WINE & VITICULTURE JOURNAL Volume 30 No.5

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER · Volume 30 Number 5

WINERY INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGY • Concrete wine - first it was the egg, now it's tulips and teacups • Why does this Riesling smell like petrol?

• Rootstock tolerance and resistance to phylloxera • A snapshot of Australian Pinot Noir production and purchases • Tasting: Clare Valley vs Eden Valley Riesling

Vivando

速

Fungicide

Provides advanced control of powdery mildew and great grapes.

Made possible by BASF fungicides.

Vivando速 has a new mode of action for control of powdery mildew and importantly gives you flexibility of application timings being rainfast in one hour. It also protects developing bunches from powdery mildew due to contact and vapour activity.

BASF is a global leader in crop protection, partnering with the Australian viticulture industry to support the biggest job on earth, farming.

Available from local crop protection distributors.

For technical advice and product information call 1800 558 399 or visit agro.basf.com.au/crop-solutions/horticulture to download a brochure.

ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTIONS. 息 Copyright BASF 2015 速 Registered trademark of BASF.

Tri-Base Blue® gives you the simplest most effective way to apply a copper fungicide.

USING LIQUID COPPER COULDN’T BE EASIER.

For more information, contact your local Nufarm Area Sales Manager. nufarm.com.au © 2015 Nufarm Australia Ltd. All trade marks (®,™) are owned by Nufarm Australia Ltd or used under license.

Tri-Base Blue provides a strong armour of copper protection against fungal diseases.

Publisher: Hartley Higgins General Manager: Elizabeth Bouzoudis Editor Sonya Logan Ph (08) 8369 9502 Fax (08) 8369 9501 Email 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 Tony Battaglene Marlize Bekker Tresider Burns Luis Castro Alan Cooper Ian Dry Peter Dry Roland Harrison Tony Hoare Rainer Hofmann Cathy Howard Dan Johnson Geoff Kew Tony Keys Mark Krstic Paul Le Lacheur Mardi Longbottom Andrew McLachlan James Osborne Amber Parker Kevin Powell Dan Ratner Sabrina Reschke Carolyn Ross Mark Rowley Richard Smart Mark Thomas Tina Tran Michael Trought Cornelis van Leeuwen Brian Walsh Eric Wilkes Anne Zwink

Advertising Manager: Dan Brannan Ph (08) 8369 9515 Fax (08) 8369 9529 Email d.brannan@winetitles.com.au Production and Design: Luke Westle 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.winetitles.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.

Sonya Logan, Editor

A

lthough I’m rather alarmed that this issue of the Wine & Viticulture Journal is already out when it seemed like it was months away not all that long ago, I for one am pleased that spring has officially arrived and days of temperatures over 20 degrees are becoming more frequent as winter in Adelaide seems to have dragged on for an eternity - well, at least since April - and my skin is desperate to reveal itself from underneath the many layers of clothing that seem to have covered it for so long! Despite my impressions to the contrary, at least on my local turf, I’m told there are regions like the Barossa Valley for which winter hasn’t been as kind as growers would like on the rain front. The Bureau of Meteorology’s latest climate outlook for September to November is predicting a wetter-thanaverage spring most likely in western and central Australia, while in the east and north there is an equal chance of above or below average rainfall. May the odds flow in your favour for those who need it.

A highlight of this issue is undoubtedly the results of our recent tasting of Eden Valley and Clare Valley Rieslings. It was rather a thrill to sit around a table with Andrew Wigan, Don Young and John Hughes and hear them avidly talk about their favourite variety. The results of their tasting efforts can be found on page 75.

The theme of this issue is ‘Winery innovations & technology’ for which Cathy Howard has written an article on the increasing use of concrete tanks in wineries. Not that concrete tanks in wineries are an innovation per se, but the various shapes and sizes they come in nowadays most certainly is. Cathy takes a comprehensive look at the pros and cons of these vessels starting on page 20.

We also present the results of some US research that has given winemakers a better understanding of the effect of

MLF on red wine colour (see page 28).

Coinciding nicely with our Riesling tasting is an article by researchers who have attempted to find out whether there is a point at which consumers will reject a wine due to its concentration of TDN, the compound with an exceptionally long name that is typically associated with the petrol smell in Riesling (page 31).

And be sure to read the AWRI report this month (page 35) which describes a pilot study examining the effectiveness of making copper additions during fermentation and using the yeast present to bind up and remove the added copper from the final wine.

In viticulture we have an article from researchers across the Tasman who have investigated the consequences of vine trimming and crop removal on soluble solids and titratable acidity particularly for Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir (page 40).

Pests and diseases is a featured topic in this issue and we begin with an article

by Richard Smart in which he proposes a protocol that allows growers to contain the spread of grapevine trunk diseases in their vineyards while maintaining their productivity (page 44). We then have an article that summarises the survival characteristics of phylloxera on commonly planted American rootstocks used in Australia (page 48). Researchers from the CSIRO then explain their efforts in developing new disease-resistant winegrape cultivars by conventional breeding – a process that in the past has been slow but is now somewhat faster and more efficient thanks to new technology (page 52).

And literally getting his hands dirty for this issue, Geoff Kew presents the second of his occasional articles, this time explaining how to determine soil texture and moisture in the field (page 58)

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter! www.facebook.com/WineAndVitiJournal Address 630 Regency Road, Broadview, South Australia 5083

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

Email

General info@winetitles.com.au Editorial s.logan@winetitles.com.au Subscriptions subs@winetitles.com.au Advertising widsales@winetitles.com.au

Website www.winetitles.com.au Printed by Lane Print, Adelaide, South Australia.

Adelaide ISSN 1838-6547 © Winetitles Media, 2015. All rights reserved

@WineVitiJournal Cover Photo: The wines that featured in our recent tasting of Eden Valley and Clare Valley regions, the results of which can be found on page 75. Photo: Sonya Logan REGULAR FEATURES

News 6 WFA 13 Wine Australia 14 ASVO 15 Tony Keys 16

4 www. wi n e t i t les.com.au

AWRI Report 35 Alternative Varieties 60 Varietal Report 71 Tasting 75

WINE & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

IN THIS ISSUE

C O N T E N T S

V I T I C U LT U R E

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

13 WFA (Tony Battaglene): Why quality control in the supply chain matters 14 WINE AUSTRALIA (Brian Walsh): Working towards a prosperous Australian grape and wine community 15 ASVO (Mardi Longbottom): ASVO Mildura seminar - was it the best yet?

40 Investigating the consequences of trimming and crop removal on soluble solids and titratable acidity for Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir 44 RICHARD SMART: Timely trunk renewal to overcome trunk disease

16 KEY FILES (TONY KEYS): Australia’s warm inland regions - frying pan or fire?

EVENTS

9 WISA holds first stand-alone trade show in a decade

48 Rootstock tolerance and resistance to different genetic strains of phylloxera

W I N E M A K I N G

20 CATHY HOWARD: Concrete wine – first it was the egg, now it’s tulips and teacups

52 Fast-tracking grape breeding for disease resistance 56 TONY HOARE: The evolution of winegrapes – epigenetics, the new frontier 58 Field determination of soil texture and soil moisture 59 ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES: Lagrein

28 Malolactic fermentation and red wine colour 31 Why does this Riesling smell like petrol?

BUSINESS & MARKETING

62 Cellar door sales locations – a glimpse into the future

35 AWRI REPORT: Using copper more effectively in winemaking

W I N E TA S T I N G

75 Clare Valley and Eden Valley Riesling

64 South Australia weighs up plan to swap cellar door subsidy with ‘industry fund’ 65 Four tips to create a potent wine brand 67 A snapshot of Australian Pinot Noir production and purchases V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

5

NEWS SNIPS

PEAK INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS’ PLEA TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The Winemakers’ Federation of Australian (WFA) and Wine Grape Growers Australia (WGGA) have urged the Federal Government to reform the Wine Equalisation Tax (WET) rebate and pledge an extra $44 million for global marketing before the 2016 vintage so wine businesses can take full advantage of the more favourable Australian dollar and recent free trade agreements.

The calls are included in a detailed plan the two peak organisations put to government just prior to Malcolm Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott as prime minister aimed at “restoring profitability to the nation’s grape and wine industry”.

This joint submission represents a strong display of unity from the sector, said WFA chief executive Paul Evans, and includes letters of support from all state wine associations.

“The industry plan has been developed through extensive consultation over the past two years and it is backed by detailed analysis, independent modelling and expert legal advice,” Evans said. “The plan sets out what must be done to aid an uplift in profitability and prices for both winemakers and grapegrowers. There is industry acknowledgement that WET rebate reform is required for the benefit of the industry as a whole, while the importance of a boost to our global marketing efforts is even more widely accepted.”

The submission calls for government to: • keep the WET rebate in line with the original policy intent of delivering long-term benefits to industry and tourism in regional Australia • stop the rebate going to unintended recipients and shut down the schemes • phase out the WET rebate on bulk and unbranded wine over four years to advance strong brands that command consumer loyalty and profitable margins to reinvest back into regional Australia • abolish the separate New Zealand rebate arrangements that provide preferential treatment to NZ wine producers and replace it with a level playing field for all claimants, irrespective of nationality • encourage winery consolidation by introducing transitional WET rebate measures that allow the separate rebate entitlements of the merging entities to be phased down to one entitlement over four years

6

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

• return $44m of government savings from these reforms to industry to boost marketing of Australian wine to grow export demand • provide industry support to assist those impacted by the changes.

“We conservatively estimate our plan will deliver net savings to the Commonwealth of at least $234 million over the next four years,” said Evans.

WGGA executive director Lawrie Stanford said the majority grower view was the WET rebate reform, market promotion and continued supply adjustment were urgently required to lift the grape and wine industry’s overall performance.

“Winegrape growers have been doing it tougher for longer and we will continue to lose good business people if the necessary reforms to both supply and demand are delayed,” Stanford said.

“We look forward to working with government and industry stakeholders to bring about the right industry settings to restore profitability and grow market share.”

GOVERNMENT RELEASES DISCUSSION PAPER ON WET The Federal Government has released a discussion paper outlining the Australian wine industry and the issues it is facing, including the operation of the wine equalisation tax (WET) rebate.

Released on 21 August, the discussion paper notes that the types of production for which the WET rebate is claimed have increased and the rebate is now supporting the wine industry in a way that was not envisaged when it was introduced.

Outlining some of the challenges faced by the wine industry, the paper discusses whether the WET rebate is encouraging behaviour that is effectively exacerbating these challenges, particularly the production of bulk wine which is encouraging business to restructure to claim the rebate.

“The WET rebate may be contributing to distorted production patterns of wine in a variety of ways,” the paper says.

“The stated policy intent of the WET rebate is to support small winemakers particularly in rural Australia. However, the way that the law is currently drafted means that there are actually a number of potential recipients of the rebate along the production and distribution chain including grapegrowers, manufacturers of wine…who transform wine into a saleable product, including blenders of wine and cellar door sellers

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR N A L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

of wine. In some instances, other entities such as wholesalers, despite not being direct recipients of the rebate, indirectly benefit from the rebate as it can enable them to drive down purchase prices and increase their profit.”

The paper lists a number of options for the WET rebate including: • abolishing the rebate • phasing out the rebate to give wine producers time to adjust and replacing it with a grant to existing recipients • changing the WET rebate to exclude bulk, unpackaged and unbranded wine, as proposed by the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA) • tightening the definition of ‘producer of wine’ to an entity that manufactures wine by undertaking the primary fermentation of grapes, other fruit, vegetables or honey in Australia and owns the grapes, other fruit, vegetables or honey from which the wine is manufactured • reducing the WET rebate cap, noting the majority of wine producers claim significantly less than the $500,000 cap, meaning reducing the cap may impact a relatively small number of larger wine producers but could better target the rebate to smaller wine producers • reducing the rebate to less than the full amount of WET payable, e.g., 60 percent of WET payable up to a maximum of $500,000, stating this would mean that a producer would receive a smaller rebate, which would primarily impact smaller producers • replacing the WET rebate and the Brewery Refund Scheme (which has a maximum annual entitlement of up to $30,000) with a rebate scheme for all independent alcohol producers on the tax they paid (either WET or excise) to create a more level playing field for small producers of beer, wine and spirits • removing the New Zealand rebate.

The Government has established a WET Rebate Consultative Group comprising members of the wine industry which will consider submissions and provide advice to the Government later on the options for reform. The members of the group are Russell Campbell (The Treasury), chair; Tony D’Aloisio, WFA; Darren De Bortoli, De Bortoli Wines; Rebecca Duffy, Holm Oak Vineyards; Nigel Gallop, Fraser Gallop Estate; Tom

V30N5

NEWS SNIPS

Harvey, McLaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association; Robert Hill-Smith, Yalumba; Larry Jorgensen, Wines of Western Australia; Anthony Murphy, Trentham Estate Wines; and Roger Sharp, Treasury Wine Estates.

Submissions to Treasury on the discussion paper closed on 11 September and forms part of the Tax White Paper process aimed at reforming Australia’s tax system. A Green Paper is due for release later in the year and will be followed by further community consultation before the White Paper is released in 2016.

The WFA and Wine Grape Growers Australia made a joint submission to the WET Rebate Discussion Paper which can be found here: http://www.wfa.org. au/information/submissions/ INDUSTRY REPS MEET IN ADELAIDE TO DISCUSS SECTOR DOWNTURN More than 40 wine industry leaders from across Australia gathered in Adelaide in late August to discuss the urgency for industry reform and agree on the next steps for how representative organisations can contribute to a return to profitability.

Grape & Wine 2015, an initiative that was established after a meeting of state and national chairs of various wine organisations held in November 2014, included representatives from all states and many regional associations, growers, winemakers and service providers.

In a joint statement to their members, Tony D’Aloisio, president of the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia,

and Vic Patrick, chair of Wine Grape Growers Australia, said the meeting agreed that: • a return to profitability required a national response from all levels of industry representation and consensus on what must be done • there were a number of factors and influences that will need to be addressed to enable the industry to return to profitability, the three key ones being supply related issues, demand related issues and the capabilities of businesses, organisations and individuals across the industry.

The joint statement said the meeting discussed and agreed on a “core set of guiding principles that should shape future representative organisational structures. Central to these core principles were a need for: • a voice for all industry • clarity around the roles and responsibilities of all organisations in the representative structure • inclusive, transparent and evidencebased decision making • a strong focus on industry engagement and communication • a consumer-centred approach.”

The leaders agreed to engage with the wider industry on the discussions and outcomes of Grape and Wine 15.

A working group for Grape and Wine 15, comprising some nine representatives from across Australia who managed the organisation of Grape and Wine 15, will undertake further

Also manufacturers of

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

analysis of other governance structures and models and develop specific options for consideration and further discussion towards the end of 2015. Participants at Grape and Wine 15 will subsequently reconvene to take the next steps based on the working group’s input.

CONFERENCES A HIGHLIGHT OF THIS YEARS SIMEI Sustainability and sensory analysis will be the focus of two conferences held during SIMEI (International Enological and Bottling Equipment Exhibition), in Milan, Italy, in November.

The first conference, titled ‘Sustainable viticulture as a tribute to wine quality’, will be held on 3 November and will provide a stocktake on the wine industry’s progress and successes in increasing its ecological and economic sustainability and highlight the need for change and further efforts and put up a potential joint agenda for action.

The second conference, ‘Discover the sensory factors’, will examine all aspects of sensory analysis.

It will highlight the relevance of flavour in creating sustainable wine and how this can be scientifically measured and aims to discover how to communicate this aspect of sustainable wine development in marketing individual wines and in the overall sustainability debate.

SIMEI will be held on 3-6 November.

For further information on the conferences visit: http://www.simei.it/it/ congress WVJ

SUMMER TRiMMing

AUSTRALIAN MADE PRUNERS

For further information visit our website at www.spagnolo.com.au or contact: Ph (03) 5021 1933 Fax (03) 5021 5233 Email sales@spagnolo.com.au Mildura Victoria Australia V3 0N 5

Summer Trimming • Smooth cutting action • Unique quick-change blade system • Sizes available from 600mm to 2100mm • Cutter bars can be used for summer trimming and winter pruning

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

Vineyard & Orchard Sweepers • Single and double sided • Spring-loaded head enables it to glide around posts and vine trunks.

• Optional hydraulic lift, tilt and side shift cylinders.

• Ideal for cleaning up uneven terrain • Durable powdercoated finish

www.winetitles. com . au

7

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Comments on responses to my article In the May-June issue of the Wine & Viticulture Journal, Richard Smart’s article ‘A substandard standard’ - in which he said the recently-developed national standard for grapevine propagation material did little to address the spread of grapevine trunk diseases - drew comments from various organisations and sectors with an interest in vine planting material and trunk diseases in Australia. Richard asked to respond to some of those comments.

I

was pleased to have comments to the article as they indicated more people than I are interested in the issues presented.

My article made several major points.

The first was about the worldwide nature of grapevine trunk diseases and the likely impacts on Australian vineyards. I made a particular point about symptomatic grafted vines being distributed by nurseries in Australia and elsewhere. We know that these will infect vineyards. I was also concerned about the poor state of Australian grapevine germplasm collections, in particular the one at Nuriootpa which was used to demonstrate varietal susceptibility to trunk diseases to visiting scientists! Finally, I was concerned that the recently-released standard for grapevine propagation material will do nothing to improve this situation.

VINE INDUSTRY NURSERY ASSOCIATION This submission made some interesting points, including the desirability of non-destructive disease testing. Such procedures will soon be available, but I doubt they will be the panacea that is imagined. The likely outcome will be to find that symptomatic plants sold from nurseries are diseased.

What can nurseries do then? Will they still sell the plants? An interesting question.

I would rather hear about research into new protocols for rootstock mother vine management. Studies around the world have implicated rootstock cuttings as the primary source of infection in the nursery. How many Australian rootstock mother vine plantations, for example, are using pruning wound protection to avoid trunk diseases infection of rootstock vines? I know of studies in Europe preparing protocols for rootstock mother vine management to avoid trunk diseases; there is room for such work in Australia. The VINA response promises to deliver such protocols and I am sure they are keenly anticipated.

WINE AUSTRALIA This body takes responsibility for funding this work but offers no explanation why the document should only be available through Standards Australia at a cost. My specific comments about the gross inadequacies of the standard were not addressed. If there were no trunk disease specialists advising this standard development, then that should be rectified.

WAITE DIAGNOSTICS Dr Habili suggested that there was no evidence for my claims about trunk disease incidence in Australia. There is some survey data for Australia published

by Pitt et al. in the December 2008 issue of the Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker. The survey covered New South Wales and South Australia. Botryosphaeria was widely reported with much less Eutypa. I agree that more surveying needs to be carried out in Australian vineyards, and sadly Australia lags behind New Zealand in this regard. Trunk diseases are a bigger present threat to Australian viticulture than are damaging viruses. Trunk diseases are of far greater incidence, and are being spread in infected nursery material, while gladly viruses are not.

familiar cry (I used to say it myself). I acknowledge the substantial research by the group at the National Wine and Grape Industry Centre in identifying problems of trunk diseases, especially Botryosphaeria in New South Wales, for more than a decade. South Australian research has been far too much Eutypa centred and indeed many vineyard managers I talk to in South Australia think that Eutypa is the only trunk disease of concern. I know that researchers outside South Australia feel anxious about what they see as being Wine Australia's preference for funding work within South Australia; I hope that Wine Australia will not provide any cause for such anxiety in future funding decisions.

MY CONCLUSIONS

NATIONAL WINE AND GRAPE INDUSTRY CENTRE

Trunk diseases are now acknowledged by the OIV (International Organisation of Vine and Wine) as a major problem globally. I know that there are many problems in the Australian wine sector that seem more pressing, but eventually we will be concerned to produce quality winegrapes from healthy vineyards.

For now, the infection is spreading, and this tendency needs to be reversed.

The proposed grapevine propagation standard does nothing to help resolve this situation. Let us hope that the second version will be an improvement. Watch this space.

The researchers writing this article say more research is needed, a

Richard Smart Smart Viticulture

YALUMBA NURSERIES Yalumba is an example of several nurseries around the world that are aware of the problem and use extra procedures in an effort to produce symptom-free plants. The use of hot water treatment is to be applauded.

My belief is that major advances will be achieved once nurseries can receive mostly uninfected cuttings.

WVJ

8

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR N A L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

WINETECH 2015

WISA holds first stand-alone trade show in a decade

W

ine Industry Suppliers Australia (WISA) presented its first stand-alone trade show in 10 years when it held WineTech 2015 in Adelaide over three days in

July.

Winetech was formerly held in conjunction with the Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference, however WISA chose to host the 2015 exhibition as a dedicated, standalone event with the aim of “placing the focus of the event on suppliers”.

Winetech 2015, held at the Adelaide Showground, showcased the products and services of some 130 exhibitors, supplemented by free trade floor presentations and a seminar program that addressed topics ranging from selling wine online, using social media platforms to build wine brand advocates and convert them to long term customers, and the opportunities and support available from government and industry following the free trade agreements in China and Korea.

The event was officially opened with an industry breakfast compered by Nathan Earl, creator, producer and one of the stars of the wine tv comedy series Plonk, and featured a speech by Wolf Blass and the deputy chief executive of Primary Industries and Regions SA, Don Frater.

WISA executive officer Matthew Moate said the level of engagement at WineTech 2015 demonstrated enthusiasm and support for an event with a clear focus on tangible outcomes.

“From the outset, we sought to create exposure and add value to our member businesses from the trade floor exhibition and, from feedback, we certainly achieved our objectives,” he said.

“Our additional content program, much of which was free of charge, was about sharing knowledge on new and emerging technologies and techniques while encouraging visitors to engage directly with exhibiting companies and organisations.

“In association with our industry partner, Kym Jones Exhibitions, we were pleased to have a trade floor presentation that was 20 per cent bigger than our initial

Sharing a laugh at the industry breakfast held to officially open Winetech 2015 were (from left) Don Frater, deputy chief executive of Primary Industries and Regions SA, Wolf Blass and Nathan Earl, creator, producer and star of the wine tv comedy series Plonk.

Grant Burge chats to the Eco Trellis team during Winetech 2015.

Are you listed?

DON'T MISS OUT IN 2016!

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 9516 or email wid@winetitles.com.au

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

9

WINETECH 2015

expectations, and it generated many comments about the relevance of displays for all sectors of the industry.

“The nature and promotion of our event attracted many new exhibitors and this provided a much wider offering for visitors who came with buying intent.

“We are taking all feedback on board for our future planning, and overall the event this year provided an excellent springboard for our next WineTech to be held in Adelaide in 2017.”

Moate said the majority of initial commentary WISA had received from exhibitors was that the event “delivered on its priority of creating an environment for genuine buyers to engage with the grape and wine supply sector”, adding “there were a number of capital purchases directly attributed to the event”. He said WISA was also pleased to receive positive feedback about the content program. Examples of this feedback included the following: Dan Eggleton, regional sales manager for Seguin Moreau, said, “We were exceedingly pleased with WineTech 2015.

There were excellent levels of visitation to our display area.

“The event was very well run and it represented a good return on investment for us through business that will continue to be directly related to WineTech.”

Garry Guerin, owner and general manager of Boyd & Co, which specialises in wine accessories, said the event generated direct orders and ongoing business.

Mark Johnson, national sales manager of JMA Engineering, added, “The people who attended were decision makers who were genuinely motivated by the exhibition.

“It was a great opportunity for us to present a unique fermenter to a national and international audience and it was well received.”

Leon Talamini (left) and Steve Baraglia, of Pikes, were among the delegates to attend Winetech 2015.

Winetech delegates Sarah and Rob Perrau visiting the Enoplastic stand.

GreenTech Spray Systems GreenTech Vineyard Sprayer

GreenTech Row Crop Sprayer

GreenTech Tree Sprayer

Brilliant coverage and penetration Lowest horsepower requirement Easy row space adjustments Built to last Flexibility of low volume spraying Optional extras available!

• 800 Litre Available • 3000 Litre • 2000 Litre tank sizes • 4000 Litre • 6000 Litre

08 9842 8529 08 8586 3688 08 9752 1522

David Jeromson, industry sales manager at FOSS Pacific (NZ), with a WineScan unit that analyses more than 30 quality control parameters and can be configured to measure free and total sulfur dioxide (above); and talking with interested delegates about an analysis unit that makes it possible to monitor the entire vinification process (below).

02 6280 5203 03 5036 4600 03 5448 3535 T.R. & K.R. Shipton Pty Ltd 03 6424 8166

108 -112 Wing St, Winfield SA 5013 Ph: (08) 8359 5362 Fax: (08) 8359 5364 sales@greentechspraysystem.com www.greentechspraysystem.com

10

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

WINETECH 2015

Don Bruce, capability and development manager for Treasury Wine Estates, said, “For me, it was all about networking with the right people at the right time under the one roof. It was a real benefit.”

Corrina Wright, from Olivers Taranga vineyards and winery, highly commended the quality of seminar presentations.

Sylvia Long and Wally Harrak from Nov Mono.

“Those that I attended were excellent,” she said, “Every cellar door should have been at the wine tourism seminar and the presentation on influencing purchasing intent through social media was awesome.”

WineTech 2015 was supported by the peak industry bodies Wine Australia, Wine Grape Growers Australia and the Winemakers Federation of Australia along with Wine Communicators of Australia.

Spending some time at the Pellenc stand were (from left) Craig Little, of Balhampton Vineyard in the Adelaide Hills; Wayne Yusa, of Eureka Vineyard, in the Adelaide Hills; Sam Virgara, of Chatenois Pty Ltd, in the Adelaide Hills; and Ken Barnes, of Jayes Vineyard in the Barossa Valley.

PROTEC XTri Optical Sorter Delegates listen to Nick Bowditch – founder of The Mentoring Club and the only person in Asia-Pacific to have worked at both Facebook and Twitter – deliver a seminar on using social media to help build a winery’s brand advocates and implementing strategies to convert them to long-term customers through storytelling.

3 models with productions up to 15 t/hr

One of many supplier seminars held on the floor of the Winetech exhibition space during the event.

V3 0N 5

For Details & Pricing contact Scott Kalms on 1300 768 976 or scott@abeve.com.au www.abeve.com.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

11

26TH EDITION INTERNATIONAL ENOLOGICAL AND BOTTLING EQUIPMENT EXHIBITION

ORGANIZED BY

WORLD LEADER IN WINE TECHNOLOGY 3 rd —6 th NOVEMBER 2015 Fiera Milano (Rho) Italy info@simei.it / simei.it

W FA

Why quality control in the supply chain matters

By Tony Battaglene, General Manager, Strategy and International Affairs, Winemakers’ Federation of Australia

W

ine Industry Suppliers’ Association (WISA) and the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA) collaborated recently to create a harmonised Supplier Raw Material Quality Minimum Standard Product Information Declaration form (http://www.wisa.org.au/index.php?PID=3). It is recommended for adoption across industry and summarises the information that suppliers of raw materials (additives and processing aids) hold in order to evidence meeting the minimum requirement for food safety, quality and traceability of those raw materials. Moreover, this is a harmonised form that can be used across industry as the first step to meet the needs of those selling and purchasing raw materials.

DISCLOSURE BECOMES A BEST PRACTICE No matter where wine is sold in the world, the importing country and/or buyer has supplier guidelines to ensure the wine is safe, complies with domestic regulations, meets buyer specifications and is true to label.

