tasting: Magenta in colour with purple hues. Plum, ripe cherry and subtle oak on the nose. A developed fruit-forward palate with slightly drying tannins, black pepper and varietal sour cherry flavour. Moderately complex intense dark fruit and berry conserve on the palate, with lifted spice and a firm acid backbone. A drying, phenolic finish with some sourness. “An interesting savoury style of wine, made to drink with food,” one taster said.

k e n Ta mpl Sa Parish Hill 2013 Dolcetto – tank sample

Catherine Vale 2013 Gabrielle Dolcetto

Adelaide Hills, South Australia 13.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle

Hunter Valley, New South Wales 12.1% v/v - screwcap RRP$16.00/bottle

Black cherry, purple hues. Eucalypt, plum and lifted florals in a jammy, confected nose. One taster questioned whether the wine was slightly aldehydic, as it appeared to be older than the 2013 vintage. A drying mouthfeel with flavours of plum and spice. Quite green on the fruit spectrum, which contrasted with the jammy nose. “The savouriness of the wine could make it quite food friendly,” one taster said.

Translucent red in colour. A delicate and subtle nose, with hints of orange rind, rose petals and some pepper, but not a lot of fruit. A thin watermelon-like mouthfeel with some cherry and black pepper, finishing short.

Vale Creek 2012 Dolcetto

Catherine Vale 2011 Gabrielle D&O Dolcetto

Central Ranges, New South Wales 12.0%v/v - screwcap RRP$18.00/bottle Red cherry hues. Lots of white pepper on the spice dominant nose. Floral talcum powder with cherries and berries. Light to medium-bodied palate with delicate red fruits and a slightly savoury, nutty complexity. The panel questioned whether the fruit may be been harvested too early, as the flavours were a bit astringent and unripe. “This may be more approachable as a lunchtime wine,” said one taster, who saw its potential.

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

Hunter Valley, New South Wales 10.0% v/v - screwcap RRP$18.00/bottle Deep burgundy in colour with red brick hues. A complex nose with rich red plum, cherry, some oak and forest fruits. Great tannin structure on the palate with a savoury pepper finish, showing some secondary development. One taster thought this wine was European in style, with dark chocolate, hints of herbs and a roasted parsnip character. Complex and savoury overall, though the acid was a bit sour and upfront. A lingering, drying oak finish. “The producers did well from a tough vintage,” one taster said. V29N4


T A S T I N G NO T E S

Parish Hill 2008 Dolcetto

Gapsted Wines 2013 Valley Selection Dolcetto Syrah

Gapsted Wines 2012 Valley Selection Dolcetto Granaccia

(68% Dolcetto, 32% Syrah) Alpine/King Valleys, Victoria 11.9% v/v - screwcap RRP$16.00/bottle

(68% Dolcetto, 32% Granaccia) Alpine/King Valleys, Victoria 13.5% v/v – screwcap EXPORT ONLY

Deep ruby in colour with a purple rim. Delicate herbal notes on the nose with dark cherry, baked apple and rhubarb, and a dusty, talcum powder character. Spritzy on the palate with surprising sweetness, then unbalanced by dry flavours, a hot mouthfeel and green tannins. One taster thought the wine was akin to Sangria in style, made to be enjoyed chilled.

Dark red in colour with purple hues. Cherry, almond meal, rose petal and a hint of chocolate on a slightly closed, but quite pretty nose. Light to medium-bodied palate with slightly drying, pithy, pomegranate-like tannins. Sweet, juicy rhubarb and mixed berry flavours with firm acid and phenolic grip on the back palate, finishing with jam and pepper. The panel questioned the wine’s fruit and tannin balance.

Noble Road 2012 Dolcetto ShiRaz

Heartland 2012 Dolcetto Lagrein

(81% Dolcetto, 19% Shiraz) Mid-North Coast, New South Wales 9.5% v/v - screwcap RRP$11.90/bottle

(50.5% Dolcetto, 49.5% Lagrein) Langhorne Creek, South Australia 14.5% v/v - screwcap RRP$21.99/bottle

Old Inn Road 2013 Method E TraditionNelle Dolcetto

Light red in colour with purple hues and a frizzante appearance. A bready nose with plum, cherry, mulberry and boiled lolly aromas. Foamy and sweet in the mouth, with nice acid and tannin balance and good length of flavours. Some evident oak, finishing quite dry. “Many drinkers would love this wine at Christmas time,” one taster said.

Inky dark cherry red with deep purple hues. Lifted sweet oak on the nose with complex plum and cherry aromas. One taster found an intense cola aroma, with dominant toasty oak and blackberry jam. Flavours of liqueur chocolate and violet, with a savoury back palate. Lots of tannin and oak in an overall short palate with a warm mouthfeel. “I’d be interested in trying this wine again in another couple of years,” one taster said. Another said it was a “bruiser of a wine”

Adelaide Hills, South Australia 13.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle Red brick in colour with brown hues, showing age and development. Prune, fig and ripe fruits on the nose with some caramel, buttery, coffee notes. Secondary development on the medium-bodied palate. Evidence of a hot season in the flavours of raisins, sultanas, apricots, fruitcake, coffee and chocolate. The wine is showing its age, appearing almost porty. Firm acid and nicely developed tannins, but drink now. “This was probably a great wine a couple of years ago,” one taster said.