Wine has always had the advantage of being a low-risk product from a food safety point of view. As customers and consumers become more concerned about provenance, authenticity and integrity, however, the onus of demonstrating your product is compliant has increased.

We have seen a number of examples in recent years where non-compliant products have been offered for sale for use in winemaking. For example, the use of black locust or false acacia (Robina pseudoacacia) as a wood for use for wine barrels. This plant is listed as a prohibited plant in schedule 1 of Standard 1.4.4 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – (Prohibited and restricted plants and fungi) in the Code. Subclause 1(1) of Standard 1.4.4 states: “A plant or fungus, or a part or a derivative of a plant or fungus listed in Schedule 1, or any substance derived therefrom, must not be intentionally added to food or offered for sale as food.”

Therefore, the use of acacia barrels is not permitted in winemaking. While product disclosure will not prevent fraud, it will give the winemaker the basis to ask the right questions, assurance that your suppliers are reputable and, as a last resort, a legal recourse if the matter ends up in court.

WHY HAS THE PRODUCT INFORMATION DECLARATION (PID) FORM BEEN CREATED? The PID aims to define the minimum documentation requirements and declarations expected of industry suppliers to support the identity, quality and safety of additives and processing aids. To that end, the PID has been developed primarily to maintain and enhance the credibility and ensure the sustainability of suppliers to wine-producing companies.

The PID clarifies certifications that wine producers may require of all suppliers, brokers, distributors, re-packers, sponsors and contract manufacturers, and all other parties involved in the manufacture, supply or distribution of additives and processing aids.

While compliance with the PID is not mandatory, it offers a simple mechanism for industry to manage inputs and ensure supply integrity. Industry is encouraged to voluntarily supply the information and declarations described within the PID. Compliance is, therefore, strongly encouraged as minimum best practice.

V3 0N 5

As with other voluntary declaration forms less specific to the wine industry, such as the Australian Food & Grocery Council Product Information Form, some wine producers may make it a condition of tender in order to meet their supply chain obligations.

A great advantage of the PID is it enables small wine producers to identify reputable suppliers and provides them with minimum information to ensure their additives and processing aids are legal.

While larger companies have sophisticated quality assurance systems, smaller companies do not have the financial or physical resources. At the end of the day, any alleged incident involving an Australian wine exporter not only has serious implications for that business and supply chain, but could potentially impact on the entire industry so it’s important to do the groundwork.

While the development of the PID was undertaken as WFA/ WISA collaboration, it is available for all producers and suppliers, not just members. Adopting it as an industry standard will help drive consistency in the dataset typically provided upon tender and supply, assist in reducing data replication for multiple customers, and provide transparency on key identity, quality and safety parameters.

The PID also has the flexibility to be used differently by different sized companies. The completed questionnaires should be reviewed and assessed by an experienced quality assurance professional or winemaker. While many large manufacturers and multinational companies already have in place their own assessment criteria, the PID provides an opportunity for small to medium winemakers to understand which questions they should be asking to validate quality assurance in their own supply chain. After undertaking the review, the wine producer may need to request further data or ask additional questions to finalise an assessment to approve or reject a source of supply. This could also be the foundation for a supplier audit to help underpin a ‘trusted supplier’ status or relationship.

The key elements of the PID are to ensure consistency with Australian production standards. These include compliance with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards, the presence of potentially allergenic material which is critical for labelling compliance purposes; key questions relating to the use, traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms; and, critically, traceability itself. All additives and processing aids involved in the wine production process should be fully traceable as to their manufacturing and batch history, country of origin and/or country of manufacture. Traceability is essential for maintaining product integrity, underpins quality assurance and supports practices required to comply with legal requirements about record keeping in the food supply chain.

So when the next supplier comes to your door trying to sell you an additive or processing aid, why not ask them to complete the PID? If they don’t know the legal requirements or cannot provide you with the assurance their product meets regulatory requirements and is fit-for-purpose, then another supplier may be the better option. The PID is one way of assisting small and medium winemakers to preserve their quality of integrity and authenticity which are so important in building our brands and achieving premium prices.

And let’s not forget - the PID is also important to the supplier.

Having uniformity in the winery quality declarations will make it less confusing to the supply chain, particularly when declarations involve WVJ international parties (and languages).

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

13

WINE AUSTRALIA

Working towards a prosperous Australian grape and wine community

By Brian Walsh, Chair, Wine Australia

I

n July, we released our fiveyear Strategic Plan in which we announced our goal for a united and prosperous Australian grape and wine community.

In order to achieve this, two priorities underpin our Strategic Plan – increasing the demand and premium paid for Australian wine and increasing its competitiveness in the global market.

Over the next five years we will annually invest somewhere in the order of $35 million in research and development, building markets, disseminating knowledge, encouraging adoption and ensuring compliance.

Our investments will be guided by the strategic research priorities of the Australian grape and wine community and the Australian government. Our focus is to maximise the returns on those investments for the betterment of the grape and wine sector.

Our longer-term goal is for Australia to be recognised as the world’s preeminent wine-producing country.

We know that this is an ambitious, cross-generational goal that’s looking ahead 30 years, but it’s one that reflects the long-term cycles and nature of grapegrowing, winemaking and market development. We believe it’s time to refocus on our best wines and what makes them special. Our natural endowment of diverse, unique and superior terroirs, combined with our skilled and innovative people, means that we have the capacity to be recognised as the best in the world.

Our research and development (R&D) activities over the next five years are a critical component of our Strategic Plan and aim to increase the profitability and sustainability of both Australian viticulture and winemaking.

We will help build excellence in the vineyard by developing new viticultural approaches and tools that help growers to produce grapes that meet desired

quality targets. We will also develop measures to assess grape and wine provenance and quality to optimise viticultural and winemaking practices so that the influences of terroir can be captured, enhanced and preserved.

Deeper knowledge of our customers globally and what influences their purchasing decisions will mean that the Australian wine sector will be able to better target its wine marketing activities.

Our R&D activities will fall under the following defined strategies: BUILDING AUSTRALIAN GRAPE AND WINE EXCELLENCE We’ll gain a better understanding of Australia’s unique terroirs and how they influence wine style and quality, and we will help drive quality improvements by using digital tools to capture and interpret information in large data sets.

IMPROVING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY We will provide the sector with information to help manage the challenges of short-term climate cycles and long-term climate change.

We will preserve and manage access to grapevine germplasm resources and we will develop a solution to the wine sector’s information needs around grape and wine supply, empowering individual enterprises and the wine sector to make evidence-based and data-driven business decisions.

We will focus on improved diagnostic protocols for exotic pest incursions, better management practices for pests and diseases, improved awareness of best-practice spray programs and integrated pest-management strategies.

We will help build excellence in the vineyard by developing new viticultural approaches and tools that help growers to produce grapes that meet desired quality targets.

IMPROVING VINEYARD PERFORMANCE We will invest in new or enhanced technologies and processes that improve vineyard efficiency. Vineyard performance will be improved through the availability of enhanced or new grapevine varieties, clones and rootstocks that produce improved wine flavour profiles and tolerate biotic and abiotic stressors.

We will also improve yield prediction methods so that grapegrowers and winemakers can better manage logistics around vintage.

IMPROVING WINERY PERFORMANCE Winery efficiency will be improved by developing ways to optimise wine production inputs, improve fermentation efficiency and understand how to optimise winery wastewater treatment.

BUILDING CAPABILITY BY DEVELOPING PEOPLE We need leaders to pursue our ambitious cross-generational goal of being recognised as the world’s preeminent wine-producing country. We will invest in developing the leadership and personal skills of the next generation of wine sector leaders so that they have the skills to adopt R&D outcomes and innovate, and the networks to support their future contributions.

Our Strategic Plan was developed after extensive consultation with grapegrowers and winemakers and the broader Australian grape and wine community about their priorities. I would like to thank everyone for their thoughtful contributions.

To demonstrate how these contributions helped to shape the final Strategic Plan, we have outlined how feedback was incorporated in the Strategic Plan 2015–2020 Feedback Summary.

I urge you to take the time to review the Strategic Plan and Feedback Summary by visiting www.wineaustralia. com, and I look forward to working with you all as we move towards a prosperous and unified Australian grape and wine community.

WVJ

14

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

A S V O

ASVO Mildura seminar - was it the best yet?

By Mardi Longbottom President, Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology

F

eedback is continuing to roll in off the back of the recent ASVO Mildura seminar and all of it positive. It’s even been cited as the best ASVO seminar in a long time with plenty of information to take back to businesses and apply straight away. While the highlights were the presentations by our international guests, Drs Kendra Baumgartner and Vaughn Bell, the locals followed close behind. Both Baumgartner and Bell, while speaking on different pathogens - trunk diseases and viruses – they provided similar take home messages: minimise the economic impact by identifying and acknowledging the problem early and remediate it immediately.

The program for the Adelaide seminar on 19 November is taking shape and is set to deliver value to both viticulturists and winemakers.

The topic, ‘Earlier, shorter, hotter managing compressed vintages’, will

present data showing the shifting trends in phenology and harvest dates and practical ways to optimise harvest decisions in big and small wineries.

Experts will also discuss the issue of high alcohol including monitoring ferments, the management of stuck ferments, faster vintage processing and sensory issues with higher alcohol wines.

The Adelaide seminar will culminate with the annual ASVO Awards dinner which will provide plenty of opportunity for continued discussion about the day’s events among wine industry practitioners, researchers, academics and students from across Australia and beyond. The winners of the ASVO Winemaker and Viticulturist of the Year and also the new scholarship to participate in the Advanced Wine Assessment Course will also be announced.

The ASVO recently put out a call for nominations for directors of the

ASVO board to fill the 2015 general vacancies. These vacancies have arisen from the expiry of the appointed terms for myself (president), Brett McClen (vice president), Dr Paul Petrie (secretary), Prof Mike Trought and Dr Anthony Robinson. A national election to determine the new members of the ASVO board of directors will occur in September and October. The ASVO board serves voluntarily to maintain the vision of the ASVO through active participation in strategic planning, regular meetings, working groups and delivery of ASVO events. Please take the time to vote and influence the future direction of the ASVO. The annual general meeting and announcement of the elected directors will be held at the Plant Research Centre following the Adelaide seminar at 5.30pm, Thursday 19 November.

ASVO members that are unable to make it to the seminar are encouraged to WVJ attend the AGM.

All this hard work just to get your tops taken off.

By effectively promoting your brands & products we encourage consumers to take the tops off your wines. As the only Australian manufacturer of Hoods, Polylaminate and PVC Capsules, we achieve these results through innovative R&D and global backing.

Being seasoned wine industry suppliers means we understand your requirements, making it easier to help you sell your wine

ENO144393-F/WVJ2015

& build your brands.

V3 0N 5

08 8347 0455 | www.enoplastic.com.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

15

K E Y

F I L E S

Australia’s warm inland regions frying pan or fire?

By Tony Keys

Paul Smart, viticulturist and winemaker for Pressing Matters in southern Tasmania, also known as Vineyard Paul via his blog and in the Twittersphere, recently posted a blog titled ‘Should the Australian wine industry exit the Riverland?’ Tony responds to some of Paul’s contentions for such a proposition.

T

his article was prompted by a recent blog post from Tasmaniabased winemaker Paul Smart: http://www.vineyardpaul.com.au/ should-the-australian-wine-industryexit-the-riverland/ It isn’t an article directly counteracting Smart’s opinion - a 'he’s wrong, I’m right' type of article. It’s an article that explores Smart’s views and his perception of the Australian wine industry in 2015. On reading the article and having previously met and been impressed with Smart, it occurred to me he is a younger generation. His views are partly based on the industry my generation has left him.

We do have a lot to be proud of but there have been an awful lot of cockups. Worse than that, we haven’t always faced them, preferring to brush them under the carpet. The arrogance of several leaders of industry bodies, many company CEOs and numerous winemakers in the past was shameful, but the wave of euphoria let them get away with it. In retrospect the pot of gold that was Australian wine was scattered with disregard and not invested wisely.

Smart’s blog title was bound to

attract attention, ‘Should the Australian Wine Industry Exit the Riverland’, although his comments were not just about the Riverland. “Now when I say Riverland I mean every region that is not considered cool climate by Wine Australia, in other words: Riverland, Lower Murray, Riverina, Perricoota, Murray Darling Swan Hill (MDSH) and the Big Rivers,” Smart said.

It’s a huge statement and it obviously dawned on Smart some clarification might be useful: “And when I say that we should exit the Riverland, I don’t mean every producer.”

A comment from Robert Hill-Smith, chair of Yalumba, provides a quick answer: “Anyone who believes the world will revert to premium wine from Australia just because the ubiquitous ‘South Eastern Australia’ blend at a low price may shorten up in supply is delusional. Regional wines from inland grapes are a strength of our branded suit not a weakness. The weakness is the economy for the supplier of them, but it is a fine line and unfortunately foreign exchange is a non-controllable issue.”

Smart says he is talking about the bulk commodity grapes that are grown

at 60 tonnes a hectare (25 tonnes an acre). So far my research has not revealed such a high number.

Smart gives three reasons why Australia should move out of what he refers to as bulk grapegrowing leading to bulk winemaking. One can argue this by asking, are not the proletariat entitled to enjoy a glass of wine that is soundly made if not exciting in taste?

Does Smart want to limit wine to those more experienced in the subject, have greater understanding and also the wealth to indulge in wine drinking?

Smart’s reasons for exiting warm regions are the following: • low margins • it devalues Wine Brand Australia • other countries can do it cheaper.

Smart talks about low margins and big volume and he’s right, but what concern is it for him? That is, the business cask wine producers are in, and they understand it very well indeed.

They produce vast amounts of wine at low prices and small margin. It’s not Smart’s business, therefore. He should stay with what he knows.

Anyhow, Smart is missing the point which is not the producer margin but

“Regional wines from inland grapes are a strength of our branded suit not a weakness. The weakness is the economy for the supplier of them, but it is a fine line and unfortunately foreign exchange is a noncontrollable issue.”

-Robert Hill-Smith, Yalumba

16

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

K E Y

Hot or what?

By Richard Smart, Smart Viticulture Tony has kindly asked if I might contribute to this discussion. I am pleased to do so. I have been concerned with the slide in fortunes of the Australian wine sector, and have offered five articles of comment in this Journal in the last five years. To my mind, the reasons are simple and I find the lack of strategic advice and planning by sector bodies extraordinarily poor. Do you remember the WRAA (Wine Restructuring Action Agenda) of 2009?

In 1980, while at Roseworthy College, Peter Dry and I published a climate classification of Australia’s wine regions, and an accompanying variety planting advice. The regions could be divided into five regions, from ‘very hot’ as in Sunraysia with a mean January temperature (MJT) >23°C, through ‘hot’, ‘warm’, ‘cool’ to finally ‘cold’, as in Launceston with a MJT of <16.9°C. Based on overseas experience, varieties were matched to regions, thus creating some regional specialisation by variety and wine style.

That this has not happened was demonstrated by the elegant analysis of Kym Anderson in the last issue of this Journal (July/August, pages 53-57). Recent plantings have narrowed varietal diversification, with a majority of ‘international’ varieties, mostly French.

The Australian wine sector has overwhelmingly followed the ‘varietal labelling’ model, where variety dominates labels over region. If the consumer can buy a cheap Shiraz or Chardonnay wine, why pay more for the same variety from a cooler region, though the wine might be claimed of better quality. So the ‘made in Australia’ wine brand is likely devalued, as many have argued, including Paul Smart.

Smart’s first point was that Australia might exit hot region bulk wine production. I have some sympathy with this view point. Certainly, such regions were over planted in the last planting boom. Who asked for these new vineyards, and who failed to caution against the plantings? From what I have seen overseas in the last 20 years, Australia has

the grower margin. He does mention growers saying they are the ultimate losers. The question he should be applying his intellect too is, what can be done to change that? How can the Australian wine industry become a profitable venture for all or at least most?

His uncle, Dr Richard Smart (see above), is also concerned about Australia’s ability to produce everyday drinking wine at an everyday price: “Australia has no competitive advantage in such products. I believe that China will become a significant exporter in the next few decades, and they will have a big impact, as they do now for garlic and apples.”

I believe he has a point regarding export but there must be a domestic

V3 0N 5

F I L E S

no competitive advantage in such products. I believe that China will become a significant exporter in the next few decades, and these exports will have a big impact, as they do now for garlic and apples.

Australia faces strong competition in the lower priced bottled wine market from both Old World countries, like Spain, southern France and southern Italy, but also from California, Chile, Argentina and South Africa. I currently live in the UK and this is the battle I see being fought on the supermarket shelves for wines retailing at less than say £8.00 a bottle. And China has not yet entered the market!

English friends ask me where is the wine region ‘South East Australia’?

Australia has relatively expensive labour which is not something that we should regret, as it provides minimal standards of living. Not all countries with cheaper labour provide this. Labour costs have been offset by mechanisation, but this has not always been effective, nor is research into such practices funded in Australia as it is in New Zealand. Higher yields of better quality grapes are available with today’s knowledge, which can offset higher labour cost. These technologies are not widely used.

A fundamental problem of the Australian wine sector is that it has failed to develop its true cool climate vineyard resources (as opposed to those perceived ‘cool’ from a South Australian perspective, where many investment decisions are made). I have published before that New Zealand may soon earn more in wine exports than Australia. New Zealand has done a great job of regionalisation and varietal specialisation, which will stand them in good stead in the future. Will the Australian wine sector commit to regionalisation? Let us see the outcome of the most recent Adelaide corroboree.

I will know when the representative bodies understand the sector problems better because they will stop describing Australia’s wine regions by the euphemistic binary terms ‘warm’, i.e., Mildura, and ‘cool’, i.e., the Barossa. Can you believe it?

The people I feel sorry for are vine growers in the hot regions, who are now losing their income and equity because of poor advice. Growers are always at the end of the supply chain and typically suffer most.

angle that can be explored for our own wines?

From his blog, Smart believes these cheaper wines emerging from the warm inland regions are devaluing the Wine Australia brand. Are they? I think the wines may be devaluing the Wine Australia brand as Paul Smart and co-sympathisers see it, but not as I and others see it.

Nick Gill is the chief executive of Belvino Investments which has 7334 hectares of Australian vineyards on its books, including more than 5000 hectares in the warm inland regions.

This group came about when times were good and wine companies such as Australian Vintage and Grant Burge were raising capital via selling vineyards or lease back arrangements.

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

It’s also worth noting that Belvino is majority owned by CK Life Sciences Int’l (Holdings) Inc., part of the CK Hutchison Group based in Hong Kong.

In short, it’s Chinese owned.

Gill says it’s too late; we already have warm climate regions, we cannot go back.

“We can make less money in our cool climate vineyards than our warm climate. Go figure!” he says. “It is not a warm vs cool economic argument. It is poor variety choice and uneconomic scale loses no matter where it’s located.

“I would guess 50 percent of cool climate grapes go into sub $10 bottles. France has £2 ($3.20) wine and they don’t whinge like the Aussie winemakers do about hurting Brand ▶ France.”

www.winetitles. com . au

17

K E Y

F I L E S

Robert Hill-Smith raises much the local and imported ingredients’ statement “And then there is water, or lack of same point: “Why is Australia stigmatised before. It can again.” it, particularly this season,” Smart said. more than any other winemaking country Now that is a big statement and Smart The research on water usage in the warm as a supplier of cheap, drinkable wine in a is opening himself up to an escalating inland regions is vast. The usage is well way that punishes the hierarchy above this broadside. Australia has around 145,000 regulated, and selling their water licences commodity level drink?” hectares of planted vineyard land. I may be the last straw for many growers.

Paul Smart wrote, “Wine Brand agree with him it is too much, but to start No water, no grapes, no wine. Let it come Australia should be playing up, not down. importing all wine that retailed, say, under about naturally. It will cull some of the Play to strengths not weaknesses.” $12 a bottle and have casks full or part herd but what remains will be stronger I believe they do. In fact, my belief is full of Spanish, French or Italian wine and better placed to deal with producers. at times Australia is in danger of over would be a disaster.

Smart has told me he doesn’t believe promoting its top end wines, distancing For a start Australia would become a vine pull is the answer. This leaves me them too far from the everyday, easy puzzled as if there is to be no vine drinking, well-priced wines. pull and if the natural decline of Smart’s third point is other grapegrowing in the warm regions “countries can do it cheaper”. He is also not a satisfactory answer, "It is not a warm vs cool economic mentions the costs of labour in his maybe he should reexamine his argument. It is poor variety choice and vineyards but seems to forget he thought process? is in Tasmania and the same costs Smart does put forward his uneconomic scale loses no matter where do not apply to the warm inland theory in the form of a case study on it’s located." regions. One also has to take into the Austrian wine industry. account free labour. There are “Austria renewed their export - Nick Gill, Belvino Investments many small vineyard owners in both push years ago (mainly to Germany, warm and cool regions that do not their biggest customer) with a focus cost their labour into the costs of on high quality wines, and ignoring production. I know of a high court judge known as the snobby wine-producing their ‘jug’ wine category. What resulted is who has a small prestige vineyard. He country. The place where they only phenomenal.” does most of the work himself and says produce wines retailing at $20 and When young Mr. Smart was the pruning on a cold morning can help him above and the man in the street has to even younger Master Smart (1985) and think through a point of law he may be drink imported wine because Australia’s wine was not within his main interests, considering. winemakers think him not worth the Austrian diethylene glycol wine There are others in the warm regions bothering with. I can see that going down scandal hit the world. Some Austrian that need off-farm jobs to subsidise their well in political circles no matter what producers were caught using diethylene 25ha vineyard, or work weekends to keep side of the divide one’s politics lay. glycol in their wines to make them fuller the vineyard in production. It may cost $30 There is also the balance of payments and sweeter, therefore moving them out of an hour to hire labour but there are a lot issue, the embarrassment and the the basic wine categories up to Kabinett, who just carry out the work and do not depression it would cause throughout Spätlese even Beerenauslese. I can consider labour costs. the Australian agricultural industry. remember a flood of the last in London at Smart asks, “Is it not cheaper to create After wine, what else can be imported the time. wine in other countries and import it for cheaper? We know quite a lot but it’s an It was the Germans who discovered the our low end market? This has happened issue Australia has to come to terms with. fraud and the Austrian industry came near in the past, cask wine had the ‘Made from Wine should not be the starting point. to total collapse with only the domestic

Paul Smart suggests Australia should cease producing cheap wine that largely comes out of the warm inland regions and become a net importer of such products, posing, “Is it not cheaper to create wine in other countries and import it for our low end market? This has happened in the past, cask wine had the ‘Made from local and imported ingredients’ statement before. It can again.” However, Tony Keys says although he agrees Australia has too much land planted to vineyards, to start importing all wine in this category would be a disaster.

18

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

K E Y

F I L E S

market keeping it alive. This forced the Coast) totaling nearly 700ha. He offers the “Change is needed in the River regions Austrians to reevaluate their industry. The opinion that New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc and also in Adelaide where industry result was a focus on higher quality wines. put paid to Chardonnay from Cowra and leaders still crow about Australian wine It took a couple of decades to become other Australian regions. Being pragmatic not being in oversupply, just under sold,” reestablished in the eyes of the consumer he adds, “who knows if Nero d’Avola or Collins says. “There are good wines and that is the reason they are in the similar will not cause a change in red coming from the River regions and they situation they are today. production in these river regions.” meet a price point. Whether they meet Smart continues: “Why can’t Australia It’s a point Smart is in agreement with. a flavour and taste test with our new take a leaf out of their near-namesake?

The newer (to Australia) varieties that consumers in Gen Y is another matter.”

Why not promote only the above $20 wine are doing well in the Riverland and other So far his discussion has focused on category. Why are we trying to be the warm regions he would like to keep. To the wine produced and grapegrowers. world’s bulk wine producer, and high value keep them means a very gradual change There is a subtlety here. In cool climates producer? We have this weird dichotomy to be carried out over a decade, maybe there are many wineries each with a where we have 2500 growers all producing longer, not in a couple of years. name and identity. In the warm regions high value wine, and 20 producers Collins says a lot of red wine he tastes it’s just grapegrowers. Ashley Ratcliff is producing bulk. originating from the warm regions is a viticulturist with vineyard holdings in “How can Wine Australia effectively harsh and tannic adding, “I could not the Riverland. This year he presented at market this? It needs two campaigns, and imagine that it does anything to promote the Australian Society of Viticulture & that will just confuse the messaging. The the Y Generation moving away from New Oenology technical seminar in Mildura. latest ‘long term’ strategy Ratcliff’s point was from Wine Australia has branding the vineyard; stated that it “will make it and the grapes it “Where can I find out why Americans switched from address the challenge of grows something special. general global perception He has become close to the our Shiraz offerings to Argentinian Malbec and what leading to lower prices many winemakers who buy should Australian wineries do to make wine acceptable through an unwavering from him, none based in the focus on increasing the Riverland but all wanting to consumers? Without such research the River areas will appreciation of our fine his fruit for the wines they just do as daddy did and pour the water on and fill tanks wines.” This is hard to do produce. with this lead weight of The answer appears with wine that is just a bulk commodity at 60 cents/litre.” bulk wine.” to be, Australia does not -Ron Collins, Blaxland Wine Group I think Smart needs need all the fruit the warm to apply greater thought regions produce but it does to this statement. The need the warm regions.

20 companies I suspect Nor does it need all the he hints at do not rely totally on cheap Zealand Sauvignon Blanc to a local red.” cool climate fruit it produces. While wine; they also produce many fine wines.

Collins asks, “We spend tens of millions there is oversupply one cannot blame Treasury Wine Estates may blow the on research. Where can I find out why producers paying market price even if the trumpet loud and clear when it comes to Americans switched from our Shiraz price is below cost of production. the Penfold brand but they still buy and offerings to Argentinian Malbec and what To end on a positive note, Victor De need a lot of fruit from the warm regions should Australian wineries do to make Bortoli, export manager for De Bortoli for other brands. wine acceptable to consumers? Without Wines, states, “Australia won’t exit the It is worth remembering only 85% of such research the River areas will just warm or River regions and they will the wine in a bottle carrying a region on do as daddy did and pour the water on be profitable again. Through efficient the label has to come from that region. and fill tanks with wine that is just a bulk farming methods and mechanisation It has been said to me that the Riverland commodity at 60 cents/litre.” there is a future.” content in bottles of wine selling for above Collins estimate is that half the warm De Bortoli admits times are tough $10 represents 14% of export sales and inland regions are needed but not all. at the moment and the free market 22% of domestic volume. Unfortunately He says in discussion with other wine will force some to exit, “just as the free there was no documentation to back this company executives a vintage totalling market has caused significant pressure statement but I believe there is truth around 1.2 million tonnes rather than 1.7 and changes in many wineries in recent within it. million tonnes is nearer the mark. It is years”.

Having written his blog Smart concedes a figure I am in agreement with and not “These regions may not be making the he’s not really sure if the Australian wine all the reduction needs to come from the cheapest wine in the world in the future industry should exit the warm regions. warm regions. but they do make and will continue to Maybe, he says, over 20 years.

Collins mentions the Limestone Coast, make great quality wines that represent It could be in 20 years the warm regions Langhorne Creek and the Adelaide Hills value. will greatly change naturally. The younger are also in over supply. He says the “There is water. If the water does not generation are reluctant to take on a 25ha oversupply situation has been around for grow grapes it will grow something else. block and work the land for little return. more than a decade and should have been As opposed to a few years ago there It seems when mum and dad die the kids dealt with long ago. are now some reasonable opportunities will sell the block to a larger concern that The wine equalisation tax (WET) is also for farmers to look to other crops, and may or may not be a grapegrower. a point Collins raises. If it goes then so nuts are the talk of the moment around Ron Collins is a director of Blaxland will the many dubious dealings involving Griffith.”

Wine Group, established in 1995 and now warm region fruit. Will that force retailers managing four vineyards in three regions to look at imported wines to meet the sub WVJ (Barossa, Adelaide Hills and Limestone $10 market?

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

19

W I NNEEMW A KSI N G

C O N C R E T E TA N K S

Concrete wine – first it was the egg, now it’s tulips and teacups

By Cathy Howard

Concrete tanks have come a long way since the open-topped vessels once used extensively in the Australian wine industry. In the last decade, concrete tanks have morphed into both fermenters and storage tanks and are available in almost any shape. Cathy explores what quality improvements these vessels are bringing to wine and whether there are any pitfalls.

Tulip-shaped eight-kilolitre tanks at Chateau Cheval Blanc, in France.

I

n the past five to 10 years, concrete tanks and ‘concrete wine’ have been rediscovered by winemakers all over the world, but it seems that Australia is lagging behind Europe and the United States in the uptake of larger format concrete fermenters and storage vessels.

These new generation concrete tanks are far removed from the concrete tanks that many of us have worked with around Australia. My very first vintage experience was in 1990 at Plantagenet Wines, in Mount Barker, Western Australia, and that was my introduction to concrete tanks - two rows of open-topped concrete fermenters. From that point on, many of the wineries that I worked in, particularly in South Australia and Victoria, had concrete tanks. They were all fixed to the ground or underground, came in varying sizes and were fairly limited in shape, being either cylindrical, square or rectangular.

These concrete tanks needed scraping and rewaxing prior to vintage. This presented significant occupational health and safety risk issues annually that needed to be addressed. This included allocating time and resources for intensive training sessions with cellar staff and outside training providers to ensure all staff were trained in confined space tank entry and exit and were authorised to do high risk hot work within a confined space. There were also issues with tank walls cracking and if the wax wasn’t applied evenly over the inside surface, we did see some characters in the wines that were detrimental to wine quality, which we described as ‘tanky’, ‘dank’, ‘wet concrete’, or ‘cement dust’.

In the past 10 to 12 years, concrete tanks have morphed into a fermenter and storage tank option far removed from the concrete tanks that I worked with back in the ‘90s. Now, basically any shape can be made out of concrete. Some are quite beautiful

20

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

and aesthetically pleasing to look at, such as tulips, amphora, eggs, teacups, pyramids and ellipticals. Others are more conventional in shape, such as squares, cylinders, open-topped round, open-topped rectangular, and conical. Modifications include optional ports for racking and cleaning, heating and cooling coils. Some manufacturers have a cooling system hidden within the walls of the tank itself; others fit cooling plates to the inside of the tanks.

Most new generation concrete tanks range in size from 500L up to 10,500L. Many concrete tank suppliers now offer custom design options. You can create your own unique shape (within limits), include your branding in the tank walls, select from a range of outside wall concrete colours and, recently, through a US tank manufacturer you can now consider covering the outside walls of a bank of your conventionally-shaped tanks with murals. Both US manufacturers (Sonoma Cast Stone and Vino Vessel) offer the inclusion of stone or gravel from your own vineyard in the concrete mix, taking custom design to another level: “Bring us a sample of stone from your vineyard and we will incorporate it in our concrete mix to achieve a completely unique tank for your winery”.

As far as the functionality of these tanks from a winemaking perspective is concerned, concrete lies somewhere between stainless steel and oak barrels. Like stainless steel, concrete tanks are neutral containers (though some claim they can impart a mineral note into a wine, depending on the type of grape and length of exposure). One of concrete’s biggest selling points is its thick walls, effective at stabilising temperatures which is ▶ especially useful during fermentation.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

Realise every precious drop.

Producing the perfect Grape takes time, effort and energy. So when yours are attacked by chewing pests you need to strike back. DuPont™ Avatar® insecticide works with your integrated pest management strategy to control Light brown apple moth and Grapevine moth caterpillars, Garden weevils, European earwigs and Wingless grasshoppers. And it’s friendly to some key beneficial bugs.

Visit www.cropprotection.dupont.com.au for more information ALWAYS REFER TO THE LABEL BEFORE USE. Copyright © 2014 DuPont. The DuPont Oval Logo, DuPont™ and Avatar® are registered trademarks or trademarks of DuPont or its affiliates.

Du Pont (Australia) Pty Ltd. 7 Eden Park Drive, Macquarie Park NSW 2113. ACN 000 716 469. All rights reserved. DUPONT0049/AV/WVJ/130x185.

W I NNEEMW A KSI N G

C O N C R E T E TA N K S

• Concrete doesn’t add, remove, or mask any aromas or flavours. It lets the fruit characteristics shine through, showcasing a wine’s true terroir.

Many of the new generation concrete tanks are moveable (using the right equipment due to their weight of course), offering far greater flexibility in winery layout changes as they are not fixed to the ground or built in-ground like many of the older generation concrete tanks.

These new generation concrete tanks are being used for fermentation and maturation of whites and reds. However, tanks used for red ferments or storage are not usually used for white fermentation or storage, similar to barrels really.

• Concrete is not as porous as barrels, so regardless of shape, evaporation loss is quite small compared with barrels.

• Fermentation temperatures down to 12°C are maintained using plates or inbuilt temperature control systems.

• Concrete has no effect on the acid profile of a wine, and many winemakers are seeing no change in the pH and TA when comparing the same wines fermented and/or matured in concrete and stainless steel.

A SUMMARY OF THE ADVANTAGES OF MAKING CONCRETE WINES This list has been collated from various sources I came across while researching this topic, including manufacturers, suppliers and winemakers: • Wines have a more expressive nose, and have been described as being more floral, more fruit forward, more vibrant, and have a freshness that is surprising when compared with stainless steel and oak barrels.

• Wines also have a rounder mouthfeel, a more refined texture and have good mid-palate weight.

• Due to the thickness and material of the walls, concrete is a natural insulator and stabilises the temperature of whatever is inside of it, making it ideal for storing and ageing wines.

• For the same reason, fermentation is smooth and gradual without stressing yeast populations with high and low temperature spikes.

• Concrete is porous on a microscopic scale providing a small micro-oxygenation effect similar to that seen with oak, but without imparting oak flavour. It has the added bonus of avoiding the reductive conditions of stainless steel.

New concrete storage tanks at Chateau Beauregard, France, 2011.

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

22

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

Australian Products for Australian Wineries

Spotlight on Innovative Efficient Products for the Wine Industry

V30N5

C O N C R E T E TA N K S

W I NNE E MA WKSI N G

Brettanomyces. However, for many winemakers who have concrete tanks, concrete vessels are really no different than working with, and maintaining, oak barrels in this regard. The key, first of all, is to not have Brett in your winery to start with, then maintain proven wine production protocols that keeps Brettanomyces out.

There are a number of concrete tank manufacturers. To name a few, there are Nomblot in France, Nico Velo in Italy, and Sonoma Cast Stone and Vino Vessel in the US. They each use proprietary concrete mixes, and most tanks are ordered as unsealed inside. They all offer various tank sizes and shapes.

As far as I have been able to find out, there is only one winery in Australia, McHenry Hohnen Vintners, that has eight fivetonne concrete red fermenters. However, there are a number of wineries around Australia now using egg fermenters.

I contacted two concrete tank manufacturers and the senior winemaker at McHenry Hohnen to find out more about these large format, new generation concrete tanks.

McHenry Hohnen Vintners (MHV) five-tonne, burgundyshaped, open-topped concrete fermenters stand amongst the winery’s more traditional stainless steel and oak fermentation and storage vessels at its Margaret River winery.

A SUMMARY OF THE DISADVANTAGES OF MAKING CONCRETE WINES The following was also compiled from various sources, primarily from winemakers: • The cost of a concrete tank is slightly higher than the cost of a similar sized tank made from stainless steel. And, they are a lot heavier (a 600L egg weighs 1.2 tonnes; a 1600L egg weighs 2.6 tonnes), so shipping costs are substantial, especially if you are shipping from the US or Europe to Australia.

• Concrete tanks require more work to maintain as there is the need to protect against acid corrosion with the initial application of two coats of a 30% tartaric acid solution on the internal walls.

This needs to be repeated again after each tank cleaning cycle.

• High pressure washing and scrubbing needs to be avoided as it will damage the concrete.

AN AUSTRALIAN WINEMAKING PERSPECTIVE Trent Carroll, Senior Winemaker, McHenry Hohnen Vintners, Margaret River, Western Australia Carroll is a big fan of concrete tanks and concrete wines.

McHenry Hohnen Vintners (MHV) now has eight five-tonne, burgundy-shaped, open-topped fermenters at its Margaret River winery. The first four were purchased in 2010, with the next four arriving in 2012. They are round with a round disc-shaped stainless lid. The winery also has a 600L egg which arrived with the 2010 delivery of red fermenters, and a 1000L elliptical tank that was with the second delivery of fermenters. All tanks were supplied by Nomblot, and the egg and elliptical tanks were ▶ included to fill the 40-foot containers.

Manage Brettanomyces bruxellensis in-house

• Care is required to keep the inside walls of empty tanks dry and aired to prevent mould or mildew growing on damp concrete.

• The outside walls of concrete tanks can be easily soiled, and the options to manage this while still retaining the porosity qualities of the concrete are limited (tank manufacturers do supply products to protect outside wall surfaces).

• Concrete is liable to crack if temperatures of the liquid inside get too high, and using hot water (>40oC) for cleaning will cause the stainless steel fittings to expand and possibly cause cracking in the walls around the fittings.

• Concrete is not suited to all varietal wines as shown by a study by the Geisenheim Research Centre in 2008. It was concluded that Rheingau Riesling was not well suited to an unlined concrete tank as its pH was too low. This was due to the wine itself corroding the concrete wall as the concrete tank itself did not affect the sensory properties of the Riesling.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A tip from many winemakers using concrete tanks is that it is best to keep concrete tanks full at all times to keep the tanks ‘healthy’.

Aside from the risk of moulds growing on damp internal walls, the combination of the porosity and slight unevenness of the surface of the inside walls of the concrete tanks provides possible breeding sites for microbial contamination, such as

V3 0N 5

Proactively test for and manage BRETT, using Veriflow technology - bringing same-day analysis to your vineyard “Game Changer In The Vineyard: Streamline The Process With Molecular Diagnostics” - Forbes magazine

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

Results in

4

HOURS

Talk to AMSL Scientific today about BRETT risk management.

P 02 9882 3666

W www.amsl.com.au

www.winetitles. com . au

23

W I NNEEMW A KSI N G

C O N C R E T E TA N K S

Carroll has undertaken trial ferments from the same batch of grapes off the same block, comparing the concrete fermenters with stainless steel, and the end results were strikingly different.

“The stainless ferments were overall cold and hard in texture, and reduced, when compared with the concrete wines which were more textured and had more vibrant aromatics”.

He cold soaks his reds in the concrete which is more or less chill and leave - a huge advantage in a busy vintage as he struggles to hold cold soaks at low temperatures in stainless vessels with cooling in a warm year in Margaret River.

“There is a long, slow lag phase with the start up of ferment in concrete. The ferment temperature curve is far more even in concrete compared with stainless and the ferment only really gets hot right at the end,” he explained.

Now Carroll also uses the concrete tanks for storage, and they are full most of the year. He is also using less oak, preferring to use the concrete tanks as his maturation vessels, rather than older oak, for 10 months.

When asked about the performance of the egg compared with the elliptical tank (which is oval in shape and looks like a large flattened-out barrel), Carroll definitely prefers the elliptical for white maturation due to a much larger surface area in contact with the lees which is proving to be a significant wine quality gain in using this tank. Interestingly, Carroll is also moving away from using barrels, particularly for Marsanne and Rousanne, preferring the wine quality results that he is achieving now using this elliptical tank for fermentation and maturation to those that he was achieving through using a large format oak vat (2500L) and smaller barrels. It’s the aromatic lift and freshness of the primary fruit characters, combined with the resulting texture that are the biggest wine quality benefits in using the elliptical concrete tank compared with the vat and barrels.

Since 2013, all MHV reds have been fermented in concrete.

MHV red ferment temperatures in concrete usually run at 25-28°C. Carroll doesn’t use any cooling at MHV in the concrete tanks. If ferments do get a little hot, >30°C, they are run off into a stainless tank and the ferment cooled down off skins before returning onto skins back in the concrete tank.

For cleaning, they use 35°C water, and a mild caustic cleaning solution followed by a tartaric acid rinse. They don’t scrub the inside walls at all. Initially, they painted one coat of 30% tartaric acid on the internal walls of each concrete tank, followed by a

McHenry Hohnen Vintners 1000L elliptical tank which it purchased from Nomblot, in France. Winemaker Trent Carroll prefers the elliptical vessel over its egg fermenter for the maturation of whites due to a much larger surface area in contact with the lees which is proving to be a significant wine quality gain in using this tank.

24

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

second coat 24 hours later. This treatment was then repeated each time a tank was emptied, immediately after cleaning, and the tanks were left to air dry. They would then rinse the tank with water prior to filling. Now, several years on, they spray ball a 15% tartaric acid solution onto the walls to seal after cleaning rather than painting on the two coats of 30% tartaric acid.

Carroll is not sure of the expected life of his concrete tanks, and they do have the odd chip and small crack after years of use. The tanks are stored inside the winery, which he would recommend to other wineries.

He has had two issues with the concrete tanks. One is the staining on the outside of the fermenters. This is an extra cost on top of the initial purchase price to protect the outside surfaces of the concrete, and the product provided by Nomblot to seal the concrete and ensure it retains its porosity is quite expensive.

There is no alternative food-grade product available that could be used instead. The other issue was with the winery's second lot of fermenters, as MHV had ordered some grates post-manufacturing.

When they asked Nomblot to supply the concrete recipe to patch and fill around the grates once fitted, this was refused, and they had to use a food-grade water tank sealant to fill around the newlyfitted grates, which was not ideal but it has worked.

THE FRENCH TANK MANUFACTURER’S PERSPECTIVE Philippe Morin (Tonnellerie D’Aquitaine), Australian Sales Representative, Nomblot Tanks Nomblot has been making concrete wine vessels since 1922.

The company produced the first concrete egg fermenter in 2001 for Michel Chapoutier. Nomblot tanks are made without using chemical additives “from washed Loire sand, gravel, nonchlorinated spring water”, and a proprietary cement mix.

As the concrete internal walls are unlined, Nomblot advises the internal surfaces must be treated with a 30% tartaric acid solution before the first use, then tested after this procedure with a further, stronger acid solution to ensure there is no reaction. Regarding maintenance, the Nomblot website suggests annually checking the condition of the gaskets and brushing the inner wall of the vats again with a 30% tartaric acid solution.

For cleaning, Nomblot recommends the use of pH basic products such as ProxyClean for cleaning: “Winemakers have been surprised to see how easy the cleaning protocols are. The concept of a concrete tank, for most people, is that it is very rough and porous, so very difficult to clean. They expect to have to use extreme measures to clean the nooks and crannies that they think are inherent to concrete. Our concrete process is a special formulation. Just make sure to properly neutralise and sanitise the bare concrete interior tank walls as per our maintenance and preparation protocol.”

When asked why Australian wineries are now using new generation concrete tanks, Morin stated, “to make better wines as the concrete tanks are used in the best wineries in Europe and the USA! From a wine quality viewpoint, concrete tanks produce much better fruit aromatics and palate intensity. Better fermentation kinetics is achieved and, let’s face it, they are used in the best wineries in the world in Burgundy, Bordeaux and Rhone Valley, in the Napa. They are regarded now as the best fermenters for high quality wines, it’s that simple”.

Morin continues, “they are easily cleaned with a light caustic solution for the inside, followed by a tartaric wash. For the outside, we can apply a colour coating which acts as protection from stains.

See the Nomblot website for colours available. If well looked after, the expected life for a concrete tank is 30 to 40 years or more.”

For cooling ferments, Morin states, “Cooling is usually not needed as they are very cool due to their thermal mass being concrete and thick walls. However, we can fit entry points for setting up cooling plates for those that require cooling as an option.”

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

C O N C R E T E TA N K S

W I NNE E MA WKSI N G

McHenry Hohnen Vintners winemaker Trent Carroll has performed trial ferments using the same batch of grapes from the same block and compared the concrete fermenters with stainless steel, and says the end results were strikingly different.

From a cost-of-production viewpoint, there are benefits aside from wine quality that concrete has over stainless. One is “less or no energy is needed to cool them down and, most importantly, the ferment is slower and more even in temperature so cooling is not really needed. Also, they are fantastic storage maturation tanks as well.”

When asked how many wineries across Australia are now using Nomblot concrete tanks, Morin replied that he didn’t have a breakdown by states, or by tank, but, “most were the oval-shaped ‘egg’ tanks and burgundy fermenters. Since 2008 when I started importing them, I have been receiving enquiries each year from winemakers interested in purchasing a concrete tank.”

Morin stated there were several misconceptions about concrete tanks amongst Australian winemakers which has affected the uptake in many wineries. First, the feedback that he receives from many winemakers is that they regard using concrete fermenters and storage vessels as negatives from both a production management viewpoint and a wine quality viewpoint due to their experiences with them over the years. “Their mind is closed about concrete tanks,” he said. In regards to the Nomblot concrete tanks Morin continues, “The Nomblot tanks do not need wax and are used unsealed. Why do all the Chateaux in Bordeaux or in Napa Valley have them? Surely concrete must be right otherwise they would not use them. All of the Burgundy properties use them too, and this is where the tanks are manufactured. The Australian winemakers who do a vintage overseas are the ones who call me when they come back because they like working with the concrete tanks.”

The second misconception regards cleaning, with many winemakers believing they are harder to keep clean. “As I previously explained, they are not. On the contrary, it’s easy to look after them, and if they are empty then let the air flow through, simple!”

The third misconception, Morin states, is that, “the concrete gives wine a particular taste, which is not true. These comments come from those who have not worked with these tanks.”

Micah Utter, of Vino Vessel (www.vinovessel.com), has been in the concrete industry for 12 years and being based in Paso Robles, in the Napa, resulted in him readily becoming involved in the making of concrete wine tanks. He founded the Vino Vessel branch of his business in 2007.

Sonoma Cast Stone’s Steve Rosenblatt owns a vineyard in Sonoma and has a successful business designing and making sleek, modern, concrete countertops, sinks and baths. Sonoma Cast Stone added winemaking vessels to its production in 2010.

Rosenblatt continues, “Our 20-year-old company, Sonoma Cast Stone, has been making concrete wine tanks for the past eight years. The two most popular tanks are the egg and the ▶ amphora, followed by one of the three conicals.”

The clear choice in filtration

A US TANK MANUFACTURER’S PERSPECTIVE Steve Rosenblatt, Sonoma Cast Stone In the US it seems the interest in new generation concrete tanks took off slowly because the tanks were only produced in Europe, and shipping costs made them cost-prohibitive for many wineries.

That changed in 2007 when two Californian companies added concrete winemaking vessels to their production.

This change came about from the grassroots, so to speak - the winemakers themselves wanting to use concrete tanks to make their wines and source them at a more reasonable price. These wineries approached two concrete companies who each had some interest in the wine industry.

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

PERLFLO by Australian Perlite :: 1300 765 925

:: www.ausperl.com.au

www.winetitles. com . au

25

W I NNEEMW A KSI N G

C O N C R E T E TA N K S

Rosenblatt continues, “The prices shown are for the basic machine. Generally, there are approximately a further $3000 to $4000 (AUD) in additional costs with selected options and shipping. Overall, concrete tanks are more expensive than stainless steel.” Prices of some of the Sonoma Cast Stone tanks in AUD are: Tea cup – 750 litres open tank, $7500 Amphora – 1200 litres, $11,800 Egg shape – 1800 litres, $15,200 Small conical – 3500 litres, $17,000 Large conical – 4200 litres, $21,100 Truncated square – 8300 litres, $50,1000 When asked about export, Rosenblatt replied, “We regularly export to Europe, Chile, Mexico, Canada, Uruguay and, yes, a few to Australia and New Zealand.”

I had been wondering how both the tartaric acid treatment to seal the internal walls and the wine pH doesn’t cause concrete pitting long term on the internal walls. Rosenblatt replied, “Our tanks differ from all others in that we make a ‘sandwich’ of concrete. The ‘shell’ is made of a proprietary one-inch coat of a fibrecasting formula. Since this shell never touches the wine, we can make it in any colour and embed winery logos into the surface. This shell provides all of the strength of the tank. Our tanks, and only our tanks are guaranteed to not crack or leak for at least 10 years. After casting the shell, we wind a glycol tube every four inches over the entire surface of the tank. To our knowledge, our concrete tanks are the only tanks that have embedded glycol tubing to keep exact temperature. The last step involves a wet casting of very conventional sand, aggregate, portland cement and water mix, without any additives. We could, and in a few years will, provide an even tighter surface concrete. The answer to the second part of this question is, yes, the wine does erode the surface of the tank. The wine eventually dissolves the portland cement portion of this formula and rarely goes any further. This exchange, many believe, gives the wine that healthy ‘mineral feel’.

With regard to cleaning, “Any commercial cleaner can be used. Often only water and a soft brush will remove the accumulated surface. Owners are advised to not use steam or excessively hot water that could shock the tank surface. Other than that they are very easy to clean. If the tank is being left empty for a while between fills, the tanks should be left open to avoid any mould build up. They should be lightly washed prior to a future start-up. The best way to maintain the concrete tank and ensure a long life is, after use, clean and dry. During use, be careful not to overflow and spill on the outer surface.”

For protecting the outside walls, Rosenblatt states, “We use a proprietary material to maintain the surface. It is a common mistake to think that the concrete ‘breathes’ and that there is any oxygen exchange. The oxygenation comes from within the pores of the concrete left over by the evaporation of water used in the mix. We have done several tests and are certain that oxygen does not drift through the thick concrete walls.”

When asked as to why winemakers use concrete tanks in the US, Rosenblatt states, “The two major reasons for the use of concrete are greatly improved wine and the stunning look of well-made tanks in a winery open to the public. There are clearly thermal advantages and the broader mouthfeel given off by the added minerality. They cost more, but 70-80% of the fine wines of Europe are made in concrete and a good 50% in America. A poll taken on 4 March 2015 at a Wine Business Monthly seminar on the results from a 400 winemaker tasting showed that 80%+ preferred wine made in concrete over the same wine made in either oak or stainless steel.

“With over 400 tanks now in service only two were exposed to full strength tartaric acid for a weekend. The heavy pitted

surface was re-surfaced in our factory. None of our tanks have cracked or leaked because of the manner that we make them."

If a winery wished to install a new tank valve or fittings of some kind into the tank, this is not possible as Rosenblatt says, “Installing after-thought plumbing would not be possible as the chances of damaging the glycol tubing are too great.”

Sonoma Cast Stone generates about half its increased sales from re-orders. “The wine industry communicates well and successful stories help greatly in selling to new customers.

Beer and wine tank sales now account for about 45% of our market.”

Rosenblatt concludes with, “We are pleased to see such in-depth attention paid to concrete fermentation tanks. Next to come for us (by December) is our line of concrete ageing and storing ‘barrel’ tanks. Stay tuned!”

CONCLUSIONS Most winemakers that I know are always looking for ways to continually improve and tweak the quality of their wines. Once you are making good, sound, high quality wines, those extra small quality improvements become harder to achieve without some extra tools or equipment, and the new generation concrete wine tanks are an option to seriously consider. They are expensive when compared with stainless steel, but if your wine quality improves significantly and you are able to ask more for your bottle of wine, then the return on your initial investment will start paying for itself. As a blending option, they would be very valuable.

If there are enough Australian winemakers out there wanting to access better-priced new generation concrete tanks, then maybe take a lead from the US winemakers and seek out a local company currently in the concrete business, with an interest and drive to start producing these tanks for the local industry at more competitive prices.

For suppliers of these tanks into Australia, a suggestion would be to organise tastings of concrete wines versus those in stainless steel to open up the minds of winemakers in Australia to the possibilities of using new generation concrete tanks. The proof is always in the pudding and in my opinion as a winemaker, we always respond well to seeing and tasting the differences ourselves. I will look forward to be being invited, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, to a tasting such as this one organised in the Napa at Mondavi in March this year: http://www.concretewinetanks.com/concrete-tank-features. html The end result of using new generation concrete tanks is very positive, apart from the tank maintenance issues such as sealing with tartaric acid, which wouldn’t be too easy with some of the concrete shapes on offer. But, these small inconveniences may be far outweighed by the positive wine quality benefits of making concrete wines as a blending option to have in our winemaking kit bag.

FURTHER INFORMATION Concrete tank manufacturers France: Nomblot (www.wine-tanks.com) USA: Sonoma Cast Stone (www.concretewinetanks.com) and Vino Vessel (www.vinovessel.com) Italy: Nico Velo (www.winetanks.eu).

Cathy Howard is winemaker and, together with husband Neil, proprietor of Whicher Ridge Wines, near Busselton Western Australia, and has been making wine for more than 20 years. She also consults part time to some wineries in the Geographe region.

WVJ

26

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

The Tree gives us The barrel.

Now The barrel is replaNTiNg The Tree.

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s an exciting innovation of which each

Tonnellerie CADUS customer can be proud,

a generous and selfless contribution to nature, which is so generous to all of us.

Cadus will plant a new tree for each barrel delivered.

In the coming months, a forest of oak trees will be created. You can learn more and watch the trees grow at

www.tonnelleriecadus.com

W I NNEEMW A KSI N G

MLF

Malolactic fermentation and red wine colour

By James Osborne* and Tresider Burns Department of Food Science and Technology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA *Corresponding author: james.osborne@oregonstate.edu

A US study has given winemakers a better understanding of the impact of MLF on red wine colour.

RED WINE COLOUR

MLF AND RED WINE COLOUR

Wine quality is determined by many different sensory attributes including aroma, taste, and mouthfeel. For red wines, colour is an additional sensory attribute that plays a significant role in the perceived quality of a wine (Mercurio et al. 2010). This is particularly true for lighter coloured red wines, such as Pinot Noir. Therefore, a large amount of research has been conducted to understand factors that impact red wine colour, so that viticultural or winemaking practices can be modified to improve colour. Red wine colour is primarily due to anthocyanins present in the skins of red grapes that are extracted during red winemaking where the skins remain in contact with the fermenting juice (Fulcrand et al. 2006). However, the colour of a red wine is not solely determined by the concentration of anthocycanins in the wine. Following extraction, anthocyanins can react with a number of other compounds present in the wine to form more complex colour compounds. For example, anthocyanins can react with tannins to form polymeric pigments. The formation of polymeric pigments can be accelerated through reactions with acetaldehyde that result via ethyl-linked bridges between anthocyanins and tannins (Escribano-Bailon et al. 2001). Stable anthocyanin-derived pigments can also be formed through reactions with pyruvic acid and acetaldehyde to form vitisin A and vitisin B, respectively (Fulcrand et al.