South Australia 13.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle Opaque red in colour with crimson hues. Forest berries, cherry, pepper, raisins and fruitcake aromas. One taster found a tomato sauce-like quality with dusty oak. The palate was lacking in flavour overall, with a soda waterlike mouthfeel. Lots of clove and spice on the dry finish. The panel questioned why Dolcetto was chosen to make a sparkling wine in this style.

Dolcetto V2 9N 4

W i n e & Viticultur e Jo ur na l JULY/A UGUST 2014

www.winebiz. com . au

81


PROducts & services

Aggreko chillers ensure a bumper vintage

M

ost wineries have a refrigeration system sufficient to keep large vats of wine chilled for 10 months of the year, but during the two months of vintage, extra refrigeration capacity is often required to not only keep the existing vats cool, but also to perform the ‘snap chill’ process. Alongside refrigeration, the harvesting period places a heavy burden on heating systems at the same time. More staff onsite during vintage for longer hours places greater demands on hot water resources for things like cleaning facilities and barrels as well as workers taking showers and so on. As a result, there is often a real need to increase the heating and cooling capacity of a winery’s plant. Some wineries rely on rental equipment to cater for any shortfall in the temperature control systems they have in place. During 2013, temperature control rental supplier Aggreko found that rental of its equipment for wineries took place exclusively between January and April split between South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. Around 45% of equipment was rented over a period of two months or longer and 33% was a short-term rental of three weeks or less. Approximately 3% was due to a breakdown in existing equipment which can hit a winemaker hard depending on the point during the winemaking process that the equipment failed. One of the major benefits of renting extra refrigeration capacity is that it avoids the need for large capital expenditure by wineries. Renting frees up working capital, increasing

A 1500 kW cooling and power package at Fosters-Lindemans. the winery’s debt ratio, allowing winemakers to place their capital in more profitable investments and increase borrowing power with a better ratio of assets to liabilities because rented equipment is not a balancesheet liability. Renting also offers the flexibility to increase or decrease capacity according to the needs of a business and transfers the uncertainties and

risks of equipment ownership to the rental service provider, which allows a business to concentrate on winemaking. Rental is simple – maintenance is incorporated and the equipment is simply returned back to the service provider upon completion of a project.

For further information contact Agrekko, phone 1300 244 735, or visit www.aggreko.com.au

Leading wine consulting group evolves Wine Network Consulting (WNC) has recently moved to new office premises in the Victorian town of Healesville, in the heart of the Yarra Valley, and welcomed a couple of new faces. New consultant and director Mark O’Callaghan joined WNC from his role as senior winemaker and winery manager for Yarra Burn (part of the Accolade group) and working independently. In his spare time, O’Callaghan is a Victorian Pinot Noir Workshop committee member, chair of the Yarra Valley Wine Show committee, a

82

www.w i n eb i z .c om.au

wine show judge, works on his MBA, and plays guitar with wine industry rock band The Yeastie Boys. Young Chinese winemaker Jian Feng joins WNC following his oenology and viticulture studies at the University of Adelaide. He worked as a technical translator at the recent Savour event and will soon travel to China with O’Callaghan to develop a winery at 3000m altitude in the Yunnan province. After eight years working for WNC at home and overseas, Rachel Gore will

continue to operate as an associate, but will be stepping out to work as an independent wine and viticulture consultant. WNC patriarch Gary Baldwin continues as director and proprietor, offering ongoing mentoring. In addition, Baldwin has taken on a ‘day job’ as chief winemaker for Handpicked Wines, based in Mornington.

W i n e & V i t i c ultur e Jo ur n a l JULY/A UGUST 2014

V29N4

For more information phone 03 5962 2427 or email mocallaghan@winenet.com. au


Melbourne

Adelaide

New Zealand

FOR ALL YOUR

FILTRATION NEEDS

SUPER PREMIUM WINES

NEW MMF AUTOMATIC CARTRIDGE FILTRATION •

Microfiltration of still and sparkling wines.

Automatic control of flow rate, pressure and regeneration cycles.

Utilising high surface area/flow rate for longevity of filter media

Can be used with coarse, polishing or sterile cartridges

1000 – 10,000L/hr

BOUTIQUE TO HIGH VOLUME

NEW MFTC HOLLOW FIBRE CROSS FLOW •

Excellent value, available in Semi Auto and Automatic versions.

Ease of operation via touch screen display.

Wide bore 1.8mm Capillaries for turbid wines

9.5 – 95m² systems

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE FOR STILL OR SPARKLING WINES

MFTS SPIRAL WOUND CROSS FLOW •

• Microfiltration Tangential System delivering the highest filtration quality.

“No backflush” system allowing constant filterability.

Membrane manufactured in PVDF.

Fully automated system.

Surface area of 23m2 per membrane.

69 – 830m² systems

Extremely low operating pressure.

Pressurised system for sparkling filtration.

JUCLAS FILTERS ARE BUILT FOR YOUR NEEDS TODAY WITH THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADD EXTRA MEMBRANES LATER TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE GROWTH

I N N O V A T I V E

W I N E

For further details, contact us on: Melbourne 59 Banbury Rd, Reservoir Ph. 1300 882 850 Adelaide 12 Hamilton Tce, Newton Ph. 08 8365 0044 New Zealand 4C Titoki Place, Albany, Auckland Ph. 0800 699 599 E. sales@winequip.com.au www.winequip.com.au www.winequip.co.nz

T E C H N O L O G I E S

Profile for provincial press group

Wine & Viticulture Journal - July/August 2014  

Wine & Viticulture Journal - July/August 2014  

Advertisement