1998, Bakker and Timberlake 1997). All of these pigments are more resistant to oxidation and bleaching by sulfur dioxide (SO2) than individual anthocyanins and tend to increase as a wine ages, accounting for the majority of colour in older wines (Salas et al. 2003).

Anecdotally, winemakers have reported a decrease in red wine colour post-MLF. While some of this observed colour loss is undoubtedly due to the increase in pH that occurs as a result of the MLF, additional impacts of O. oeni on red wine colour have not been well studied. Some recent studies have reported that MLF can impact the colour of Shiraz (Abrahamse and Bartowsky 2012) and Cabernet Sauvignon (Costello et al.

2012) wines, but the underlying cause for the colour loss was not noted. Therefore, an initial study to better understand the impact of MLF on red wine colour was conducted. Pinot Noir wines were produced using standard winemaking practices and then sterile filtered prior to MLF. Wines were inoculated for MLF using three different commercial O. oeni strains (Vinoflora oenos (VFO), EnofermÂŽ Alpha, VP41) while a portion of wine remained uninoculated to act as a control. At the completion of MLF a number of different colour components were measured and wines were also aged for nine months, throughout which time colour was also assessed. Wine was also produced where the alcoholic and malolactic fermentations were carried out simultaneously with the addition of O. oeni VFO at the beginning of the alcoholic fermentation. Lower red colour (measured as absorbance at 520nm) was noted in wines that had undergone MLF compared with the control wine that did not undergo MLF (Figure 1A).

The reduced colour persisted throughout ageing as after 270 days there was up to 20% lower red colour measured in wines that had undergone MLF (Figure 1A) compared with the control. Wines that were produced by simultaneous MLF demonstrated the same decrease in colour as wines that were inoculated for MLF post-alcoholic fermentation.

The lower colour in the MLF wines corresponded with decreased polymeric pigment (Figure 1B) and higher concentrations of the more unstable monomeric anthocyanins (Figure 1C). Analysis of the wines also revealed that the majority of acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid was degraded

by O. oeni during the MLF. Due to the potential role that acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid can play in the formation of colour compounds, an additional study was performed to understand the significance of their removal by O. oeni on red wine colour development. Pinot Noir wines were inoculated for MLF with O. oeni VFO. At the completion of MLF acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid concentrations were measured in these wines, as well as a control wine that did not undergo MLF. Acetaldehyde or pyruvic acid was then added back to the MLF wines so as to equal the concentration measured in the control wine. Colour was assessed after zero and 90 days of ageing. While addition of pyruvic acid did not significantly impact colour, addition of acetaldehyde reduced the amount of colour difference between the control wine and MLF wines (Figure 2A). This was also reflected in the amount of polymeric pigment (Figure 2B) and monomeric anthocyanins (Figure 2C) in these wines. Wines where acetaldehyde had been added back had significantly higher polymeric content

IMPACT OF MICROORGANISMS ON RED WINE COLOUR A number of viticultural and winemaking practices have been demonstrated to impact the formation of polymeric pigments, such as increased fermentation temperature (Reynolds et al. 2001), extended maceration (Zimman et al. 2002) and saignee (Harbertson et al. 2009). In addition, a number of studies have reported that yeast can impact colour through the adsorption of anthocyanins to their cell walls (Medina et al. 2005, Morata et al. 2005) or through production of acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid (Hayasaka et al. 2007, Morata et al. 2003). For example, Morata et al.

(2003) reported that yeast strains that produced higher concentrations of acetaldehyde resulted in wines with increased vitisin B content, a compound that can play an important role in red wine colour (Alcalde-Eon et al. 2006).

In addition to yeast, other microorganisms may play a role in red wine colour development as the concentration of compounds like pyruvic acid and acetaldehyde do not remain stable during a wineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life. In particular, Oenococcus oeni is known to degrade acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid during malolactic fermentation (MLF) (Wells and Osborne 2012, Osborne et al. 2000).

28

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

MLF

WINEMAKING

Figure 1. Colour at 520nm (A), polymeric pigment (B), and monomeric anthocyanins concentration (C) of Pinot Noir wines after zero and 270 days storage at 13°C that have not (control) or have undergone malolactic fermentation conducted by various O. oeni commercial cultures. Sim indicates simultaneous alcoholic and malolactic fermentation. Error bars indicate ± SD, n=3 than MLF wines that had no additions. For example, after 90 days of ageing MLF wine with no additions had approximately 41% less polymeric pigment than the control wine, while the acetaldehyde addition treatment had only an 18% reduction (Figure 2B).

DELAYING MLF TO IMPROVE COLOUR One strategy that winemakers adopt to improve Pinot Noir colour is to delay MLF. Anecdotally, winemakers have reported that long or delayed MLFs tend to produce wines with greater colour. In this present study, MLF was delayed in wines for up to six months. Although delaying MLF did not have a significant impact on colour loss at 520nm (Figure 3A, see next page), it did impact the formation of polymeric pigments (Figure 3B, see next page).

As MLF was delayed for longer periods of time, the polymeric pigment content and monomeric anthocyanin concentration of wines that underwent MLF became more similar to those of the control. In fact, when MLF was delayed for 200 days the polymeric pigment content (Figure 3B) and monomeric anthocyanin concentrations (Figure 3C, , see next page) were the same as the control wine that did not undergo MLF. From a practical winemaking point of view, delaying the MLF for 200 days to improve colour does carry some risk. No SO2 additions can be made to the wine until MLF has been completed. Wine would, therefore, be at risk of microbial spoilage during this time and so would need to be stored at cool temperatures to minimise the risk of microbial growth.

The risk of delaying the addition of SO2 versus improving wine colour would have to be carefully considered by the winemaker on a case by case basis.

The improved polymeric pigment formation in wines where MLF was delayed was likely due to acetaldehyde being present in the wine for an extended period of time. A number of studies have reported the ability of O. oeni to degrade acetaldehyde in wine (Wells and Osborne 2012, Osborne et al. 2000) and acetaldehyde is known to play a role in the

V3 0N 5

Figure 2. Colour at 520nm (A) and polymeric pigment (B) of Pinot Noir wine with restoration of acetaldehyde (A) and/or pyruvic acid (P) after malolactic fermentation at bottling (day zero) and 90 days after bottling. Error bars indicate ± SD, n=3 formation of polymeric pigments. This is also supported by improved colour and polymeric pigment content when acetaldehyde was added back to the wine post-MLF. While metabolism of acetaldehyde by O. oeni explained some colour loss, it did not explain it all. Therefore, an experiment was

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

29

WINEMAKING

MLF

were noted. Results from this study suggest that winemakers may be able to improve the polymeric pigment content of Pinot Noir wine by delaying MLF while storing wine at cool cellar temperatures to prevent microbial spoilage. Research will continue into additional techniques that may add in the formation of polymeric pigment prior to MLF. As only three O. oeni strains were used in the present study, additional malolactic bacteria strains will be tested to determine if strain selection can aid in the retention of colour and polymeric pigments during the MLF process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was made possible in part by grants from the Oregon Wine Board and from the American Vineyard Foundation. The authors would also like to acknowledge support from the Oregon Wine Research Institute and the Department of Food Science and Technology, at Oregon State University.

REFERENCES Abrahamse, C.E.and Bartowsky, E.J. (2012) Timing of malolactic fermentation inoculation in Shiraz grape must and wine: influence on chemical composition. World J. Microbiol. Biotech. 28:255-265.

Alcalde-Eon, C.; Boido, E.; Carrau, F.; Dellacassa, E. and Rivas-Gonzalo, J.C. (2006) Pigment profiles in monovarietal wines produced in Uruguay. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 57:449-459.

Bakker, J. and Timberlake, C.F. (1997) Isolation, identification and characterisation of new colour-stable anthocyanins occurring in some red wines. J. Ag. Food Chem. 45:35-43.

Costello, P.J.; Francis, I.L. and Bartowsky, E.J. (2012) Variations in the effect of malolactic fermentation on the chemical and sensory properties of Cabernet sauvignon wine: interactive influences of Oenococcus oeni strain and wine matrix composition. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 18:287-301.

Figure 3. Colour at 520nm (A), polymeric pigment (B), and monomeric anthocyanins concentration (C) of Pinot Noir wines that underwent malolactic fermentation delayed for set period of time. Error bars indicate ± SD, n=3 conducted to investigate the adsorption of anthocyanins to O. oeni cell walls (as has been shown to occur with yeast cell walls (Medina et al. 2005, Morata et al. 2005) to determine whether this could account for the remainder of the observed colour loss. Addition of inactivated O. oeni cells at a high cell population that would be found at the end of MLF did not cause a loss in colour at 520nm or monomeric anthocyanin concentration. This is in contrast to what has been reported for wine yeast, but may be due to the smaller relative surface area of the bacteria, or due to the likely different electrostatic nature of a bacterial cell wall compared with a yeast cell wall.

CONCLUSIONS Anecdotally winemakers have reported that MLF can cause a loss of colour in red wines, but the cause of this has not been known. In this study it was demonstrated that MLF can cause a significant loss of red colour, independent of the pH change that always accompanies this metabolic process. The colour loss corresponded with lower polymeric pigments in wine that underwent MLF and may be related to the degradation of acetaldehyde by O. oeni. Lower colour and polymeric pigment content was observed regardless of whether MLF occurred simultaneously or after alcoholic fermentation, and no differences between O. oeni strains

Escribano-Bailon, T.; Alvarez-Garcia, M.; Rivas-Gonzalo, J.C.; Heredia, F.J. and Santos-Buelga, C. (2001) Colour and stability of pigments derived from acetaldehyde-mediated condensation between malvidin-3-O-glucoside and (+)-catechin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49:1213-1217.

Fulcrand, H.; Benabdeljalil, C.; Rigaud, J.; Cheynier, V. and Moutounet, M.A. (1998) A new class of wine pigments generated by reaction between pyruvic acid and grape anthocyanins. Phyto. 47:1401-1407.

Fulcrand, H.; Duenas, M.; Salas, E. and Cheynier, V. (2006) Phenolic reactions during winemaking and ageing. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 57:289-297.

Harbertson, J.F.; Mireles, M.S.; Harwood, E.D.; Weller, K.M. and Ross, C.F. (2009) Chemical and sensory effects of saignee, water addition, and extended maceration on high Brix must. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 60:450-460.

Medina, K.: Boido, E.; Dellacassa, E. and Carrau, F. (2005) Yeast interactions with anthocyanins during red wine fermentation. Am. J. Enol. Vitic.

56:104-109.

Mercurio, M.D.; Dambergs, R.G.; Cozzolino, D.; Herderich, M.J. and Smith, P.A. (2010) Relationship between red wine grades and phenolics. 1. Tannin and total phenolics concentrations. J. Ag. Food Chem. 58: 12313-12319.

Morata, A.; Gomez-Cordoves, M.C.; Colomo, B. and Suarez, J.A. (2005) Cell wall anthocyanin adsorption by different Saccharomyces strains during the fermentation of Vitis vinifera L. cv Graciano grapes. Eur. Food Res. Technol.

220:341-346.

Osborne, J.P.; Mira de Orduña, R.; Pilone, G.J. and Liu, S.-Q. (2000) Acetaldehyde metabolism by wine lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.

191:51-55.

Reynolds, A.G.; Cliff, M.; Girard, B. and Kopp, T.G. (2001) Influence of fermentation temperature on composition and sensory properties of Semillon and Shiraz wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 52:235-240.

Salas, E.; Fulcrand, H.; Meude, E. and Cheynier, V. (2003) Reaction of anthocyanin and tannins in model solutions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:7951– 7961.

Wells, A. and Osborne, J.P. (2012) Impact of acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid bound sulfur dioxide on wine lactic acid bacteria. L. Appli. Microbiol. 54:187194.

Zimman, A.; Joslin, S.; Lyon, M.L.; Meier, J. and Waterhouse, A.L. (2002) Maceration variables affecting phenolic composition in commercial-scale Cabernet sauvignon winemaking trials. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 53:93-98.

WVJ

30

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

RIESLING

WINEMAKING

Why does this Riesling smell like petrol?

Aroma detection and consumer rejection of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene (TDN) in young Riesling

By Carolyn F. Ross1, Anne C. Zwink1, Luis Castro1 and Roland Harrison2 1 School of Food Science, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States of America 2 Centre for Oenology and Viticulture, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand Corresponding author: cfross@wsu.edu

Are concentrations of TDN – a compound typically associated with Riesling - detectable in wine by consumers and is there a point at which they will reject the wine? Researchers have attempted to answer this in an experiment in which one-year-old Riesling from New Zealand was subjected to sensory evaluation by consumers in that country and the United States.

BACKGROUND Riesling, particularly aged Riesling, can often be described as having a ‘petrol’ or ‘kerosene’ aroma (Simpson 1978, Easton and Georgiou 2002). At low concentrations, this may be positive and lend to the overall complexity of the wine. But what if the wine only smells of kerosene? This can happen if the concentration of the chemical compound 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene (TDN) is too high (Simpson 1978, Simpson and Miller 1983).

But how much is too much? This study sought to answer this question, using consumers from both the United States and New Zealand.

A bit more about TDN…. TDN is rarely found in grapes but is formed by the hydrolysis of different precursors and their subsequent rearrangement during winemaking. The production of these TDN precursors in winegrapes has been associated with warmer growing regions and high sun exposure of the grapes, particularly before veraison (Marais et al. 1992, Gerdes et al.

2002, Kwasniewski et al. 2010). Conversion of the precursors to TDN can also continue during storage (Daniel et al. 2009).

Specifically, increased bottle age, higher storage temperature (Marais et al. 1992), closure type (Skouroumounis et al. 2005), oxidation (Simpson 1979) and high acidity (Ferreira et al. 2002) all contribute to higher TDN concentrations in wine. And these

The Pacifix Muselet • Plain plaque • Printed plaque • Plaqueless • Plain or coloured wire • Fast delivery • Precision component • Australian made 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: production@pacifix.com.au

www.pacifix.com.au V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

31

W I NNEEMW A KSI N G

RIESLING

higher concentrations of TDN can translate to an increased kerosene aroma.

While TDN is typically associated with Riesling, it can be found in other wine varietals, including Pinot Gris, Sauvignon Blanc and Gewürtztraminer (Sacks et al. 2012). The concentration of TDN in these wines can vary, with a range of 2 to 255μg/L being reported.

While it is interesting to know how much TDN is present in wines, several questions arise… are these concentrations detectable in wine by consumers? And how much TDN do consumers like in their wines? Is there a point at which people will reject the wine?

To address the first question of how much TDN consumers can detect, the concept of thresholds becomes important. Simply put, a detection threshold (DT) indicates the concentration range of a particular compound, below which an individual is not be able to detect this compound and above which, the individual can detect it. Previous research reported a TDN threshold concentration of 20μg/L in Riesling (Simpson 1978). This detection threshold indicates that a TDN concentration of 20μg/L was required to be present in the wine before individuals could detect it. A more recent study reported the odour detection threshold as 2μg/L (Sacks et al. 2012). The 10-fold difference between those two numbers can be attributed to many things, including different wines, different methodology and different people participating in the studies.

For the second question of ‘how much do people like it?’ well, that’s another challenging question. This value, referred to as a consumer rejection threshold (CRT), varies greatly with the type of wine and, importantly, the people who are participating in the study. Consumer acceptance of TDN has important implications for wine production and marketing.

The simultaneous determination by consumers of a DT and a rejection threshold (CRT) provides information not only on the capacity of consumers to recognise a particular compound in the wine, but also indicates the influence of the compound on how much they like it within the context of the wine. Because

we could find no research on consumer preference for TDN in wine and because the highest concentrations of this compound occur in Riesling wines, we sought a consumer perspective by applying the DT and CRT protocol to TDN in one-year-old Riesling wines.

EXPERIMENT All sensory evaluation testing was completed with Stoneleigh Riesling wines. The grapes used in the production of this wine production were grown in a single vineyard situated on the northern side of the Wairau Valley, in Marlborough, New Zealand. The 2010 vintage wine was used for the 2011 threshold testing in New Zealand, while the 2011 vintage for the 2012 threshold testing in the US. Two wines were tested so as to evaluate the influence of wine matrix on the detection threshold of TDN. The 2010 Riesling contained 11.8% alcohol (v/v), with a residual sugar of 10.7g/L, pH of 3.04 and titratable acidity of 8.2g/L. The 2011 Riesling contained 10.9% alcohol (v/v), with a residual sugar of 13.5g/L, pH of 2.97 and titratable acidity of 8.3g/L. The background concentration of TDN in the base wine was 12μg/L in the 2010 Riesling and 16μg/L in the 2011 Riesling. Preliminary studies were conducted to determine which concentrations should be added to the wine. The values determined were 6.25, 20.0, 64.0 and 205μg/L. Sensory evaluation panels were conducted in the Food Science Department at Lincoln University (LU), Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand, and in the School of Food Science, Sensory Evaluation Facility at Washington State University (WSU), Pullman, WA, US. For all sensory testing, 25mL wine samples were served at 23°C in tasting glasses. Consumers, who all consumed wine at least once per week, were given unsalted crackers, a cuspidor, and water to cleanse the palate.

The samples were evaluated in individual tasting booths, with all panels conducted in replicate.

Figure 1. Outline of experiments used to determine the detection threshold and consumer rejection threshold of TDN in one-year-old Riesling.

32

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

RIESLING

W I NNE E MA WKSI N G

Figure 2. Proportion of consumers correctly identifying the wine with added TDN at each TDN concentration. The solid line represents chance responding, while the dashed line indicates statistical significance - the number of correct panellists had to exceed this number. The TDN threshold value in the 2010 Riesling (t) was extrapolated to be 20.6μg/L TDN and in the 2011 Riesling (¢) was 18.2μg/L TDN. Reprinted with permission from 'Odour detection threshold and consumer rejection of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene in one-year-old Riesling wines' by Ross, C.F.; Zwink, A.C.; Castro, L. and Harrison, R. (2014) Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20:335-339, Copyright [2014] by John Wiley and Sons.

Figure 3. Proportion of consumers preferring a wine without added TDN at each TDN concentration. The solid line represents no preference (50%) while the dashed line indicates significance - the number of consumers who chose the control wine had to exceed this value.

The TDN consumer rejection threshold in the 2010 Riesling (t) was extrapolated to be 157.4μg/L TDN and that in the 2011 Riesling (¢) was 82.4μg/L TDN. Reprinted with permission from 'Odour detection threshold and consumer rejection of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene in one-year-old Riesling wines' by Ross, C.F.; Zwink, A.C.; Castro, L. and Harrison, R. (2014) Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20:335-339, Copyright [2014] by John Wiley and Sons.

RESULTS

in wine (Prescott et al. 2005).

The proportion of consumers preferring the control sample varied between the wines. In the 2010 Riesling, consumers appeared to have a greater acceptance for TDN, with 58% of the consumers rejecting the wine when it contained 64.0μg/L and 74% of the consumers rejecting this wine at 205μg/L (P<0.05). In the 2011 Riesling, 76% of consumers rejected the wine at 64.0μg/L while 72% rejected the wine at 205μg/L (P<0.05). If the TDN aroma was universally disliked, one would expect that an increase in TDN would result in almost 100% of consumers preferring the wine without added TDN. This was not the case, however, suggesting that a proportion of the consumers preferred some TDN in young Riesling wine. As two populations (one in the United States and one in New Zealand) were involved in this study, intercultural differences may have influenced the DT and CRT. However because of the differences between the wines in their wine chemistry parameters, there is no way of knowing to what extent that mattered from this study.

To place the DT and CRT in context, one must consider the concentration of TDN that has been reported in finished wines. In a survey of young (one- to three-year old) Riesling and non-Riesling wines from New York State, TDN concentrations of 6.4±3.8μg/L in Riesling was reported as higher than the mean concentration present in the nonRiesling varietal wines (1.3 ±0.8μg/L) (Sacks et al. 2012). In Australian Rieslings, across several vintages and growing regions, TDN concentrations ranged between 2 and 255μg/L (Black et al. 2012). The TDN concentration reported in many of these wines is at or below the DT of ~18-20μg/L reported in the present study, suggesting that TDN may not be detectable in many of these wines. The concentration of TDN in these wines was also below the CRT reported in the present study. Only a few wines in the surveys had a high TDN concentration (above CRT), which may predict consumer rejection by certain consumers. Similarly, in the survey of Australian Rieslings that contained at least 2μg/L, the wines were tasted and few were identified as having an ‘undesirable ▶ aroma’ (Black et al. 2012).

Detection threshold(DT) The TDN threshold value for the 2011 Riesling was 18.2μg/L, while the threshold value in the 2010 Riesling was 20.6μg/L (Figure 2). Again, the DT describes the lowest concentration that needs to be present in the wine for a consumer with a normal sense of smell to detect it.

In the present study, the two Rieslings used were of two vintages (2010 and 2011) and displayed differences in wine chemistry parameters, including alcohol content, residual sugar and titratable acidity. However, despite differences in matrix composition, the DT was not greatly affected. The DT that we reported was similar to the previously reported value of 20μg/L in a different Riesling wine (Simpson 1978). These DT values, however, are higher than the recently published threshold value of 2μg/L (Sacks et al. 2012). Due to the nature of threshold tests, many variables may be responsible for such differences, including the wine used for the threshold determination. In contrast to our study and that of Simpson (1978) in which Riesling was used for TDN detection, Sacks et al. (2012) used a one-year-old neutral Chardonnay to present the TDN samples.

Beyond the type of wine used, sensory threshold values are a function of sample presentation variables, individual sensitivities and wine sensory evaluation experience.

Consumer rejection threshold (CRT) The CRT of TDN for the 2010 Riesling was 157.4μg/L and for the 2011 Riesling, this value was 82.4μg/L. The difference in CRT observed between the two wines may have been due to differences in wine chemistry and the influence that wine composition may have on such determinations. However, as shown above, these same wines (2010 and 2011 Stoneleigh Riesling) were used for the DT determinations and differences were not found between the two vintages.

In both the 2010 and 2011 Rieslings, the CRT was higher than that of the DT. This result suggests that some individuals may not be sensitive to TDN or do not find the odour to be unpleasant. A similar finding was made in evaluating cork taint

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

33

W I NNEEMW A KSI N G

RIESLING

A Consumer rejection threshold concentration above the detection threshold suggested that consumers prefer some TDN in young Riesling wine.

CONCLUSION The current study demonstrated that DT and CRT values of TDN in Riesling differed depending on the composition of the wine. Wine consumers detected TDN aroma in oneyear-old Riesling wine at a concentration of ~18-20μg/L and accepted wines containing TDN concentrations of 80160μg/L, depending on the composition of the wine. A CRT concentration above the DT suggested that consumers prefer some TDN in young Riesling wine. The use of two different wines confirmed an effect of wine composition on the response to TDN. This information regarding the influence of wine composition, and perhaps cultural differences, on TDN perception and acceptance will be useful in assisting decisions in the blending and marketing of wine.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge Pernod Ricard for their contributions to this project.

REFERENCES Black, C.; Francis, L.; Henschke, P.; Capone, D.; Anderson, S.; Day, M.; Holt, H.; Pearson, W.; Herderich, M. and Johnson, D. (2012) Aged Riesling and the development of TDN. Wine & Viticulture Journal 27(5):20-22,24-26.

Daniel, M.A.; Capone, D.L.; Sefton, M.A. and Elsey, G.M. (2009) Riesling acetate is a precursor to 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene (TDN) in wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 15:93-96.

Easton, S. and Georgiou, R. (2002) The Institute of Masters of Wine host an international Riesling seminar in Tokyo, Japan, 30 May 2002. Journal of Wine Research 13:265-270.

Ferreira, A.; Pinho, P.; Rodrigues, P. and Hogg, T. (2002) Kinetics of oxidative degradation of white wines and how they are affected by selected technological parameters. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50:5919-5924.

Gerdes, S.M.; Winterhalter, P. and Ebeler, S.E. (2002) Effect of sunlight exposure on norisoprenoid formation in white Riesling grapes. Winterhalter, P. and Rouseff, R.L., eds. Carotenoid-derived aroma compounds (number 802). (American Chemical Society Publications: Washington, DC, USA) 262-272.

Kwasniewski, M.T.; Vanden Heuvel, J.E.; Pan, B.S. and Sacks, G.L. (2010) Timing of cluster light environment manipulation during grape development affects C13 norisoprenoid and carotenoid concentrations in Riesling. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58:6841-6849.

Marais, J.; Wyk, C.J. and Rapp, A. (1992) Effect of storage time, temperature and region on the levels of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene and other volatiles, and on quality of Weisser Riesling wines. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 13:33-44.

Prescott, J.; Norris, L.; Kunst, M. and Kim, S. (2005) Estimating a ‘consumer rejection threshold’ for cork taint in white wine. Food Quality and Preference 16:345349.

Sacks, G.L.; Gates, M.J.; Ferry, F.X.; Lavin, E.H.; Kurtz, A.J. and Acree, T. (2012) Sensory threshold of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene (TDN) and concentrations in young Riesling and non-Riesling wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 60:2998-3004.

For further information, please contact Kauri AUS Tel: 1800 127 611 NZ Tel: 0800 KAURIWINE Email: winery@kauri.co.nz Web: www.kauriwine.com

34

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

Simpson, R.F. (1978) 1,1,6-Trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene-important contributor to bottle aged bouquet of wine. Chemistry and Industry 1:37.

Simpson, R.F. (1979) Some important aroma components of white wine. Food Technology Australia 31:518-522.

Simpson, R.F. and Miller, G.C. (1983) Aroma composition of aged Riesling wines.

Vitis 22:51-63.

Skouroumounis, G.K.; Kwiatkowski, M.J.; Francis, I.L.; Oakey, H.; Capone, D.L.; Duncan, B.; Sefton, M.A. and Waters, E.J. (2005) The impact of closure type and storage conditions on the composition, colour and flavour properties of a Riesling and a wooded Chardonnay wine during five years’ storage. Australian Journal of WVJ Grape and Wine Research 11:369-377.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

AWRI

Using copper more effectively in winemaking

By Sabrina Reschke, Tina Tran, Marlize Bekker, Eric Wilkes and Dan Johnson Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064

Winemakers commonly add copper to wines before packaging to remove unpleasant ‘reductive’ aromas. However, residual copper in wine can have negative consequences including unsightly deposits, increased risk of oxidation and the formation of further reductive compounds. This article reports a pilot study examining the effectiveness of making copper additions during fermentation and using the yeast present to bind up and remove the added copper from the final wine.

INTRODUCTION During fermentation volatile sulfur-containing compounds are formed that can have a negative influence on the sensory characters of finished wines (Siebert et al. 2010, Spiropoulos et al. 2000). Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), methanethiol (MeSH), ethanethiol (EtSH) and dimethyl sulfide (DMS) are among the most significant of these unpleasant aroma compounds, but many others exist. All of these compounds have low odour detection thresholds, so they have a sensory impact even at very low levels (Siebert et al. 2010).

Copper sulfate is commonly added to wine to remove these unpleasant sulfidic wine aromas (often referred to as ‘reductive’ characters). It has been assumed that the copper ions bind to sulfur-containing compounds to form insoluble copper sulfides (Godden 2000), which are then removed by cold settling or filtration, although some recent work has highlighted the difficulty of this process (Clark et al. 2015). Often copper additions

V3 0N 5

Managing director Dan Johnson

AT A GLANCE • Copper sulfate is commonly used to treat ‘reductive’ aromas in winemaking • Additions are often made to finished wine shortly before packaging, which can leave residual copper in packaged wine • Metal ions in wine can cause oxidation, reduction and haze issues • Recent experiments investigated the impact of copper additions made at different times on fermentation performance, sulfide concentration and residual copper levels • Copper additions up to 20mg/L added at the start of fermentation had no impact on fermentation kinetics • Copper additions made at 0°Brix (towards the end of active ferment) did not affect fermentation performance • In general, earlier additions resulted in lower residual copper levels • Additions of 5mg/L at 0°Brix appear to be effective at removing reductive aromas without leaving copper in the final wine • Further work is needed to focus on the sensory impacts of copper addition levels and timing.

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

35

AWRI

Figure 1. Comparison of fermentation performance for laboratory-scale ferments of Chardonnay juice with different levels of copper (0 to 50mg/L) added at the beginning of fermentation. are made to finished wines just prior to bottling; however, making additions at this point can result in significant amounts of residual copper in the wine. Also, while copper is very effective at removing H2S and simple thiols, its ability to remove the more complex sulfur-based reductive compounds that form over time in wine is limited, which means that earlier additions are likely to be more effective.

Fining with CuSO4 is an important tool in the wine industry, but it also has disadvantages. When removing reductive aromas from wine, copper fining can also remove important positive aroma compounds responsible for fruity and tropical characters (Darriet et al. 2001).

Residual copper also plays a critical role in both oxidative and reductive processes in wine post-packaging. Effects of residual copper can include increased rates of oxidation, loss of beneficial thiols and, perversely, given the reason for its addition, increased formation of H2S and other negative sulfur-containing compounds (Danilewicz 2007, Viviers et al. 2013). To prevent such negative effects it is important to keep residual copper concentrations in packaged wine as low as possible.

Figure 2. Comparison of fermentation performance for laboratory-scale ferments of Chardonnay juice with 20mg/L copper added at 0°Brix or at the end of fermentation.

exchange with functional groups on the cell walls. It has been shown that amino, carboxyl, phosphate, phosphodiester and hydroxyl groups play an important role in complexation of heavy metal ions (Wang 2006). After longer contact times the copper ions can be taken into the cells and accumulated (Huang et al. 1990). Copper can be accumulated by formation of inclusion bodies or by binding to proteins that either mainly contain acid phosphatase or that relate to metal binding proteins. Metallothionein is a cysteine-rich metal-binding protein present in yeast, known for its ability to bind copper (Wang 2006).

This possibility of using yeastâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s affinity for metals as a way to avoid residual copper in wine after copper fining has been explored in a recent series of experiments at the AWRI. The work aimed to investigate the ability of copper additions made during fermentation to remove H2S and other sulfides while limiting the levels of residual copper in the finished wines. A series of 200mL laboratory-scale ferments were carried out in which timing and addition rate

of copper were varied. Ferments were conducted in Chardonnay and Shiraz juice in triplicate using the AWRI838 yeast strain. Copper addition rates ranged from 5 to 50mg/L depending on the trial.

These rates are well above those used by winemakers (usually less than 5mg/L) but were chosen to test the effects at extremes of performance.

DID COPPER ADDITIONS AFFECT FERMENTATION KINETICS? To assess fermentation performance, the weight loss of each ferment was measured at least once per day and expressed as CO2 loss per 100g of juice.

Copper concentrations up to 40mg/L for Shiraz and up to 20mg/L for Chardonnay added at the beginning of fermentation were found to have little influence on the fermentation kinetics (Figure 1).

These concentrations did not appear to be toxic for S. cerevisiae. The results are in agreement with those found by other researchers including Azenha et al. (2000) and Liang and Zhou (2007). It is important to note, however, that while

USING YEAST TO BIND METALS One possible way of achieving low residual copper concentrations is to use active yeast cells to bind up copper during fermentation. While the mechanisms for this process (known as biosorption) are not fully understood, some of the possibilities are discussed below.

The flocculation behaviour of some yeast strains may be connected to proteins on the cell surface which might be able to interact with cations such as copper.

Lectin is considered to be the protein most responsible for flocculation effects. The best understood mechanism for copper uptake is through its binding via ion

36

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

Figure 3. Effect of timing of 10mg/L copper addition on final residual copper concentration.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

AWRI

these additions did not affect fermentation kinetics, the experiment did not investigate if there were any significant taste implications from having such high levels of copper present for the duration of the ferment.

A second experiment investigated the impact of the timing of the copper addition on fermentation kinetics, comparing a 20mg/L addition made at 0°Brix (just before the end of active fermentation) with an addition made after the completion of fermentation. No impact on fermentation performance or the ability of the ferment to finish was caused by the addition at 0°Brix (Figure 2) DOES TIMING AFFECT RESIDUAL COPPER CONCENTRATION? A further experiment looked at the influence of addition timing on the final copper concentration in wine by comparing additions of 10mg/L copper to Chardonnay ferments at the beginning of ferment, at 0°Brix and at the end of the fermentation (Figure 3).

Earlier additions of the copper led to lower final copper concentrations.

A possible explanation is that the later copper is added, the more likely it will only be absorbed by the cell surface rather than transferred into the interior of the cell.

While copper absorbed by the surface of the cell is still removed from solution, it is possible that it may be more available for further reactions if the wine is not promptly removed from lees. The difference between additions at the beginning of ferment and at 0°Brix was much less pronounced than between 0°Brix and the end of ferment.

This may be an important finding as there is still much to be learned about other impacts of copper that could mean additions towards the end of fermentation would be advantageous.

The experiments tended to indicate that yeast was able to remove a consistent amount of copper, independent of the initial copper concentration. This would suggest that to minimise the risk of residual copper in finished wines, it appears prudent to limit copper additions to 5mg/L or less. While not directly tested in this study, this is a target for future work.

Alcolyzer ME

ONE FOR ALL NEW!

IMPACTS ON SULFIDE GENERATION AND SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS Although copper additions as high as 20mg/L did not affect fermentation performance, lower concentrations were found to be sufficient to remove negative sulfidic aromas without leading to unwanted residual copper concentrations.

The amounts of H2S released during fermentation are not significantly affected by copper additions at 0°Brix as the yeast produce this compound earlier in the fermentation, but it seems that the dissolved H2S concentration remaining in the wine after fermentation is reduced even by copper additions as low as 5mg/L added at 0°Brix, regardless of the levels produced during fermentation.

Interestingly, additions at the beginning of ferment seemed to have a less significant impact on dissolved H2S in the finished wine (Figure 4). This may be a consequence of the copper being translocated to the interior of the cells

One alcohol meter for all your beverages Alcolyzer ME requires minimal adjustment and delivers highly precise results for all beverage types.

Measures all your beverages, including: beers, ales, beer mixtures, alcopops, ciders, molasses, whisky, cognac, brandy, vodka, gin, tequila, rum, wash, RTDs, white wine, red wine, sparkling wine, rice wine and fermenting musts.

MEP Instruments Pty Ltd Figure 4. Dissolved H2S measured post-fermentation in laboratory-scale ferments after experiments comparing copper additions of 5mg/L and 10mg/L at the beginning of ferment and at 0°Brix with an untreated control.

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

Australia Tel 1300 720 485 New Zealand Tel 09 477 0620 www.mep.net.au/winelab/

www.winetitles. com . au

37

BUY • SELL • NEW • USED

the marketplace for

Grapes & Bulk Wine

Now there’s a cost effective site for wineries to buy and sell grapes & bulk wine.

Place listings – grapes, bulk wine and clean skins Describe – variety, location and tonnes of grapes Nominate – variety and litres of bulk wine Move – cases of clean skins List FREE today online or call (08) 8369 9500

WTC

Find your grapes & bulk wine G&BW on www.winetitlesclassifieds.com.au created & managed by

AWRI

early in ferment, or perhaps because the copper was scavenging sulfides that would normally have been carried away by fermentation gases, leaving less copper available to interact with residual dissolved sulfides.

Limited sensory evaluations of Chardonnay wines from the trial showed that copper-treated wines differed in their aromas from control wines, independent of how much copper was added.

It was, however, confirmed that it may be better to make copper additions at 0°Brix rather than at the beginning of fermentation to minimise the impacts on positive sensory characters.

CONCLUSIONS The current trial suggests that copper additions of 5mg/L or less at 0°Brix are suitable to treat wines that show reductive aromas. Such additions are unlikely to result in increased residual copper in the final wine as long as the wine is removed from gross lees shortly after ferment.

Further work is needed to understand the sensory implications of copper additions of different magnitudes and at different times. It would be interesting to see if copper concentrations below 5mg/L are effective at removing reductive aromas when added at 0°Brix. If so, it may be possible to remove or reduce sulfidic aromas without the effects on the positive aromas associated with larger copper additions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The trials reported here were carried out by Sabrina Reschke, a visiting student from the University of Bonn, in Germany, undertaking the equivalent of an Honours project in Food Chemistry.

The AWRI’s communications are supported by Australia’s grapegrowers and winemakers through their investment body, Wine Australia, with matching funds from the Australian Government. The AWRI is a member of the Wine Innovation Cluster in Adelaide. Ella Robinson is thanked for her editorial assistance.

REFERENCES Azenha, M.; Vasconcelos, M.T. and Moradas-Ferreira, P. (2000) The influence of Cu concentration on ethanolic fermentation by Saccharomyces cervisiae. J. Biosci.

Bioeng. 90(2):163-167.

Clark, A.C.; Grant-Preece, P.; Cleghorn, N. and Scollary, G.R. (2015) Copper(II) addition to white wines containing hydrogen sulfide: residual copper concentrations and activity. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 21:30-39.

Danilewicz, J.C. (2007) Interaction of sulfur dioxide, polyphenols, and oxygen in a wine-model-system: central role of iron and copper. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:53-60.

Darriet, P.; Bouchilloux, P.; Poupot, C.; Bugaret, Y.; Clerjeau, M.; Sauris, P.; Medina, B. and Dubourdieu, D. (2001) Effects of copper fungicide spraying on volatile thiols of the varietal aroma of Sauvignon Blanc, Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot wines. Vitis 40(2):93-100.

Godden, P. (2000) The use of copper sulphate in winemaking. Aust. N.Z. Wine Ind. J. 4:66-67.

Huang, C.; Huang, C. and Morehart, A.L. (1990) The removal of Cu(II) from dilute aqueous solutions by Saccharomyces cervisiae. Water Res. 24(4):433-439.

Liang, Q. and Zhou, B. (2007) Copper and manganese induce yeast apoptosis via different pathways. Molec. Biol. Cell 18(12):4741-4749.

Siebert, T.E.; Solomon, M.R.; Pollnitz, A.P. and Jeffery, D.W. (2010) Selective determination of volatile sulfur compounds in wine by gas chromatography with sulfur chemiluminescence detection. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58(17):9454-9462.

Spiropoulos, A.; Tanaka, J.; Flerianos, I. and Bisson, L. (2000) Characterisation of hydrogen sulfide formation in commercial and natural wine isolates of Saccharomyces . Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 51(3):233-248.

Viviers, M.Z.; Smith, M.E.; Wilkes, E. and Smith, P. (2013) Effects of five metals on the evolution of hydrogen sulfide during anaerobic storage of Chardonnay and Shiraz wines. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61(50):12,385-12,396.

Wang, J. and Chen, C. (2006) Biosorption of heavy metals by Saccharomyces cervisiae: A review. Biotechnol. Adv. 24.5:427-451.

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

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

WVJ

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

39

V I T I C U LT U R E

VINE TRIMMING/ CROP REMOVAL

Investigating the consequences of trimming and crop removal on soluble solids and titratable acidity for Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir

By Amber K. Parker1,2*, Rainer W. Hofmann2, Cornelis van Leeuwen3, Andrew R.G. McLachlan4 and Michael C.T. Trought1,2 1 The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited (PFR) Marlborough, Marlborough Wine Research Centre, 85 Budge St, PO Box 845, Blenheim 7240, New Zealand 2 Lincoln University, PO Box 85084, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, Christchurch, New Zealand 3 Bordeaux Sciences Agro, Univ. Bordeaux, ISVV, Ecophysiology and Functional Genomics of Grapevines, UMR 1287, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France 4 PFR Palmerston North, Private Bag 11600, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand *Corresponding author: amber.parker@lincoln.ac.nz

Trimming vines and removing crop can help regulate yield, vegetative growth and vigour but does it alter the development of berry components during ripening? A New Zealand study has improved our understanding of when and how to manipulate the leaf area to fruit mass ratio to influence target berry composition.

INTRODUCTION Trimming vines and crop removal are vineyard management practices grapegrowers use to manage yield, control vegetative growth and vigour.

However, these techniques may impact on berry composition at harvest.

Trimming and crop removal alter the source-sink balance of the vine: trimming removes leaves, reduces the source of photosynthates needed for berry ripening, while removing crop reduces the sink demand for photosynthates and other assimilates.

Grape composition at harvest is a result of an accumulation or decrease in berry components throughout the ripening phase. It is important, therefore, to understand how trimming and crop removal alter the development of berry ripening. The time of trimming or crop removal may also influence the outcome. For example, lower total soluble solids (TSS) at harvest may be due to a slower rate of TSS accumulation, a delay in the start of ripening or both. Would trimming at veraison have the same effect and are other components such as titratable acidity also altered in the berry?

Our recent studies aimed to address these questions by investigating the influence of trimming vines to reduce the leaf area and/or removing crop to reduce the fruit weight, which altered the leaf-area-to-fruit-mass (LA:FM) ratio for Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc (Parker et al. 2014, 2015). We modified the LA:FM ratio on four-cane vertically shoot positioned vines pruned to 12

40

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

Sauvignon Blanc vines trimmed to 12 leaves at fruitset with no crop removed (left).

Sauvignon Blanc vines trimmed to six leaves at fruitset and with no crop removed (right). Black square indicates scale (10cmx10cm) nodes per cane by 1) trimming to either 12 or six main leaves per shoot (all laterals were removed at the time of treatment and new lateral growth was removed regularly up until harvest), and 2) in combination with the trim treatments, vines had either no, 50% or 75% crop removed. The treatments were applied either at fruitset (when berries were approximately pea-size) or at veraison and the trial was carried out over two seasons, 2009-10 and 2010-11. New vines were used each season. Total soluble solids (TSS, °Brix), titratable acidity (TA, measured as g/L tartaric acid equivalents), pH and berry weight were measured from veraison up until harvest to evaluate the impact of trimming and crop removal on the change in berry components during ripening.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

WHAT HAPPENS TO TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLIDS (TSS) WHEN VINES ARE TRIMMED AT FRUITSET OR AT VERAISON? Trimming fully cropped vines to six leaves at fruitset delayed veraison by up to one week (estimated here in Figure 1 (see page 41), by 8°Brix but also confirmed by colour and softness measurements) when compared with other treatments and slowed rates of TSS accumulation. Pinot Noir vines trimmed to six main leaves per shoot and with full crop only reached 16.8 and 17.7°Brix at harvest in 2009-10 and 2010-11 seasons, respectively. Sauvignon Blanc vines reached 16.8 and 15.6°Brix at harvest in 2009-10 and 2010-11 seasons, respectively. The lower Sauvignon Blanc values can be partly explained by the later date of veraison when compared

V30N5

VINE TRIMMING/ CROP REMOVAL

with Pinot Noir. Trimming at veraison also slowed TSS accumulation, but because veraison was not delayed, the differences generated by trimming were not as pronounced as they were when applied at fruitset. For example, trimming alone (with no crop removal) at fruitset generated differences between the six main leaves per shoot at full crop with 12 leaves and full crop vines of 3.4 and 5.9°Brix for Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc, respectively (200910), but trimming at veraison generated differences of 1.1 and 3.3°Brix (for Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc, respectively, 2009-10). This indicates that the earlier trimming is applied, the more impact growers may potentially generate on harvest composition due to changing the start of the ripening period, as well as how fast TSS accumulate in the berries.

8°Brix were measured for both varieties when crop was removed, notably in 2010-11.

Crop removal at both times altered TSS accumulation after veraison for both varieties. Initial rates of TSS accumulation were faster with crop removal at both trim heights. Crop removal in combination with 12 main leaves per shoot accelerated the initial rates of TSS, indicating that even at higher trim heights it is possible to manipulate harvest composition via crop removal. Crop removal compensated for a smaller leaf area (via trimming) when manipulated at veraison so that the effects of crop removal and trimming were equivalent at this stage.

CAN CROP REMOVAL ALSO ALTER TSS ACCUMULATION?

A greatly reduced leaf area (six leaves per shoot) and full crop had the biggest impact on reducing TSS accumulation. Crop removal at either fruitset or veraison accelerated rates of TSS the most, regardless of the severity of trimming (Figure 1). Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc had the same yields and LA:FM at harvest

Crop removal at fruitset of 12 leaf vines had little effect on delaying the start of the ripening period (Parker et al. 2014). However, when vines were trimmed to six main leaves per shoot, small advances in the day of reaching

WHAT SLOWS OR ADVANCES TSS ACCUMULATION THE MOST?

V I T I C U LT U R E

when no crop was removed (Parker et al. 2013, 2014). Consequently, rates of TSS accumulation were similar for the two varieties at each trim height and crop removal combination suggesting that the two varieties were behaving in a similar manner.

DO OTHER BERRY COMPONENTS ALSO CHANGE? Berry weight was unaffected by crop removal but was slightly reduced with trimming to six leaves per shoot (data not shown). However, this did not scale up to any effect on yield at harvest.

Furthermore, TSS content (mg TSS/g berry) was also calculated and trends were similar to those observed for TSS concentration.

Other berry components such as TA and pH were less affected (TA shown in Figure 2, page 42). The major implication of these findings is that trimming and crop removal will, therefore, alter the TSS:TA ratio (TSS changes, TA does not change in response to trimming or crop removal).

Whether this also occurs for other flavour, aroma and colour components needs to be investigated in the future. ▶ Figure 1. Effect of leaf-area-to-fruitmass (LA:FM) ratio on total soluble solids accumulation (TSS) over time [day of the year (DOY)] in grapes for (a) Pinot Noir, LA:FM ratio altered at fruitset in 200910; (b) Sauvignon Blanc, LA:FM ratio altered at fruitset 2009-10; (c) Pinot Noir, LA:FM ratio altered at veraison in 200910; (d) Sauvignon Blanc, LA:FM ratio altered at veraison in 2009-10; (e) Pinot Noir, LA:FM ratio altered at fruitset in 2010-11; and (f) Sauvignon Blanc, LA:FM ratio altered at fruitset in 2010-11.

Treatments: six main leaves per shoot and no crop removed ( ); six main leaves per shoot and 50% crop removed (p); six main leaves per shoot and 75% crop removed (¢); 12 main leaves per shoot and no crop removed (o); 12 main leaves per shoot and 50% crop removed (r); and 12 main leaves per shoot and 75% crop removed (£).

Vertical dashed lines (--) indicate the time at which the LA:FM ratio manipulation was applied at veraison and the horizontal dashed lines (--) indicate the DOY when 8°Brix was reached (based on Figure 2 in Parker et al. 2015).

•

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

41

V I T I C U LT U R E

VINE TRIMMING/ CROP REMOVAL

Figure 2. Effect of leaf-area-to-fruitmass (LA:FM) ratio on grape titratable acidity (TA) over time [day of the year (DOY)] for (a) Pinot Noir, LA:FM ratio altered at fruitset in 2009-10; (b) Sauvignon Blanc, LA:FM ratio altered at fruitset 2009-10; (c) Pinot Noir, LA:FM ratio altered at veraison in 2009-10; (d) Sauvignon Blanc, LA:FM ratio altered at veraison in 2009-10; (e) Pinot Noir, LA:FM ratio altered at fruitset in 201011; and (f) Sauvignon Blanc, LA:FM ratio altered at fruitset in 2010-11 Treatments: six main leaves per shoot and no crop removed ( ); six main leaves per shoot and 50% crop removed (p); six main leaves per shoot and 75% crop removed (¢); 12 main leaves per shoot and no crop removed (¢); 12 main leaves per shoot and 50% crop removed (r); and 12 main leaves per shoot and 75% crop removed (£).

Vertical bars at each time point represent least significant differences (LSD) for Fisher’s unprotected LSD (P <0.05) (based on Figure 3 in Parker et al. 2015).

•

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS From this research we have gained an understanding of when and how to manipulate the LA:FM ratio of vines.

Either technique may be used to manipulate target berry composition but the timing and severity will influence the outcome. Trimming at fruitset enabled us to generate the greatest differences in TSS, and crop removal at either time can accelerate TSS accumulation. Interestingly, TA and pH did not change for either management practices which indicates a lack of synchrony between these components and TSS in response to LA:FM modification. Therefore, the relative composition of berry components needs to considered if these management practices are used to slow or advance the ripening phase. The consequences on other berry components would need to considered and investigated further. It opens opportunities to generate a range of different harvest compositions as a result.

Under warmer climate conditions, delaying veraison and slowing TSS accumulation could be advantageous

to address logistical issues of time from potentially compressed harvests.

Finally, understanding the differences generated throughout the ripening period will enable us to develop better predictive approaches around harvest composition in response to the trimming and crop removal management strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This article is a summary from the following papers by the authors: 1) Manipulating the leaf area to fruit weight ratio alters the synchrony of soluble solids accumulation and titratable acidity of grapevines: implications for modelling fruit development (2015) Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 21:266276, and 2) Leaf area to fruit weight ratio determines the time of veraison in Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir grapevines (2014) Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20:422731. These articles are from the PhD research of A.K. Parker and are part of the New Zealand Grape and Wine Research program, a joint investment

by PFR and NZ Winegrowers.

The authors and Jounal acknowledge The Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research for permission to use graphs in Figures 1 and 2.

We appreciate the support of all institutions associated with the authors of the paper, and of Pernod Ricard New Zealand Ltd for their assistance with the vineyard site and help in the field. The authors would like to acknowledge The Agricultural and Marketing Research and Development Trust, New Zealand, for the scholarship to A.K. Parker, and The Foundation for Research Science and Technology (Designer Grapevines - CO6X0707) for their financial support.

REFERENCES Parker, A.K.; Hofmann, R.W.; van Leeuwen, C. ; McLachlan, A.R.G and Trought, M.C.T. (2015) Manipulating the leaf area to fruit weight ratio alters the synchrony of soluble solids accumulation and titratable acidity of grapevines: implications for modelling fruit development Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 21:266-276 Parker, A.K.; Hofmann, R.W.; van Leeuwen, C.; McLachlan, A.R.G. and Trought, M.C.T. (2014) Leaf area to fruit weight ratio determines the time of veraison in Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir grapevines. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20:422-731.

WVJ

42

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

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

V V II T T II C C U U L LT T U U R R E E

TRUNK DISEASES

Timely trunk renewal to overcome trunk disease

By Richard Smart, Smart Viticulture. Email: richard@smartvit.com.au

Richard proposes a protocol that allows growers to address grapevine trunk diseases in their vineyards, enabling them to maintain productivity while containing the spread of the diseases.

T

his article describes a systematic approach to overcome trunk diseases in vineyards. The basic concept of timely trunk renewal (TTR) is not new, as the practice of trunk renewal is known in many regions. However, the early and systematic use of trunk renewal to overcome many stages of trunk diseases would appear so. Grapevine trunk diseases (GTD) now threaten the vineyards of the world and the OIV (International Organisation of Vine and Wine) has now taken an active interest.

Over the last five years I have interacted with many scientists of the international trunk disease research community. Several of them have made useful comments on a draft protocol for trunk renewal, which have been incorporated here.

THE PROBLEM OF GRAPEVINE TRUNK DISEASES There are four major grapevine trunk diseases, all of them caused by different fungi. These diseases are called Esca and dieback caused by Eutypa, Botryospheria and Phomopsis. Esca is a major problem in Europe, and Eutypa occurs around the world. Botryosphaeria is also global, but not so well understood nor recognised by many growers. There is presently no universally agreed control strategy for these diseases. My belief is that trunk renewal will fill that role, as has the use of grafted vines led to the control of phylloxera.

The principal means of spread of trunk diseases is by winter pruning wound infection with airborne spores, especially released in rainy weather. Trunk diseases are insidious, especially Botryosphaeria which does not show foliar symptoms.

Once conspicuous symptoms are present a vine’s health is already substantially compromised.

Surveys have shown that most of the new planting stock from grapevine nurseries around the world display symptoms of trunk diseases, which can lead to infection in new vineyards. Thus, the problem will likely worsen.

44

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

Figure 1. Famous French viticulturist Pierre Galet with a ‘wild’ vine, Vitis berlandieri, in the Davis Mountain, Texas. Note multi-trunks and their spread along the ground. Photo by Lucie Morton.

THE DAMAGE Under extreme conditions, vine deaths due to GTD can precede fruiting, but commonly they first show up between five and 20 years of age.

Grower attitudes vary as to how much damage is a threshold level for removal and replanting, but I hear a figure of 20% commonly. Californian economic studies indicate that early intervention is necessary to restrict disease spread and loss of income, earlier than 20% dead.

TRUNK RENEWAL IN PERSPECTIVE We are all familiar with vineyards where individual vines are trained to a single trunk, such has become the convention. But it is only a convention. In nature, and for the last 40 million years or so, vines have been multi-trunked (see Figure 1). It is probably only in the last 5000 or so years of grapevine cultivation that vineyards have been monocultures, with each vine trained to a single trunk. Multi-trunks is a practice now used commercially in places with severe winters to replace cold-damaged trunks, like in New York State. It can be used to fight trunk disease too. Studies in Australia have shown that Eutypa

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

disease can be controlled by taking healthy suckers from the base of the plant to replace the trunk, and this technique works with the other GTD as well. Importantly, the vine root system is saved. An established root system cannot be replaced, at least neither cheaply nor quickly.

Suckers arise from ‘base’ buds at node positions on the vine trunk.

Depending on circumstances, a proportion will burst in any one growing season. These are seen as a nuisance by vineyard managers, who will normally have a program to remove them, either manually, mechanically or by chemical spray. Timely trunk renewal depends on sucker presence and can lead to a totally new attitude to suckers if GTD are present in the vineyard. The catch cry may be “save those little suckers!”

Trunk renewal can be a ‘cure’ for GTD in the sense that a diseased part (trunk and/or cordons) are replaced with healthy new ones, and so eliminating the infection. This also helps slow the spread of disease, as fruiting bodies on the old framework can be removed in this process. There is, however, no guarantee that re-infection may not occur and pruning wounds should be ▶ protected.

V30N5

Realise protection from Powdery mildew. ™

DuPont Talendo® fungicide provides greater flexibility and offers you a wide range of benefits.

• Talendo® delivers long lasting protection from the damage caused by Powdery mildew • It protects against disease by preventing new infection and reducing existing spore load • Talendo® fungicide features translaminar, vapour and local systemic activity, which means the leaves on your crop will have excellent fungicide protection • Comes in an easy to use liquid formulation making mixing and handling simple

•

Now approved for fruiting vegetables, so use in a variety of crops

For more information on successful fungicide programs, visit www.cropprotection.dupont.com.au

ALWAYS REFER TO LABEL BEFORE USE. Copyright © 2015 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company or its affiliates. All rights reserved. The DuPont Oval Logo, DuPont™ and Talendo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of DuPont or its affiliates. Du Pont (Australia) Pty Ltd. 7 Eden Park Drive, Macquarie Park NSW 2113. ACN 000 716 469.

V I T I NC EU W LT SU R E

TRUNK DISEASES

Figure 2. A vine in Polgoon vineyard, UK, with two suckers at the base, which can be trained to two new trunks.

Figure 3. Mourvedre vines in the Barossa Valley in November 2014, with sucker growth after trunk removal. All of the vineyard was treated uniformly, irrespective of disease status, and one sucker per plant. One year’s harvest is lost, which is unnecessary.

Growers could contemplate replacing one trunk with two, as is common in eastern US. These new trunks can be free of GTD infection if located sufficiently low on the trunk, below staining or cankers due to the fungi. Australian guidelines suggest 10cm separation, in New Zealand the suggested figure is 20cm.

removed vine framework is achieved more quickly with two new trunks.

The broad aim of this TTR protocol is to reduce the impact of grapevine trunk disease on vineyard profitability. The protocol aims to:

AIMS AND APPLICATION OF TTR Given that trunk/cordon renewal is an accepted ‘cure’ for GTD (in the sense that the infection may be removed), the pertinent question is when should it be applied?

Should the process be initiated with observation of the first dead cordon or vine or the first foliar symptom? Or, should growers wait until the disease is seen to be obviously spreading at, say, 20% symptomatic vines? And should only very devigourated vines be treated with trunk renewal? Or perhaps should adjacent vines (in the case of Botryosphaeria) showing the very first symptoms, or even no symptoms, be included?

Then there is the question of what should be done, and to how many vines? Removing all trunks in one year will cause obvious crop loss, yet some growers are inclined to treat all vines in the block the same way, irrespective of their disease status. Other growers compromise by doing portions of the block over consecutive years to spread out yield loss. In any event, this is the most expensive way of treating GTD by trunk renewal as it involves unnecessary crop loss for the sake of ‘management uniformity’. Sucker training to new trunks and arms can precede trunk removal, and no crop need be lost. Replacing the

46

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

• retain health and yield of existing vines, and to reduce the spread of disease for vineyards at an early stage of infection, or at low risk of infection • for vineyards at an advanced stage of infection, or with a higher risk of infection, to manage the disease to conserve production where possible • in all instances to combine operation of the protocol so as to minimise costs and maximise revenue.

Figure 4. A 30-year-old Sauvignon Blanc vine which had a renewed trunk 10 years ago to overcome trunk disease, otherwise it would have died. Now it is healthy. Note the stub of the old trunk, and the thickness of the new trunk.

Martinborough, New Zealand.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS The protocol defined on the adjacent page is not applicable to vines with unhealthy root systems, which may be caused by trunk disease fungi or for other reasons The cordons and trunks of older vines are likely to have more wood cankers and staining. The greater the proportion of symptomatic (cankered) wood in the trunk or cordon cross section, the greater is the impact on the vine health.

Present and prior biotic or abiotic stresses render the vines more susceptible to GTD. Sometimes the stress should be relieved before trunk renewal as, for example, with poor soil drainage.

Figure 5. Gran Monte vineyard, Thailand.

The clusters of base buds around former node positions on the trunk.

Some of these are swelling, prior to bursting. This has been encouraged by removal of the bark.

V30N5

TRUNK DISEASES

V I T IN C E UW L TS U R E

DRAFT PROTOCOL FOR TIMELY TRUNK RENEWAL FOR GRAPEVINE TRUNK DISEASES Strategy 1 Symptomatic and dead vines are evident at winter pruning. Remove dead vines and burn. Encourage and retain suckers on symptomatic vines, and commence trunk renewal. Sucker training may precede trunk renewal to avoid crop loss.

Strategy 2 Perform pre-harvest inspection to identify early stage symptomatic vines. Begin trunk renewal for any symptomatic vines, and adjacent vines if clumping and staining are evident. Sucker training may precede trunk renewal to avoid crop loss.

Strategy 3 A s above, and begin program of water shoot generation and training to replace all trunks within one or two years.

Strategy 4 F or all vines, winter prune very hard, remove all trunks in spring, train suckers for replacement trunks, or remove all vines and replant.

Notes: •

When removing trunks try to cut below the stain by 10-20cm, and make the final cut at a 45° angle, facing north in the Southern Hemisphere. This assists drainage of sap, and drying the cut surface.

•

Treat all wounds with a protectant fungicide.

•

Following trunk, cordon and vine removal, remove all vine parts from vineyard and burn as soon as possible.

•

Encourage two suckers, one on each vine side, and in line with the row. If small, spur prune them in winter.

•

Basal suckers may be encouraged by a hard pruning in winter followed by late spring trunk removal. They may also be encouraged by careful bark removal on part of the basal trunk.

•

Suckers may need to be trained in transparent plastic tubes to protect them from herbicides, and generally need to be staked or tied to the trunk as they can break off easily in the first year. Suckers will usually grow very strongly, even if the parent vine is not immediately removed. Often a reasonable bud number can be retained at winter pruning at the end of the first growing season, to produce some yield in the following growing season. This is facilitated by training two new trunks per vine.

•

It is imperative to protect the new trunks/cordons from infection. Pruning wound protection with a fungicide spray or paste, or a paint/fungicide mixture is strongly suggested. Avoid making pruning in wet weather.

Using healthy suckers arising from base buds beyond trunk cankers and staining offers the opportunity for trunk or cordon renewal while retaining the original root system.

VINEYARD PROCEDURES FOR THE PROTOCOL Normally a vineyard is made up of discrete blocks, which may differ in variety, clone, rootstock, date of planting, etc. The following protocol is designed to be applied at the block level.

1. GTD infection assessment Each block needs to be assessed for GTD, and this assessment can be at various degrees of accuracy, from observation to vine counts. Dead, missing vines, replants and otherwise symptomatic plants can be recorded and ideally mapped.

Also, an assessment of the root system health needs be made, and of any stress situations, for example, water logging.

2. GTD risk assessment Variety is one of the most important risk factors. The varieties Sauvignon Blanc and Ugni Blanc are among the most susceptible, and Merlot among the least. Cabernet Sauvignon is moderately

Table 1.

Low Infection 0-2%

Medium Infection 2-10%

High Infection > 10%

Low Risk

1

2

3

Medium Risk

2

3

3

High Risk

3

3

4

susceptible. Varietal susceptibility may vary from vineyard to vineyard and region to region, and may be a reflection of the disease status of the planting material.

I suggest local observation and enquiry to determine local varietal risk ranking.

Obviously, the older the vineyard, the higher is the risk.

3. Combining risk and infection to decide an appropriate management strategy Table 1 shows a 3x3 table, with three classes of risk by three classes of infection, and a suite of four suggested management strategies (1, 2, 3, 4). The infection values in this table heading are indicative only, and may vary from region to region and vineyard to vineyard in application.

CONCLUSION Adoption of this protocol will allow vineyards to be ‘saved’ from the ravages of GTD. The aim was to develop a systematic

method for growers to address GTD issues in commercial vineyards, so that they might maintain vineyard productivity while, at the same time. containing spread of the diseases. Experience in many countries shows that the earlier trunk renewal is undertaken, it is more successful.

This protocol TTR has been much improved by the comments and suggestions of several colleagues, who are listed below. However the final form is my responsibility.

The following persons contributed to this protocol: Kendra Baumgartner (US), Vincent Dumot (France), Florence Fontaine (France), David Gramaje (Spain), Nick Hoskins (NZ), Pascal Lecomte (France), Phillipe Larignon (France) , Jordi Luque (Spain), Lucie Morton (US), Dion Mundy (New Zealand), Sandra Savocchia (Australia), Mark Sosnowski (Australia), Emma Taylor (NZ) and Helen Waite (Australia).

WVJ

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

47

V I T I NC EU W LT SU R E

PHYLLOXERA

Rootstock tolerance and resistance to different genetic strains of phylloxera

By Kevin Powell1 and Mark Krstic2 1 Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Biosciences Research, 124, Chiltern Valley Road, Rutherglen, Victoria 3685 2 Australian Wine Research Institute, Victorian node, PO Box 34, Mooroolbark, Victoria 3138

Studies conducted between 2006 and 2012 examined phylloxera survival characteristics on commonly planted American rootstock species used in Australia. Although there are still gaps in the data, the results boost our knowledge base and assist growers when making decisions about which rootstock to plant.

INTRODUCTION The mere mention of the word phylloxera in various parts of Australia still sends shivers up many vignerons’ and viticulturists’ spines. Since the scourge of phylloxera in Europe during the mid to late 1800s there has been much concern about the devastation that phylloxera could cause here in Australia. The first official recorded incidence of phylloxera in Australia was in 1877 around the Geelong region, in Victoria.

Since then it has spread and been largely contained to particular quarantine areas within NSW and Victoria (Figure 1).

However, detections over the last 15 years in north-east and central Victoria highlight the need for vigilance and a continued

BUYERS’ GUIDE For experienced wine & grape industry suppliers

www.winebiz.com.au/guide 48

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

research focus, particularly in relation to rootstock selection.

Phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch) is an insect, up to 1mm in length at the adult stage, which lives and feeds exclusively on the roots of grapevines and occasionally in distinctive galls on grapevine leaves (Figure 2, see page 50).

It is native to eastern North America, feeds exclusively on grapevines and may be found in the vineyard throughout the year, with peak populations in Australia typically observed between January and February.

Grape phylloxera feeds by puncturing the root surface and the vine responds by forming galls on non-lignified or feeder roots and swellings on older lignified roots.

European (Vitis vinifera) vines have little or no tolerance to phylloxera root feeding and may die if attacked by a virulent phylloxera strain. American Vitis spp (rootstocks) also react to phylloxera feeding but not to the same extent as they have evolved to resist or tolerate the insect. There are currently 83 known genotypes of phylloxera found across Australia, and the genetic strains that feed on roots are more widespread in their distribution and, of particular importance, economically, with specific genotypes (e.g. G1 and G4) being more virulent and geographically widespread than others. All 83 genetic strains have been detected in the north-east Victoria PIZ, but only a single strain in all other PIZs. However, until recently little was known about the tolerance of various rootstocks to these different phylloxera genotypes.

In 2008, a study was initiated to specifically examine the tolerance or resistance of commonly used rootstocks planted in Australia to six root-feeding phylloxera genetic strains (G1, G4, G7, G19, G20 and G30). Kevin Powell (Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, DEDJTR), Australia’s last remaining phylloxera researcher, led this important project based out of the DEDJTR Rutherglen research station in north-east Victoria.

The project was funded by Wine Australia through its investment of industry levy funds and by the Victorian State Government. In 2012 a final report was produced which summarised the project findings (Final report DPI 08/01 - http://research.wineaustralia.com/completed_projects/ the-three-rs-rootstock-resistance-and-resilience-to-grapephylloxera/).

This project was essential to ensure that the common rootstocks being used in the Australian viticulture industries have adequate tolerance or resistance to the broad range of phylloxera genotypes found across various Australian viticultural regions. This is an important consideration when assessing future rootstock choices for the sustainable longterm management of vineyards against phylloxera infestation under Australian conditions.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

PHYLLOXERA

METHODS The research examined the interaction between six clonal phylloxera lineages endemic to Australia (G1, G4, G7, G19, G20 and G30) that were recommended for screening purposes (Hoffmann 2003), based on their broad genetic diversity, ownrooted Vitis vinifera plus a range of commonly used rootstock species, including Ramsey, Schwarzmann, Börner, 110 Richter, 1103 Paulsen, 140 Ruggeri, 5BB Kober, 420A, 3309C and 101-14.

Assessments were conducted using three key techniques to assess susceptibility, tolerance or resistance status:

In vitro excised root bioassay technique – This technique has been routinely used worldwide for phylloxera screening to compare the level of virulence and development of phylloxera populations. However, in this Australian study rather than use phylloxera populations (which could contain a mix of unknown genetic strains) the genetic background of the phylloxera lines was characterised. It is a relatively rapid assessment technique, where phylloxera eggs are placed on cut root pieces and the development of the insect is followed through to the adult stage.

Although this is a widely used technique, it is known to produce potentially higher populations of phylloxera than when using attached roots and, therefore, can potentially overestimate the degree of resistance. The results for phylloxera ‘resistance’ using the excised root bioassay method are classified as follows: • resistant: phylloxera does develop or survive beyond four weeks and cannot reach adult stage so there is no egg production

V I T IN C E UW L TS U R E

• partial resistance: phylloxera can survive for at least eight weeks with no egg production • tolerant: phylloxera survives for at least eight weeks at levels lower than the control and develops to adulthood and produces eggs • susceptible (control): phylloxera survives for eight weeks in higher abundance than rootstocks, and develops to adulthood and produces eggs.

In planta glasshouse bioassay technique - Trials were conducted using one-year-old bench-grafted grapevine rootlings.

The scion used in these experiments was Shiraz (clone BVRC 30). Each pot was co-cultivated with specific phylloxera genetic strains (Powell 2006) contained in mesh enclosures, wrapped around the grapevine root, which allowed quantification of individual life-stages and also assessment of damage to mature lignified roots. Based on these assessments rootstocks were rated for phylloxera ‘resistance’ using the glasshouse bioassay method as follows: • resistant: phylloxera does not survive 10 weeks and does not produce eggs • tolerant: phylloxera survives for 10 weeks and may or may not produce non-necrotic pseudo-tuberosities on mature lignified roots • susceptible (control): phylloxera survives for 10 weeks and ▶ produces necrotic tuberosities on mature lignified roots.

Figure 1. Current map of known phylloxera distribution within Australia. Phylloxera Infested Zones (PIZs) are shown in red colour, Phylloxera Exclusion Zones (PEZs) in green and Phylloxera Risk Zones (PRZs) in yellow. Figure reproduced with permission from the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia website (http://www.phylloxera.com.au/resources/maps/) V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

49

V I T I NC EU W LT SU R E

PHYLLOXERA

In situ field trial assessment - Having four rootstock trials in three different phylloxera-infested regions (Rutherglen, Nagambie and King Valley – vines established in 2003) offered the unique opportunity for: • a comparative field screening of commercially available rootstocks under different soil and climatic conditions • an assessment of interactions at a field level between rootstocks and specific phylloxera genetic strains • an assessment of the relative risk of phylloxera transfer from infested vineyards replanted to resistant rootstocks.

Phylloxera monitoring was conducted using both emergence traps and root examination techniques.

Figure 2. A phylloxera adult with eggs on a grapevine root.

It is important to examine a range of assessment techniques when assessing rootstock tolerance or resistance to phylloxera, as it is hard to assess all genetic strains in field situations due to limited distribution of some genetic strains such as G7, G19, G20 and G30 which all have relatively low abundance and virulence under typical field conditions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Prior to this work being conducted many of the rootstock recommendations in place were based on overseas research. It is important to note that overseas exotic phylloxera strains exist which are not present in Australia. In an attempt to summarise the findings to date, results from Powell 2006, 2009 and 2012 were compiled into a single table to provide the current state of knowledge on rootstock tolerance or resistance to various phylloxera genetic strains endemic to Australia (Table 1). This provides information about the relative sensitivity, resistance or Figure 3. AAustralia phylloxeraLimited, pseudo-tuberosity. tolerance of each rootstock to the key phylloxera strains according Accolade Wines Aravina Estate, Australian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beltunga, Bests Wines Great Western, Bremerton to each of the various screening techniques used in assessing Wines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, this status (in vitro [IV], glasshouse [GH] and field screening [FS]).

Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, This table provides information about the reproducibility of each Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Esscreening technique in classifying each rootstock as susceptible, tate, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fansetolerant or resistant. low Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles Wine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s DriveIn broad terms, if a rootstock is found to be susceptible, this Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitinfers that the rootstock will result in yield reduction and may ment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, Hungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood potentially be killed by phylloxera. If a rootstock is classified as Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Bartolerant, this means phylloxera is able to survive and produce eggs, ry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynamic Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis but not kill the actual rootstock. For such rootstocks, no economic Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Wines damage occurs but because phylloxera can survive on the roots, The Wine Industry’s Leading Online Job Site Group, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, there is still a risk of transfer. If a rootstock is classified as Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, resistant, this means that phylloxera may survive for some period Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet of time on the roots (typically up to four weeks) but not produce Wines, Portavin Integrated Wine Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyards, Rymill Coonawarra, Seville new eggs, and not kill the rootstock. Partially resistant, in this Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Family Wine Co, situation, means that there was no clear differentiation between The Lane Vineyard, The Scotchmans Hill Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba tolerance or resistance. In these cases, phylloxera can survive, but Wine Company, Tintara Winery, Tower Estate Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine it is not absolutely clear whether or not they are able to produce Estates, Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrell’s Wines, eggs. In any case they will not damage the rootstock.

Vinpac International, Warburn Estate Pty Ltd, WebAware Pty Ltd, Wine and Vine Personnel International,Wines Overland, Wingara WIneBased on these results, it is clear that Vitis vinifera is Group,Wirra Wirra Vineyards, Zilzie Wines, Accolade Wines Australia susceptible to all strains of phylloxera tested. This is to be expected Limited, Aravina Estate, Australian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beland highlights the broad susceptibility of own-rooted Vitis vinifera tunga, Bests Wines Great Western, Bremerton Wines, Brown Brothers vines to phylloxera. However V. vinifera is particularly susceptible Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, to strains G1 and G4 and, under field conditions, these strains are Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Estate, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limitknown to be highly abundant (see Powell 2006) and cause damage ed, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles more rapidly. This table also highlights that any of the rootstocks Wine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, tested over the past 10 years are either classified as tolerant or Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Drive Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, resistant to phylloxera. Again, this should come as no surprise, as Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, Hungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, all of these rootstocks have been selected because of their ability Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Barry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston to survive phylloxera infestation.

Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynamic Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInesThe more interesting aspect of this table is that for the first time, more is known about the tolerance and resistance of each Australia, McWilliam’s Wines Group, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, Moprootstock against each of the tested phylloxera strains. This is pity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty created & managed by Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick important as rootstocks classified as tolerant to phylloxera are able of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Wines, Portavin Integrated Wine Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyards, Rymill Coonawarra, Seville Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, i n eti tlWine es .c om.au W I N E The & V I T IScotchmans C ULT UR E JO UR NA LHill SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015 V30N5 The Gilbert www.w Family Co, The Lane Vineyard, Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tintara Wine

Need Harvest Help?

Go with the site that leading wine industry companies use.

50

PHYLLOXERA

Phylloxera Genetic Strain

G1

G4

G7

V I T IN C E UW L TS U R E

G19

G20

G30

Rootstock

IV

GH

FS

IV

GH

FS

IV

GH

FS

IV

GH

FS

IV

GH

FS

IV

GH

FS

Vitis vinifera

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

Ramsey

T

T

R

T

T

T

T

T

*

T

T

*

T

T

*

T

T

*

Schwartzmann

R

R

T

R

R

R

T

T

T

T

T

*

T

T

*

T

T

R

Borner

R

R

R

R

R

R

T

R

*

R

R

T

R

R

*

T

R

*

110 Richter

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

R

T

T

R

*

T

T

*

T

R

R

1103 Paulsen

T

T

R

R

R

R

R

R

*

T

T

T

R

R

*

R

R

*

140 Ruggeri

T

R

R

T

T

R

R

R

R

R

R

*

R

R

*

R

R

*

5BB Kober

R

R

T

R

R

R

T

T

T

T

T

*

T

T

*

T

T

R

420A

R

T

*

R*

R

R

R

R

*

R*

T

*

R

T

*

R*

R

R

3309C 101-14

R* T/R

R R

* *

R* T/R*

R R

* R

T T

T R

* *

T T/R

T R

* *

T T/R

T T

* *

T T/R

T R

* *

Table 1. The susceptibility, tolerance or resistance of various Vitis rootstocks to different biotypes of phylloxera, as assessed by in vitro (IV), glasshouse (GH) and field situation (FS) techniques as conducted by Powell 2006, 2009 and 2012. * Denotes that this specific test has not yet been completed on this rootstock and phylloxera strain combination under field situations.

to survive phylloxera infestation, but essentially sustain phylloxera regeneration via egg production. This means that phylloxera remains present, active and has the potential to actively spread within the infested vineyard and to new vineyards or regions. This may be important in current phylloxera infestation zones (PIZs) where the aim may be to reduce the overall phylloxera abundance and limit further spread within or outside the known PIZ. In these cases, or where only a single phylloxera strain is known to be present, it may be more advisable to select rootstocks that exhibit good resistance to phylloxera. This means while phylloxera may survive for some time on the roots of these rootstocks, they are unable to regenerate and maintain significant populations. This can be a more desirable outcome in terms of minimising the overall phylloxera populations within infested vineyards.

Looking more closely at some of the specific rootstocks, some rootstocks appear predominantly tolerant while others appear predominantly resistant. This is an important consideration when selecting rootstocks. For example, Ramsey appears to only exhibit broad tolerance to all the phylloxera strains, with almost no resistance observed under the conditions tested in these studies.

In addition, pseudo-tuberosities have clearly been observed under glasshouse conditions on Ramsey (see Powell 2006). It is important to note here, however, that there has not been any reports of resistance breakdown of this rootstock under field conditions.

In contrast, Schwarzmann appears to exhibit relatively good resistance to the more virulent G1 and G4 strains of phylloxera, but only tolerance to the G7, G19, G20 and G30 strains (which are genetically distinct to G1 and G4). Interestingly, BĂśrner, which has been described as immune to phylloxera (based on overseas research), may not be as resistant to some endemic Australian phylloxera strains under laboratory and field conditions. Some assays indicated that there is some tolerance to G7, G19 and G30.

These results offer important insights into the opportunities to select and use rootstocks in specific circumstances to manage not only the survival of vines broadly to phylloxera, but also to manage and reduce abundance (and, hence, the degree of quarantine risk) of inherent phylloxera populations in a vineyard, if it were to become infested.

CONCLUSIONS This article has summarised studies conducted between 2006 and 2012 by the research team at DEDJTR Rutherglen on phylloxera survival characteristics on commonly planted American rootstock species used in Australia. It should be noted that there are still a number of gaps in this data, where further field trials

V3 0N 5

are warranted to confirm the tolerance or resistance status of each of these rootstocks to the various phylloxera biotypes under real world situations. There are also some rootstocks for which no data is available. However, these results now provide industry with an additional data layer when making a decision about which rootstock to plant in which particular situation. The information becomes particularly important for those producers currently operating in a PIZ who wish to limit the phylloxera populations within their vineyards, and limit further spread to neighbouring vineyards.

It should be noted that G1 and G4 phylloxera strains are the more aggressive and virulent strains, and can reproduce in much higher abundance and, therefore, are far more damaging to grapevines. It is of no surprise that G1 and G4 phylloxera strains are the most geographically widespread in existing Australian PIZs and represent the higher quarantine risk. It is important to continue research on the less common phylloxera strains, as factors such as climate change could potentially increase their significance in the future.

While the choice of rootstock is an important factor in determining the phylloxera tolerance or resistance that may be offered, this is but one factor to consider when choosing a rootstock, as there may be other important factors such as nematode resistance, drought tolerance, lime tolerance, vigour characteristics, salinity tolerance, graftability/rootability, compatibility, yield, fruit compositional and winemaking potential characteristics which also need to be considered when making the final choice of rootstock and scion combination for a specific vineyard site.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by Wine Australia and the Victorian State Government. The authors acknowledge the hard work conducted by previous DEDJTR-Rutherglen staff involved in the project activities including Ginger Korosi, Rebecca Bruce, Peter Mee (graduate program) and Bernadette Carmody.

REFERENCES Hoffmann, A.A. (2003) A comprehensive assessment of genetic variation in grape phylloxera. GWRDC Final Report. 41.

Powell, K.S. (2006) Sustainable long-term strategies for phylloxera management under Australian conditions. GWRDC Final Report. DNR 03/03. 158.

Powell, K.S. (2009) Sustainable phylloxera management phase II. GWRDC Final Report DPI 06/02. 107.

Powell, K.S. (2012) The three Rs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; rootstock, resistance and resilience to grape WVJ phylloxera. GWRDC Final Report DPI 08/01. 157.

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

51

V I T I NC EU W LT SU R E

D I S E A S E R E S I S TA N C E

Fast-tracking grape breeding for disease resistance

By Ian Dry and Mark Thomas, CSIRO Agriculture, Waite Campus, Urrbrae, South Australia

While the Australian wine industry maintains its policy of not allowing genetically modified organisms to be used in wine production, Australian scientists have been developing new disease-resistant winegrape cultivars by conventional breeding. In the past, this has been a slow process, but CSIRO has developed tools to improve the speed and efficiency of germplasm improvement.

The article is based on Ian Dryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presentation at the Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology seminar held in Mildura on 22-23 July 2015.

W

inegrapes are probably one of the few major crops in the world that have not undergone any significant genetic improvement for nearly 100 years. This is demonstrated by the fact that all of the major wine varieties grown in Australia (and for that matter most of the wine-growing regions of the world) were first mentioned in historical texts over 200 years ago (Table 1). This is not to say that winegrapes have not undergone a large amount of genetic improvement since their original domestication approximately 7-8000 years ago (This et al. 2006). Our current understanding is that the cultivated grapevine (Vitis vinifera ssp. vinifera) was derived from the wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera spp. sylvestris) through a combination of breeding, mutation and both natural and human selection. Over that period of time the wild grapevine, with its male and female flowers, small red berries with low sugar content has been transformed into more than 1300 winegrape varieties (Robinson et al. 2012) with perfect flowers and large red or white berries capable of reaching high sugar levels and a diverse array of flavour profiles at maturity.

However, for the whole period during which domestication and selection of the major varieties took place, key selection pressures were absent. The two major pathogens of cultivated grapevines today, grapevine powdery mildew (Erysiphe necator syn. Uncinula necator) and downy mildew (Plasmopora viticola) did not arrive in Europe from North America until after the 1850s (Campbell 2004). Consequently, none of our major winegrape varieties have any natural genetic resistance to these two pathogens, meaning that grape producers rely on the frequent use of agrochemicals to minimise the potentially devastating impact of these pathogens on grape yield and quality. It has been estimated that the costs of disease management and yield losses to the Australian wine industry (based on 2009 figures) are in the order of A$76 and A$63 million per year for powdery mildew and downy mildew,

respectively (Scholefield and Morison 2010). Not only does this translate into increased production costs for growers, but there is also the potential impact of these chemicals on the health of beneficial organisms in the vineyard (Gadino et al. 2011) and vineyard workers (Le Moal et al. 2014), as well as increased carbon emissions generated from their frequent application. Many of these issues could be minimised or completely overcome by the development of winegrape varieties with enhanced genetic resistance to powdery and downy mildew.

The wild North American grapevine species Muscadinia rotundifolia was recognised by grape breeders as early as 1889 to be the most resistant of the wild species to fungal diseases (Olmo 1986). An interspecific cross between M. rotundifolia cv G52 and V. vinifera cv Malaga produced a hybrid vine (NC6-15) in the early 1900s (Detjen 1919). However, it wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t until later that century, through the work of the French grape breeder Alain Bouquet, working at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), that it was conclusively shown that M. rotundifolia cv. G52 carries a single genetic locus that confers strong resistance to both grapevine powdery mildew and downy mildew. This locus has been designated the Run1 (Resistance to Uncinula necator 1)/ Rpv1 (Resistance to Plasmopora viticola 1) locus (Pauquet et al.

2001, Merdinoglu et al. 2003) In 1999, CSIRO formed a research collaboration with INRA to discover the identity of the resistance genes(s) at the Run1/Rpv1 locus and determine whether these genes could be transferred into existing premium winegrape varieties by genetic modification (GM).

Our research led to the identification of seven highly conserved resistance genes at the Run1/Rpv1 locus, one of which was found to confer strong resistance to powdery mildew (designated MrRUN1) and another to downy mildew (designated MrRUN1) when transferred into susceptible winegrape cultivars such as

Figure 1. Genetic transformation of winegrape varieties with powdery mildew (MrRUN1) and downy mildew (MrRUN1) resistance genes from M. rotundifolia confers strong resistance to these major pathogens. Left panel: grapevine leaves photographed seven days after inoculation with powdery mildew. Right panel: grapevine leaf discs photographed six days after inoculation with downy mildew.

52

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

D I S E A S E R E S I S TA N C E

V I T IN C E UW L TS U R E

Figure 2. Field evaluation of first generation mildew-resistant varieties in no-spray blocks in the Barossa Valley.

Shiraz, Tempranillo and Portan (Feechan et al. 2013) (Figure 1). These vines represent the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first premium winegrape varieties with strong genetic resistance to powdery mildew and downy mildew. However, because of the ongoing policy of the Winemakers' Federation of Australia that 'no genetically modified organisms be used in the production of Australian wine', these mildew-resistant GM vines have not been released to Australian winegrape growers for evaluation.

Given the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the use of GM grapevines for the production of Australian wine, we have now turned our attention to the development of new disease-resistant winegrape cultivars by conventional breeding. Previous attempts to develop disease-resistant cultivars by this strategy have been severely hampered by the slow generation times and the costs required to propagate and screen sufficiently large numbers of progeny to identify resistant cultivars, with acceptable wine quality.

To overcome this bottleneck we have developed a new rapid genetic improvement strategy using marker-assisted selection (Collard and Mackill 2012) in combination with rapid-flowering microvine genotypes (Chaib et al. 2010).

Marker-assisted selection (MAS) is the most widely used technique used in the breeding and selection of new crop varieties.

It relies on the detection of the presence/absence of DNA markers within small amounts of genomic DNA extracted from the progeny populations through the use of high-throughput sequencing technologies. The presence of these DNA markers can be used to predict the phenotype of the mature plant without the need to

actually carry out the phenotypic assessment. This has a number of advantages. First, this analysis can be done at the seedling stage, negating the need to plant new breeding populations in the field and wait for the plants to mature to assess phenotypic characters, which saves considerable time and money. It also means that the often labour-intensive assays involved in screening disease-resistance traits can be replaced by the use of DNA markers that can indicate whether the resistance genes have been inherited by these progeny plants.

In 2008, a breeding line generated by Alain Bouquet, the genome of which is predominately (>98 %) V. vinifera following five generations of backcrosses to winegrape varieties, but which still contains the Run1/Rpv1 locus, was used as a parent in crosses with a number of premium white and red varieties. DNA marker analysis identified approximately 1200 seedlings containing the mildew resistance locus and these were planted in an unsprayed block in the Barossa Valley (Figure 2) to evaluate resistance to naturally-occurring powdery and downy mildew infections, vine performance and wine style/quality.

In terms of disease resistance, we are yet to observe any visual signs of powdery mildew or downy mildew infection on these vines, even though they have not been sprayed in the six years since planting. This was also true of the 2010/2011 season in which disease-pressure was extremely high due to frequent summer rains. In contrast, berries of other susceptible winegrape varieties grown in nearby rows became heavily infected by powdery mildew â&#x2013;ś in that season (Figure 3).

Table 1. History of major winegrape varieties used in Australia.

Australian production 2012 (tonnes)1

First mentioned in historical records2

Chardonnay

348,283

1583

Sauvignon Blanc

81,442

1534

Semillon

77,890

1736

Muscat Gordo Blanco

54,155

1500s

Shiraz

362,217

1781

Cabernet Sauvignon

207,558

1777

Merlot

117,383

1783

Pinot Noir

34,574

1386

Variety

1

Australian Bureau of Statistics - Vineyard Estimates, Australia (1329.0.55.002)

2

Robinson et

V3 0N 5

al. (2012)

Figure 3. A heavily powdery mildew-infected bunch collected from a susceptible variety in a nearby row is shown (left-hand side) next to two disease-free bunches from a new mildewresistant variety growing in an unsprayed block.

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

53

V I T I NC EU W LT SU R E

D I S E A S E R E S I S TA N C E

Single vines are currently being evaluated for a number of parameters including bunch number, bunch size, bunch architecture, fruit yield, fruit maturation date (22oBrix) and juice pH. We have observed a large degree of variation in all of these characteristics with yields up to 20kg per vine, juice pH ranging from 2.92â&#x20AC;&#x201C;4.34 and date of maturity varying from February to April. Small-scale winemaking is being carried out in collaboration with the University of Adelaide and wine style/ quality and interest level are being assessed with the assistance of winemakers from Orlando, Yalumba and McWilliams. An example of the results obtained to date are shown in Figure 4, which indicates the level of interest of this panel of commercial winemakers in wines made from a selection of 76 new diseaseresistant white varieties. To put the interest scores into context, wine made from Chardonnay fruit, under the same conditions, was also included in the trial and was rated as being of only minor interest by the winemaking panel (Figure 4).

Our ultimate aim is to select the 20 best mildew-resistant white and red varieties, based on consistent performance over a number of growing seasons in terms of good yields, good acid and pH at harvest and consistently high sensory scores as judged by commercial winemakers. Once these elite selections have been made, vines will be propagated for evaluation of performance and wine quality in other Australian wine-growing regions.

The mildew-resistant winegrape varieties currently under evaluation in the Barossa Valley represent only the first generation of new premium mildew-resistant varieties selected for Australian conditions. Our current focus is on the development of second generation premium winegrape varieties with further enhanced disease-resistance properties. This is a consequence of the fact that pathogens, such as powdery and downy mildew, are capable of undergoing rapid mutation in the field to produce new isolates that are capable of breaking the resistance conferred by single resistance genes such as MrRUN1 and MrRUN1. This is commonly observed in broad-acre crops where large areas are sown to the same genotype, thereby creating a strong selection pressure for the evolution of pathogen isolates that are virulent on the resistant crop (McDonald and Linde 2002). Although such a situation is much less likely to occur within grapegrowing regions because of the diversity of grapevine varieties commonly grown within each region, we already have evidence of the evolution of isolates of both powdery mildew

Conventional system

Microvine system

Flowering frequency

Once a year

All year

Pollination frequency

Once a year

All year

Growth conditions

Vineyard

Glasshouse

Space required

Four plants per 12m2

Four plants per 0.6m2

Generation time

24-36 months

Six months

Figure 4. Average wine interest scores of small scale wine lots made from first generation mildew-resistant white varieties.

Commercial winemakers were asked to score wines in terms of level of interest for the development of new wines on a scale from 0 (no interest) to 3 (high interest). The asterisk indicates the average interest score of the winemaking panel for Chardonnay fruit fermented under the same conditions but provided as an unmarked sample.

(Feechan et al. 2013) and downy mildew (Peressotti et al. 2010) that are capable of breaking the resistance conferred by loci from wild grapevine species. While this may not be catastrophic for a wheat farmer who can choose to plant one of a number of alternative wheat varieties, with different resistance genes, in the following season, it would be a major setback for a grapegrower who clearly does not have such flexibility.

One of the most effective ways to increase the durability of resistance genes in the field is to combine or â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;pyramidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; resistance genes, from different wild species, within the same plant (Mundt 2014). This is because major plant resistance proteins, such as MrRUN1 and MrRUN1, are activated by the recognition of specific proteins called 'effectors' that are secreted into the plant cell by the invading pathogen. Activation of the host resistance protein initiates a highly effective defence response within the plant cell that prevents further infection. Thus, if a mutation occurs in an effector that is normally recognised by the plant resistance protein, such that recognition can no longer take place, a defence response will not be initiated upon infection and the pathogen will be able to colonise the plant. Generally, resistance genes from

Figure 5. Comparison of the conventional grapevine breeding system with the new rapid grapevine breeding system based on use of the microvine.

54

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

D I S E A S E R E S I S TA N C E

different wild plant species have evolved to recognise different pathogen effector proteins. Thus, by combining resistance genes from different wild species, the likelihood of a single pathogen isolate simultaneously mutating both effectors which are recognised by the two different resistance proteins, is extremely low.

While it has been recognised since the late 1800s that wild North American grapevine species represent an important source of resistance against a range of major grapevine pathogens, we are only now becoming aware that many wild Chinese grapevine species also contain major resistance loci that confer strong resistance against powdery mildew (Ren4; Ramming et al. 2010) and downy mildew (Rpv12; Venuti et al.

2013). As such, resistance loci such as Ren4 and Rpv12 represent good candidates for pyramiding with the Run1/Rpv1 locus in our first generation mildew-resistant premium selections to produce second generation varieties with enhanced resistance durability.

However, the introgression of resistance genes from these wild Chinese species into our existing elite first generation selections poses a new challenge. This is because crossing a premium V. vinifera winegrape variety with a wild Chinese Vitis species will generate hybrids where 50% of the genome originates from the wild species. This means that the resultant resistant hybrid vine will not only contain the new mildew resistance locus of interest, it may also contain numerous other undesirable genes which may have a negative impact on wine quality.

In order to reduce the contribution of the wild Vitis species, to the genome of the new disease-resistant winegrape varieties, and thereby minimise the presence of any potentially undesirable wine quality genes, it is necessary to undertake as backcrossing strategy whereby the hybrid resistant line is backcrossed multiple times to a V. vinifera winegrape variety.

With each backcross generation, the contribution of the wild species to the hybrid genome is reduced by approximately 50%, while at the same time ensuring that the resistance gene originating from the wild Vitis species has been retained in the next generation. If we were to attempt to combine the resistance genes from these wild grape species by conventional breeding and backcrossing it could take 30 years or more to achieve. To overcome this bottleneck, we are currently employing MAS in combination with a rapid grapevine breeding system developed at CSIRO (Chaib et al. 2010). This rapid breeding system uses a natural grapevine mutant known as a microvine that fruits rapidly, flowers prolifically and can be grown in a glasshouse making it possible to carry out breeding experiments all year round (Figure 5). We have been making good progress with this rapid breeding technology and have successfully generated microvine lines containing new mildew resistance genes from the wild Chinese species V. romanetii (Ren4) and V. amurensis (Rpv12). We have also successfully developed DNA markers linked to Ren4 and Rpv12 which will be used in MAS to verify the presence of these genes when they are combined with the Run1/Rpv1 resistance locus. Although there are still a number of challenges to overcome, we are on-track to drastically shorten the breeding time to produce a second generation of durable mildew-resistant selections and hope to have single vines available for field evaluation by 2020.

In summary, the key messages from this article are as follows: • over the long term, the Australian wine industry needs to seriously consider the opportunities provided by replacing existing varieties with new disease-resistant varieties • wild grapevine species are valuable resources of resistance genes against major grapevine pests and pathogens and pyramiding of resistance genes from different genetic sources will enhance the durability of resistance in the vineyard

V I T IN C E UW L TS U R E

• grapevine breeding is difficult and long-term, but CSIRO has developed smarter and more rapid breeding tools to improve the speed and efficiency of germplasm improvement • even with the use of smart rapid breeding tools, there is still a long period of field and wine evaluation that must be undertaken and regional evaluation trials are necessary to determine plant performance and wine quality in different environments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is supported by Wine Australia. CSIRO Agriculture is part of the Wine Innovation Cluster.

REFERENCES Campbell, C. (2004) Phylloxera: How wine was saved for the world. Harper Collins, UK. Chaib, J.; Torregrosa, L.; Mackenzie, D.; Corena, P.; Bouquet, A. and Thomas, M.R. (2010) The grape microvine - a model system for rapid forward and reverse genetics of grapevines. Plant Journal 62:1083-1092.

Collard, B.C.Y. and Mackill, D.J. (2008) Marker-assisted selection: An approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363:557-572.

Detjen, L. (1919) The limits in hybridisation of Vitis rotundifolia with related species and genera. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 17:409–429.

Feechan, A.; Anderson, C.; Torregrosa, L.; Jermakow, A.; Mestre, P.; Wiedemann-Merdinoglu, S.; Merdinoglu, D.; Walker, A.R.; Cadle-Davidson, L.; Reisch, B.; Aubourg, S.; Bentahar, N.; Shrestha, B.; Bouquet, A.; Adam-Blondon, A-F.; Thomas, M.R. and Dry, I.B. (2013) Genetic dissection of a TIR-NB-LRR locus from the wild North American grapevine species Muscadinia rotundifolia identifies paralogous genes conferring resistance to major fungal and oomycete pathogens in cultivated grapevine. Plant Journal 76:661-674.

Gadino, A.N.; Walton, V.M. and Dreves, A.J. (2011) Impact of vineyard pesticides on a beneficial arthropod, Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae), in laboratory bioassays. Journal of Economic Entomology 104: 970-977.

Le Moal, J.; Rolland, M.; Goria, S.; Wagner, V.; De Crouy-Chanel, P.; Rigou, A.; De Mouzon, J. and Royere D. (2014) Semen quality trends in French regions are consistent with a global change in environmental exposure. Reproduction 147:567574.

Merdinoglu, D.; Wiedemann-Merdinoglu, S.; Coste, P.; Dumas, V.; Haetty, S.; Butterlin, G. and Greif, C. (2003) Genetic analysis of downy mildew resistance derived from Muscadinia rotundifolia. Acta Hortic. 603, 451-456.

McDonald, B.A. and Linde, C. (2002) Pathogen population genetics, evolutionary potential, and durable resistance. Annual Review of Phytopathology 40:349-79.

Mundt, C.C. (2014) Durable resistance: A key to sustainable management of pathogens and pests. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 27:446-455.

Olmo, H.P. (1986) The potential role of (Vinifera x Rotundifolia) hybrids in grape variety improvement. Experientia 42:921-926.

Pauquet, J.; Bouquet, A.; This, P. and Adam-Blondon, A.F. (2001) Establishment of a local map of AFLP markers around the powdery mildew resistance gene Run1 in grapevine and assessment of their usefulness for marker assisted selection.

Theor. Appl. Genet. 103:1201-1210.

Peressotti, E.; Wiedemann-Merdinoglu, S.; Delmotte, F.; Bellin, D.; Di Gaspero, G.; Testolin, R.; Merdinoglu, D. and Mestre, P. (2010) Breakdown of resistance to grapevine downy mildew upon limited deployment of a resistant variety. Bmc Plant Biology 10:147.

Ramming, D.W.; Gabler, F.; Smilanick, J.; Cadle-Davidson, M.; Barba, P.; Mahanil, S. and Cadle-Davidson, L. (2010) A single dominant locus, Ren4, confers rapid non-race-specific resistance to grapevine powdery mildew. Phytopathology 101:502-508.

Robinson, J.; Harding J. and Vouillamoz, J. (2012) Wine Grapes: A complete guide to 1368 vine varieties, including their origins and flavours. Allen Lane, UK. Scholefield, P. and Morison, J. (2010) Assessment of economic cost of endemic pests and diseases on the Australian grape and wine industry - final report (GWR 08/04).

This, P.; Lacombe, T. and Thomas M.R. (2006) Historical origins and genetic diversity of winegrapes. Trends in Genetics 22:511-519.

Venuti, S.; Copetti, D.; Foria, S.; Falginella, L.; Hoffmann, S.; Bellin, D, Cindric, P, Kozma, P, Scalabrin, S, Morgante, M, Testolin, R. and Di Gaspero, G. (2013) Historical introgression of the downy mildew resistance gene Rpv12 from the Asian species Vitis amurensis into grapevine varieties. Plos One 8:e61228.

WVJ

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

55

V I T INC EU WL S T U R E

TONY HOARE

The evolution of winegrapes – epigenetics, the new frontier

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

Tony explains how scientific advances are providing the ability to genetically identify the different traits between winegrape clones, allowing the selection of clones based on those traits.

S

ince the first recorded wine was made in 6100BC in an Armenian cave, winegrapes have been evolving. Since time immemorial, winegrape varieties have resulted from sexual reproduction between two plants.

A new frontier of understanding viticultural reproduction is now being used in research and is shedding new light on the influence of environment on the characteristics of grapevines grown in particular soils in particular climates.

We can now see how environment can influence the evolution of winegrape varieties and lead to changing their genetic makeup. This new frontier of distinguishing winegrape character traits is called epigenetics.

In the book ‘Wine Grapes: A Complete Guide to 1368 Vine Varieties, including their Origins and Flavours’, by Jancis Robinson et al., all the varieties identified are descended from a few ‘founder vines’. It is estimated that the movement of grapevine propagation material, such as seeds and cuttings, with the expansion of cultures and civilisations has resulted in more than 10,000 winegrape varieties in existence today.

Until recently, the differences between varieties were determined using the concept of a ‘fixed character’ (Odart 1854). These observations are the basis for ampelography which uses scientific differences to distinguish between varieties. The identification of varieties and, more importantly, their clones, has now evolved to a more molecular level where differences between varieties are now observed using chemical and biochemical traits.

Epigenetics is a scientific procedure that uses PCR-derived marker systems to identify genetic grapevine inter-varietal variability. What this technique has allowed is identification of differences between varieties with the same DNA (genotype) caused by their environmental conditions resulting in differences in physical characteristics (phenotype). Essentially, it is able to

56

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

Until recently, the differences between varieties were determined based on scientific differences. The identification of varieties and, more importantly, their clones, has now evolved where differences between varieties are now observed using chemical and biochemical traits.

identify mutations caused by genetic variation that can occur every time there is cell division (growth) and replication of DNA (genotype). A mutation is a change in DNA during a growth or replication phase of a plant. Epigenetics is the science capable of detecting these changes at the molecular level.

The same mutations can occur with humans. When mutations occur in humans they can result in positive traits such as sporting ability in progeny or more unfortunate traits such as diseases like cancer. The process of cell replication in both humans and plants has been described to me in simple terms. We all start out life as a book. Each year the book is reprinted.

Occasionally the pages of the book can change due to reprinting issues between editions. When there is a change in text in a reprint this is a mutation that changes the physical expression of the genes of that individual. The changes in the reprints compared with the original book are due to responses to

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

the book’s environment and age. The older the book, the more reprints and the greater likelihood of a misprint. This is the concept of epigenetics that is now being used in winegrapes to research the differences between varieties of the same origin and DNA, however grown, in different counties or subregional vineyard locations. Researchers are also looking at the difference between old and young vines.

The evolution of winegrapes has occurred through plant selection for various physical characteristics; desirable characteristics such as productivity, flavour, colour, pest and disease tolerance. Recently, clonal selection for red varieties such as Shiraz in Australia have been based on characteristics of bunch architecture, skin thickness, fruitset, flavour ripeness in relation to sugar development and resilience to natural heat events. As a consequence of this research, Shiraz clones are selected for desirable characteristics for both growers and

V30N5

TONY HOARE

V I T I NC EU W L TS U R E

winemakers to meet current consumer preferences. The selection of clones based on physical character traits is not new. However, the identification of these traits as genetic changes in clones is now an exciting field of viticultural research.

PRIMITIVO OR ZINFANDEL – NOT AS THEY APPEAR The red winegrape variety Tribidrag originated in Croatia. It is best known by its adopted countries where it is called Primitivo in the Apuglia region in Italy, and Zinfandel in the Napa region in the US. While the variety is of the same genetic origin, both countries have their own distinct wine styles. It has been suggested that through plant selection over time since the original American plantings in the 1860s, character traits for wine styles were selected leading to distinct differences between Primitivo and Zinfandel. Through epigenetics, a study by Meneghetti et al. in 2011 was able to confirm that there is now discernible genetic differences between these two versions of the same variety.

The study was able to correlate the geographical origins with genetic differences between the biotypes in the different countries. The physical differences (phenotype) that had been observed between three clones from different geographical regions in Apuglia were also confirmed genetically using PCR-derived marker systems.

Primativo was first introduced to Italy by a Benedictine monk in Gioia del Colle. It was thought to have come from America where it had been growing since as early as 1834. Don Fillipo Francesco Indellicati named the variety from the Latin primativus due to its early ripening. The name was changed from Primativo to Primitivo around 1860. American plant pathologist Austin Goheen saw resemblances between Primitivo and Zinfandel after his visit to Puglia in 1967. The similarities between the varieties were later confirmed by molecular profiling done by Wade Wolfe in 1975. Fast forward to 2011 and the work done by Meneghetti et al. and it is ironic that the efforts and controversy in linking Primitivo and Zinfandel together have reversed as new scientific research now seeks to separate them.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOS) AND EPIGENETIC CLONES Genetically modified organisims are artificially altered in a laboratory by a genetic engineer. Clones are genetic

The selection of clones based on physical traits is not new. However, the identification of these traits as genetic changes in clones is now an exciting field of viticultural research.

mutations that occur naturally when their genotype is altered in response to environmental conditions. Epigenetics is where a factor other than DNA effect the expression of genes in an organism.

Once the gene expression has been switched on or off due to a response to environmental conditions then this trait can then be passed onto future generations.

Next generation sequencing is a field of research that has opened up the possibilities for viticultural research in many areas. Vines’ response to climate change and extreme weather, pests and diseases, soil variations, vine age, etcetera are now able to be examined at a molecular level to select for varietal traits that will be the future of viticulture in regions around the globe.

From an Australian perspective the use of epigenetics is predicted to play an important role in the identification of sustainable clones for both grower and winery and underpin the development of sub-regions.

REFERENCES Meneghetti, S.; Costacurta, A.; Morreale, G. and Calò, A. (2012) Study of intra-varietal genetic variability in grapevine cultivars by PCR-derived molecular markers and correlations with the geographic origins. Molecular Biotechnology 50(1):72-85.

Odart, Compte, A-P (1854) Ampélographie universelle, 3rd edition, Paris.

Robinson J.; Harding, J. and Vouillamoz, J. et al.

(2012) Wine Grapes. pp 1085-1090. Harper Collins, New York.

Robinson J. (1994) The Oxford Companion to Wine. p 1086 Oxford University Press, London.

Before setting up his own vineyard and winery consultancy business with wife Briony, Tony Hoare established and managed the Ablington Vineyard Estate block in the Lower Hunter for five years before joining Wirra Wirra in McLaren Vale in 2002 where he managed the winery’s estate and contract vineyards.

He and Briony also have their own wine label and cellar door, Beach Road Wines.

WVJ

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

57

V I T I NC EU W LT SU R E

SOIL HORIZON

Field determination of soil texture and soil moisture

By Geoff Kew Kew Wetherby Soil Survey Pty Ltd, South Australia.

Email: geoff@soilprofile.com.au

This is the second of a semi-regular column in which Geoff looks at the role of soil in influencing vine growth. In his first article, published in the May/June issue of the Journal, Geoff discussed how to determine the potential rootzone depth of vines.

In this article he discusses how this information, together with soil texture determined in the field, can be used to estimate the readily available waterholding capacity (RAW) of the potential rootzone.

S

oil texture represents the different size fractions of the mineral particles in the soil that are less than 2mm. It provides a measure of how much sand, silt and clay is in the soil sample. Field determination of texture is used in Australia to represent texture grades and is more related to what vine roots will be growing compared with laboratory determination of soil texture or particle size analysis (PSA).

PSA removes organic matter, soil carbonate and other materials so the final texture grade will be different to what is present in the vineyard.

Some common texture grades for sandy soils include sand (S), loamy sand (LS) or sandy loam (SL); for loamy texture grades they may include sandy clay loam (SCL) or clay loam (CL) and for clay they may include light clay (LC), medium clay (MC), or heavy clay (HC). In alluvial environments or from the weathering of some rock, the texture may have a high silt content and be graded as silty loam (ZL), silty clay loam (ZCL) or silty clay (ZC).

How do you perform a field hand texture? The method is easy and confidence comes with practice. A small handful of soil is moistened and kneaded into a ball and then ribboned.

58

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

Wetting the soil to make the ‘bolus’.

The method is to add a little water at a time until all the soil is moist but not wet. This represents field capacity, the point at which there is no runoff of water out of the soil. The moistened soil ball or ‘bolus’ is then pressed out between the thumb and forefinger and the length of the ribbon formed is measured; the more clay the longer the ribbon. Yes, the sample may look like something a dog has left behind but it’s fun to do. Ask any child; loamy and silty textures feel good!

How does soil texture relate to the water-holding capacity of the soil? A water retention curve can be used to estimate the waterholding capacity of a soil sample and is derived from the relationship between water content and matric potential.

The shape of the curve depends on the soil texture and, therefore, the amount of sand, silt or clay in the sample. Sands with large pore sizes between mineral grains will release a lot of water quickly, while clay will hold water within smaller

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

SOIL HORIZON

The soil at field capacity.

V I T I NC EU W LT SU R E

The bolus ribbons to 35mm indicating it is a sandy clay loam.

pores and within the clay minerals and not all the water will be available to plants.

The matric potential is a level of suction and is similar to what vine roots do to extract water from the soil. In the laboratory, suction can be applied in a pressure chamber to a soil sample that is at field capacity (-8kPa). The pressure is increased up to wilting point (-1500kPa). At wilting point most plants will be unable to extract water from the soil and will die from water stress. This range is known as plant available water and the relationship is dependent on soil texture and structure. Vines and many other plants will only reach a suction level of -60kPa to 100kPa before they suffer stress.

The amount of water in the soil between field capacity and a matric potential of -60kPa to -100kPa is known as readily available water-holding capacity (RAW). A matric potential of -60kPa is considered the point at which vines will start to suffer stress.

The value of RAW can be represented in millimetres per centimetre of soil (mm/cm) and can be used to determine the RAW value of a soil profile. From a backhoe soil pit, a bolus can be used to determine the depth of vine roots, the depth of soil horizons can be measured and the field soil texture. Stones and gravels or rock (coarse fragments) don’t hold water, so the percentage of these is removed from the volume of each soil horizon. Multiplying the thickness of each horizon by the RAW value for the texture of that horizon minus the percentage of coarse fragments will give a millimetre value for each soil horizon, which can be summed for the vine rootzone depth. The rootzone RAW value expressed in millimetres represents the amount of water required to refill the soil profile. A list of readily available waterholding values is published in Kew et al. (2004) ‘Estimation of readily available waterholding capacity using field hand texture’, SuperSoil 2004, Australian Soil Science Society conference Sydney.

WVJ

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

59

V I T INC EU WL S T U R E

ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

Lagrein – from a backyard in rural Victoria to Australia’s first commercial release

By Alan Cooper, Cobaw Ridge, Macedon Ranges, Victoria

Alan recalls his introduction to Lagrein that led Cobaw Ridge to become the first commercial producer of the variety in Australia, if not outside its native Italy.

W

e first came upon Lagrein in 1992 via Dr Peter May, a friend that had an interest in all things vine.

At that time Peter was deputy principal of Burnley Horticulture College, in Melbourne. His natural curiosity had led him to plant a hobby vineyard in his backyard, in Kyneton, which among other varieties had 25 vines of Lagrein. He had read about the variety and thought, why not? We recall Peter calling in one day with a mystery bottle of wine for us to try. This was one of a dozen bottles from a micro batch.

Lagrein? Never heard of it. Once we opened it, the light bulb went click!

Wow, tell me more!

After tasting that sole initial bottle, in 1993 we made the decision to top graft a few hundred vines and find out more about Lagrein for ourselves. The theory was that if it worked in a less-thanideal backyard in Kyneton, it should work here (the great Australian can do!)

Peter assisted with the cuttings and top grafting.

Back then, there was only one example of true Lagrein being imported into Australia, but it was not the best example. It was much later that we finally got to try a great example which indeed confirmed that we might at least be on the right track.

I recall attending an industry seminar in Melbourne hosted by Richard Smart and, I think, Peter Dry. It was aimed at getting people to think outside of French varieties. At the end of the day there was a wine tasting and people were asked to raise their hand for favourites. I can’t recall what people liked most, but the Lagrein was second. A lot of people were scratching their heads saying, what is it, and where is it from? The wine was Kellerei Gries Riserva.

I was sitting next to Max Allen at the time and I was amused to see him grin and say, “You must be happy with that.”

To this day he remains a great supporter.

We are certainly the first commercial producer in Australia and as far as our friends in Italy know, we may be the first in the world outside of its native home.

60

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

The history of Lagrein can be traced back as far as the 14th century. It is one of two native varieties found in the far north east of Italy. The region is known by the locals as the Sudtirol and was part of Austria up until the Second World War. The dominant language is a local dialect of German.

The food in the region is more Germanic and the road signs feature German with a subtext in Italian. Around 70% of the population are of Tyrollean descent (and are proud of it!)

The Italian population call the area the Alto Adige. The larger area is often called the Trentino-Alto Adige, but in reality it is two quite distinct regions.

Trentino is very much Italian, where as the Sudtirol is another world.

The area planted would be around 400 hectares in total. A tiny amount is also grown in the northern part of Trentino. The area is high; most of the vineyards are planted at around 500-600 metres above sea level. The soil type is coarse glacial gravels and is quite sandy. The whole valley faces due south and is a super sun trap. The Italian Alps are to the north and the Dolomites to the south.

Here they make three styles of Lagrein. One is more a drink-now style of lesser quality fruit matured in large, old oak. The second is sometimes a rosé, and the third is the Riserva style;

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

great fruit, gently handled with long maturation in small, quality oak. It is the latter style we aim for. The best examples usually come from the subregion of Gries, which is situated around the provincial capital of Bozen (Bolzano).

These would include the likes of Abtie Muri Gries, Kellerie Gries and Santa Magdalener.

Where we grow Lagrein in the Macedon Ranges is not too different in altitude (610m) and soil type (coarse granite sands) to much of its native home.

V30N5

ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

V I T I NC EU W LT SU R E

LAGREIN

By Peter Dry, Emeritus Fellow, The Australian Wine Research Institute

Lagrein in the Cobaw Ridge vineyard in Victoria’s Macedon Ranges.

Nestled on the Cobaw Ridge, north of the great divide overlooking central Victoria, gives us maximum sunlight exposure, as we have found Lagrein likes a warm site in a cool region.

Most of the vines are on their own roots, cane pruned on an open VSP trellis. We have a small area on rootstock (Teleki 5C), but these have not thrived so are being progressively removed and replanted back to own roots. The original source of the planting material was first imported into Australia in 1969. This, in turn, came from the University in California, Davis, which has lost all records of the original source in Italy.

On our site we find Lagrein ripens late and around the same time as Syrah (mid to late April). Bunches can be quite open and large with thin skins and abundant colour even at quite low ripeness, but does not need super ripeness to achieve full flavour. We would normally pick around 12.5Be. At higher ripeness it becomes quite jammy and has a tendency to become very ‘rustic’.

We are certified organic/biodynamic and are the fifth Australian member of the elite international winemaking group La Renaissance des Appellation (Return to Terroir).

We make the wines with minimal intervention - natural ferments, nil acid, no filtration or fining. Just a minimum of SO2 at bottling is the only addition. Our Lagrein is matured for two years in small French oak. In time we intend to experiment with longer skin contact and more alternative maturation methods, maybe in Qvevri.

The resulting wine is typically dark coloured with bright fruit flavours of dark cherry and is almost aromatic on the nose. Plush, mouthfilling, long tannins persist and are balanced by quite bright natural acidity. Sometimes it can have a trademark slight twist of bitterness on the finish. We find that at 10 years, the wines are still fresh and very attractive.

Over the years we have had some interesting critical comments. Our first commercial vintage of Lagrein was produced in 1998. We entered it into what has now become the Australian Alternative Varieties Wine Show, where it was voted red wine of the show and best wine of the show. That got a few people talking and very curious, and Bruce Chalmers called looking for cuttings (an interesting twist is that after that contact we realised we were distant relatives).

The Lagrein was selected to be shown during the first Landmark tutorial tasting which led to more interest.

A couple of years ago I attended the Real Artisan Wines (RAW) Fair, in London. Before the event we were contacted by Julia Harding MW, who was at the time co-writing with Jancis Robinson MW and Jose Vouillamoz for their epic book Wine Grapes. They selected six wines from the fair to speak about

V3 0N 5

BACKGROUND Lagrein (lah-grain) is an old variety that has been known in Trentino, in north-east Italy, since the 16th century. It is now mainly grown in Alto Adige and Trentino where varietal wines are permitted in local DOCs. Rosé wines are labelled ‘Rosato’ or ‘Kretzer’ and red wines as ‘Lagrein’, ‘Lagrein Dunkel’ or ‘Lagrein Scuro’. It is also often blended with Schiava Grossa. Lagrein has an interesting family tree because DNA research has revealed that it is the progeny of Teroldego and an unknown variety, a sibling of Marzemino, a cousin of Shiraz and a grandchild of Pinot. Synonyms include Burgundi Lagrein, Lagrain, Lagrain Blauer, Lagrino and Lagroin. There were 717ha planted in Italy in 2010. It does not appear be grown to any significant extent elsewhere in Italy or in the rest of Europe. There are at least 38 wine producers of Lagrein in Australia in regions ranging from cool to hot, an indication of the adaptability of this variety.

VITICULTURE Budburst is mid-season to late and maturity is late.

Vigour is moderate to high with a semi-erect growth habit.

Bunches are medium and well-filled with medium thickskinned berries. Yield is usually moderate. Cane pruning is mainly used in Italy but spur pruning has also been used in Australia. Lagrein has low susceptibility to downy and powdery mildews and to botrytis bunch rot; however, it is prone to poor fruitset in some seasons. Lagrein vineyards in Australia appear to be comprised of just two clones, imported from California in the late 1960s.

WINE Lagrein requires a warm site to ripen adequately. It needs to be sufficiently ripe to avoid green characters and bitterness. Wines have good colour, are medium to full bodied with round tannins, rich and concentrated with good persistence and generous flavour. Acid retention is good in hot climates. Descriptors include plum, blackberries, dark cherries, violet, chocolate and chalky tannins. Wines are less savoury than many other Italian red wine varieties. Lagrein is also good for rosé-style wines which can have elegant strawberry and floral characters. Excellent wines are possible in hot regions.

Consumer appeal in Australia has been very good.

For further information on this and other emerging varieties, contact Marcel Essling (marcel.essling@awri. com.au or 08 8313 6600) at The Australian Wine Research Institute to arrange the presentation of the Alternative Varieties Research to Practice program in your region. during their book launch at RAW. One was our 2010 Lagrein.

This was quite a thrill for us - from a tiny planting in a backyard in Kyneton to the world stage in London.

To this day it’s still very much a passion and a challenge to convince people of the noble lineage of Lagrein.

Most of the wine is sold into top-end restaurants with very little to retail. It’s very much a hand sell. Cellar door is still the best avenue as once people know the story and taste the wine, WVJ it sells itself.

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

61

BUSINESS MARKETING N E& W S

CELLAR DOORS

Cellar door sales locations – a glimpse into the future

By Paul Le Lacheur

A cellar door is no longer necessarily located in a wine region or run by a sole operator.

The producers represented by the co-operative Artisans of Barossa cellar door (from left): Greg and Allison Hobbs, Hobbs of Barossa Ranges; Pete Schell and Magali Gely, Spinifex Wines; Simon Cowham, Sons of Eden; John Duval, John Duval Wines; Jaysen Collins, Massena; Jason Schwarz, Schwarz Wine Co.; Kym Teusner, Teusner; Corey Ryan, Sons of Eden.

F

or decades, cellar door sales (CDS) venues have traditionally been located in known grapegrowing and winemaking districts. That philosophy is changing, and quickly, as more and more wineries opt to locate their CDS operations where the volume of potential visitation is highest.

The first to do so in Queensland was Clovely Estate, located in Red Hill, a suburb of Brisbane. There you can book a 90-minute wine and cheese tasting flight as part of the experience. This idea has been echoed at Tomich winery, located in the inner Adelaide suburb of Unley. Randal Tomich explained, “We researched it and came to understand that people wanted more than just a wine tasting – they wanted, indeed craved, a different experience. So we now conduct people through reserve or back vintage flights of wines as a structured, tutored tasting. You can no longer expect people to be happy with turning up at cellar door and asking for a taste of the Pinot."

Tomich said the winery had forged important links with Adelaide Gourmet Bus Tours which took tourists on an excursion to various gourmet producers - Haigh’s Chocolates, The Adelaide Central Market and Tomich. The company markets an easily accessed cellar door venue specifically to corporate groups.

A recent study (the McLaren Vale Value Chain Project - a year-on-year evaluation of visitors to cellar doors and other onsite wine tourism facilities in the district) showed the average dollar spend per visitor fell by 18% in 2011 compared with 2009.

However, Tomich said of his urban cellar door venue visitors, “they frequent the venue more, especially by virtue of their interest in after-hours events.” These included themed tastings, not just of current release wines.

62

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

Tomich gained an understanding of the need to change CDS location while visiting the Californian wine industry. “It’s filled with city dwellers visiting cellar doors in cities. We needed to think about our clientele and deliver what they want: which is a more interactive and tailored experience,” he explained.

Another approach gaining acceptance is the co-location of many potential small cellar doors into one operation. Sally Johnson is cellar door sales manager for Artisans of Barossa. It’s a cooperative idea. “The group had already been working together as a co-operative marketing group since 2005. So the decision to join forces to open the Artisans of Barossa tasting room was a natural evolution of what the group had already been working on,” Johnson explained. Although the Artisans of Barossa faces many potential pitfalls in representing and promoting up to nine small wine brands, it is managing to do so effectively by sending a congruent message of quality to a crowded marketplace, and it appears an extremely viable enterprise provided each principal prepares their own clear expectations ahead of the union. As Johnson added: “Artisans of Barossa is its own entity and as such has its own sales targets.” It seems the key to financial harmony lies in establishing realistic sales and profit targets for each winery pre-opening. Interestingly, the concept of charging a tasting fee has been resolved explicitly in favour of not doing so.

Contrasting this Barossa located operation with those trading in metropolitan areas, Johnson was upbeat about a rural ambience, saying, “We are fortunate that while we are nestled into the hillside and surrounded by vineyards with fantastic views, we do not have the burden of a working winery onsite. There is nothing glamorous about a waste water recovery system.”

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

CELLAR DOORS

Marketing collateral could have been a minefield but, again, each winery happily subjugated its specific personality. As Sally was at pains to point out, “Again, the brand has its own identity and marketing collateral so this never really became an issue.”

Although not set up as a brand-specific CDS outlet, another among the increasing number of city-dwelling cellar doors is The National Wine Centre, right in the heart of the Adelaide CBD. The centre chooses the brands it stocks based on the potential return on investment and whether they possess a strong (and marketable) unique selling proposition.

The centre focusses heavily on Australia’s wine industry history, offering a free ‘Journey of Discovery’ tour with interactive video, varietal tasting vials and visually attractive walk-through exhibits. On a recent visit, I was refreshed to push buttons on labelled vials where aromas of that variety filled the air near the canisters. This is a powerful memory booster and was popular as an educational tool that day. A visitor to the centre, oenology graduate Andrew Dix, said: “This is a plus for tourists because they have a chance to build sensory confidence through knowing what to expect from each of the grape varieties.”

Although not currently charging for tastings, the centre offers well-priced flights of wines in slightly more than a 30mL tasting amount yet (happily) less than a full 100mL glass measure. At the centre, a ‘tried and true’ fortnightly series of events titled ‘Uncorked’ are run with big numbers attending. These packed sessions seem to augment the fairly ‘dry’ historical dimensions of the centre.

Every second Friday from 4.30pm to 7.30pm, a different wine brand is on tasting, with wines available for purchase by the glass, served with good quality finger food designed to show up the fruit characters of the wine. ‘Meet the maker’ masterclasses conducted by winemakers are popular because visitors can taste every wine before purchasing by the glass or bottle. Designed to increase consumer palate confidence, proof of the value of these classes is the growth in numbers. Over a three-year period ending this financial year, the centre recorded a strong increase of 13% year-on-year in numbers attending its fortnightly ‘Uncorked’ events, although figures for the same period for the ‘Meet the maker’ masterclasses showed unchanged numbers.

These figures reinforce the notion that people are preferring a looser, unstructured tasting experience.

Yet another clever cellar door innovation is a partner program brokered by Oakvale Wines, in the Hunter Valley. In the cellar door I spoke with Oakvale’s marketing specialist Kateland Carr.

“We ask our tasters at cellar door to pay a $5 ‘tasting donation’ which we redirect toward making 65,000 piccolo bottles of wine.

We then donate the wines to Meals On Wheels,” she explained.

The more agreeable customers, the more work can be done to provide small bottles to Meals On Wheels recipients who look forward to a glass of wine with their meal.

According to Oakvale’s chief executive Les McDonald: “When we partnered up with Meals On Wheels, we checked up. We think this is a world thirst (sic), I mean first.” Oakvale continues to hear stories of people literally “standing at their front door with empty glasses, waiting for wine with their meal,” McDonald said. “It’s all about us enriching life’s experiences…and why not do it with a glass of wine - it hasn’t hurt me much in over 30 years,” he said. Carr added: “It’s our longer-term goal to make this idea go national, not just a Hunter Valley undertaking. It looks like we’ll achieve that vision.”

No matter whether a wine company chooses to charge for tastings or not, whether its CDS is located in metropolitan areas or not, there are clearly imperatives for efficient, profitable operations, those being: provision of value-added, hedonistic experiences that are unique to the brand, or a charitable link with a win-win outcome, or a stand-alone educational experience WVJ made to be interactive.

V3 0N 5

BUSINESS MARKETING N E&W S

HANDY CONTACTS CELLAR DOORS LOCATED IN METRO AREAS Clovely Estate, Red Hill, Queensland, phone (07) 3876 3100, website www.clovely.com.au Magill Estate, 78 Penfold Road, Magill, South Australia, phone (08) 8301 5569, website www.penfold.com Tomich, 87 King William Road, Unley, South Australia phone (08) 8299 7500, website www.tomichwines.com ARTISANS OF BAROSSA Co-located cellar door operation, contact Sally Johnson, phone (08) 8563 3935 OAKVALE WINES An example of linking with a charity to enrich lives entwines with wine to build brand loyalty 1596 Broke Road, Pokolbin, New South Wales, phone (02) 4998 7085, website www.oakvalewines.com.au

premium timber packaging ISPM -15 CERTIFIED FOR EXPORT

process packaging pallets fumigation timber display boxes labelling/delabelling bins/crates

p: 08 8562 4855

e: rick:collis@barossaent.com.au

www.barossaent.com.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

63

BUSINESS MARKETING N E& W S

CELLAR DOORS

South Australia weighs up plan to swap cellar door subsidy with ‘industry fund’ In the wake of the Western Australian Government’s decision to do away with its cellar door subsidy scheme from 1 July this year, the South Australian wine industry has been asked for its views on a proposal to abolish its scheme in a favour of a fund aimed at better meeting its current challenges.

By Sonya Logan

A

South Australian Government proposal to remove the state’s cellar door subsidy scheme in favour of a fund that could better meet the needs of the local wine industry has been met with mixed views by the South Australian Wine Industry Association (SAWIA).

In June, the government asked Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA) to consult with the wine industry on the proposal to scrap the scheme, which has paid an average of $2.7 million annually over the past five years to producers whose domestic sales exceed more than $1million a year in the form of a subsidy on cellar door sales up to $50,000 per annum. In 2013-14, 48 producers claimed the rebate representing nearly $2.8 million in subsidies. The Government has suggested the scheme be replaced with a $1.8 million-a-year industry fund that “could have a more strategic approach to industry development”, to quote the discussion paper released to industry for comment.

“The subsidy scheme is inflexible and restricts government from strategically allocating resources that will develop the South Australian wine industry. The majority of wine producers do not meet the sales criteria of the subsidy scheme,” the discussion paper noted. It also said that some regions benefitted more than others from the scheme, with 42.5% of claims in 2013 coming from the Barossa and McLaren Vale and less than 5% from the Riverland and Langhorne Creek.

An industry fund, says the discussion paper, “could have a broader focus and achieve industry and regional development objectives.” It is proposed the fund would be administered by PIRSA and could be used to finance regional wine tourism initiatives, support cellar door-related developments, and new major wine events showcasing South Australian and regional wine in Australia and overseas.

The proposal follows the Western Australian Government’s decision to abolish its cellar door subsidy from 1 July this year, meaning Victoria and South Australia are the only states that administer such a scheme in Australia, with the New South Wales government cutting its subsidy in 2012.

No other state government has set up a ‘fund’ like that proposed by the SA Government as a result of abolishing its subsidy.

Brian Smedley, chief executive of SAWIA, said in its submission to PIRSA on the proposal, his organisation had noted that there were “sound reasons” for the subsidy to continue for all recipients.

“If recipients have made effective use of the subsidy to make material improvement and undertake operations that advantage their businesses then benefits flow to other wine businesses and also the wine regions,” Smedley said. “Withdrawal of the subsidy will impact on jobs and delay or defer other planned business improvements.”

Smedley said if the Government was determined to abolish the subsidy, SAWIA recommended changes that were “crucial” to address the concerns raised by the current recipients of the subsidy about the proposal. These included delaying the withdrawal of the subsidy to 1 July 2016, as many recipients had already committed the funding from the subsidy to operational

The South Australian Wine Industry Association believes there are “sound reasons” for the state’s cellar door subsidy to continue but says if the Government is determined to abolish it, there are changes that are “crucial” in addressing the concerns about the proposal to replace it with an ‘industry fund’ by the current recipients of the subsidy. budgets, allowing a transition time for wine companies to prepare for its abolition.

He added that the amount allocated to any replacement ‘fund’ should reflect the $2.6m the State Government had budgeted for the cellar door subsidy in 2015-16, not the $1.8m suggested. He said the difference in the offer of funding for such a fund had not been effectively explained.

“Our proposal would give the Government some future benefit as it would effectively cap the amount at a time when the wine industry is re-building and the Government should provide a commitment to continue this funding as an annual amount into the future. Without such a commitment, the proposed wine industry fund will generate greater financial risk to cellar door businesses as there is currently no guarantee that existing funding levels will be maintained,” Smedley said.

He said SAWIA’s submission also stressed the wine industry was best placed to determine what programs and project initiatives should be funded.

“Flexibility to use the funds consistent with agreed criteria would be the most effective way of determining the purpose for using funds. Programs or projects could be raised at a regional level or at a state level and therefore benefits flow to a group of individual businesses, a region as a whole or the whole state industry. To that end, Government and industry should work to agree on the criteria that will guide the use of funding.”

Smedly said there were also strong views that the name of such a fund should have a different name rather than the ‘wine industry fund’.

“There are too many funds within industry and government with similar names and this would simply add to and create confusion,” he said.

A report summarising the stakeholder feedback on the proposal was expected sometime in October. This information will be used to form recommendations that will be put to Government for it to make a final decision on the proposal.

WVJ

64

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

BRANDING

BUSINESS MARKETING N E&W S

Four tips to create a potent wine brand

By Dan Ratner, Managing Director, uberbrand, Woolloomooloo, New South Wales

uberbrand has identified four tips to help consumers navigate their way through the sea of wine labels on liquor store shelves.

W

ith the abundance of wine brands on the market, consumers have become overwhelmed with the choices available, making it harder for them to distinguish between labels. The choice will only get more difficult. With total production topping 700 million litres (and exports valued at $1.85 billion) over the past 12 months1, the Australian wine industry’s production is continuing to grow.

The past five years have seen difficult trading conditions for the industry2. Volatile demand from key export markets and increased competition from low-cost overseas wine producers has affected local producers. This highly competitive market creates a glut of options for consumers.

This means that from the moment consumers walk into a liquor store, they are confronted with a wall of similarlooking bottles on shelves. It’s interesting to note that on top of mandatory packaging requirements, consumers expect the wine category to look a certain way and will most likely choose products that meet those expectations. For example, a red wine in a dark green bottle, or a value wine in a box?

These circumstances limit the ability for products to stand out. The average consumer often uses decision-making short cuts by choosing brands he or she has experienced before. Others may choose based on their knowledge of the winemaking region or the vintage. This can make a relatively simple purchasing decision very difficult.

Wine producers need to help consumers navigate their way through the sea of choices by using clear and consistent brand communications to cut through the clutter. uberbrand has identified four tips to help wine labels shine.

On top of mandatory packaging requirements, consumers expect the wine category to look a certain way and will most likely choose product that meet those expectations, such as a red wine in a dark green bottle. This limits the ability for products to stand out.

Graphic Language DESIGN

In today’s market, the visual communication of your brand is integral to its success. From the design of your identity, labels, corporate material and website, we’ll ensure that your brand consistency is upheld.

We’d love to collaborate with you!

Telephone us or visit our studio, 202 Gilbert St, Adelaide, SA 5000 t 08232 3577 | e info@gldesign.com.au

Use brand packaging to communicate identity When it comes to branding it’s important to understand that everything communicates. This makes the wine label one of the biggest brand touch points. It provides the opportunity to set the promise by linking the identity of the brand to the product itself.

A smart wine label answers questions consumers might have and is a critical communication gateway in the consumer journey.

Remember, a brand is more than just a logo. It’s the perceptions held in the minds of customers. This means the label should communicate the type of impression the wine producer would like to create in the mind of the customer.

Stylistic elements of the label such as colour, imagery, messaging, label substrate material and shape can help communicate the brand’s identity. For example, if the wine producer wants to create the impression of a more established and traditional winemaker, a scripted font with an elegant vineyard sketch might be chosen. Alternatively, if the winery wants to show its modern approach, using a bold typeface and bright colours might be good options. Whatever the impression the winery would like to make on its customers, it should be ▶ clearly communicated on the label.

Wine Export Approval Report, The Australian Grape and Wine Authority, March 2015.

1

Wine Production Market Research Report, IBIS World, April 2015.

2

V3 0N 5

Brand integrity with strong shelf presence

communicate. collaborate. create. www.gldesign.com.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

65

BUSINESS MARKETING N E& W S

BRANDING

Tell a story Every brand has a story to tell. Perhaps customers are particularity interested in the journey of their grapes. The label is the perfect place to communicate this. This approach opens up storytelling opportunities about where the grapes are grown, what environmental influences contribute to the wine’s distinctive flavour and how the winemaking process creates the final flavour. These stories can be told through imagery or embodied in the copy on the label.

To tell a story that stands out on the shelf, consider the brand’s personality and how it should make people feel. The story should bring the brand to life through tone of voice, colours and imagery.

For example, if the wine producer wants to develop a story around the label’s distinctive flavour, use a colour scale that encourages associations with that flavour. For example, an orange label will help evoke associations with citrus flavours.

channels, like packaging and marketing materials, to further reinforce the consumers’ emotional connection.

Share common values Company values can be used to differentiate a product.

Wine producers who openly communicate their brand values may attract consumers that share them, making for a stronger connection and experience with a brand.

For example, an organic wine producer is likely to have similar values to a consumer who values environmental sustainability or healthy living. Shared values can reinforce the ‘feel good’ effect the consumer has when they know they’ve made a great choice.

In this scenario, the winery can create a strong relationship with the consumer by making its organic farming techniques the focus of its overarching message.

This can be spread across all of its brand communication

Consumers may be overloaded with bottles on the shelf.

Winemakers need to help make their choice easier by taking steps to differentiate their products through branding. By communicating your identity, telling your story, sharing your values and making an emotional connection with consumers, your wine has the best chance to stand out on the store WVJ shelf.

Create an emotional connection Wine carries strong connotations for many people. It’s usually associated with positive experiences, such as a great meal or a celebration. To leverage these associations, a winery needs to create an emotional connection with its customers.

The wine buying process itself is complex, with a high degree of associated risk perceived by consumers3. This is because when consumers purchase wine, they are purchasing a sensory experience. Consumers view choices in wines as intimate reflections of taste, style and status.

Consumers are taking a risk by buying a product they’ve never tried before, so building an emotional attachment associated with the brand will help build trust in a product.

This can be a powerful way to cut through the clutter.

Consumer behaviour and sensory preference differences: implications for wine product marketing, Journal of Consumer Marketing, January 2015.

3

BUY • SELL • NEW • USED

The leading online exchange for the wine industry Post your listing online for: Grapes and Bulk Wine

Used Equipment

Searching is FREE. Posting is FREE

Searching is FREE. Posting is FREE

Used Barrels

Real Estate/Property

Searching is FREE. Posting is FREE

Searching is FREE. Posting is FREE

Winejobs.com.au Searching is FREE. Posting from $65.00

www.winetitlesclassifieds.com.au T: +618 8369 9500 F: +618 8369 9501 E: classifieds@winetitles.com.au W: www.winetitles.com.au

66

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

PINOT NOIR

BUSINESS MARKETING N E&W S

A snapshot of Australian Pinot Noir production and purchases

By Mark Rowley, Industry Analyst, Wine Australia

O

f the noble varieties, Pinot Noir is an outlier not just in the vineyard but also in the marketplace.

Although the market is the focus of this article, in the vineyard the variety is notoriously fickle and, with its thin skin, is prone to frost and disease. These traits actually help shape the market, making it hard to profitably access entry-level price segments.

Pinot Noir was made famous as Burgundy’s most commonly used varietal.

However, unlike many of the other major varieties, not one country has taken leadership. Instead of a particulalr country, regions have taken on the variety as a flagship. Regions that are noted for their Pinots include: Oregan and Russian River – US, Walker Bay – South Africa, Central Otago – New Zealand, and Australia’s Tasmania and Port Phillip regions; Mornington Peninsula and Yarra Valley in particular.

This lack of a region or country being synomous with Pinot Noir means opportunities are open for expressions of the varietal from all corners of the planet. More importantly, the opportunities continue to increase. For example, Pinot Noir sales in Australia were up 14 percent in 2014–15. Furthemore, sales in our other key export markets recorded solid gains: the United Kingdom (sales up 18%), the United States (sales up 9%) and Canada (sales up 4%).

Pinot Noir is generally expected to benefit from cooler conditions and Australia’s plantings reflect this. Careful selection of site is important. Figure 1 illustrates where Australia’s Pinot Noir plantings are located. The regions of Yarra Valley (735 hectares), Tasmania (569ha), Adelaide Hills (533ha) and Mornignton Penisnsula (372ha) are home to the biggest plantings. With these regions being the front runners, it should alert the reader to the premium nature of the Australia’s Pinot production.

The increasing prices paid for Australian Pinot Noir gives an indication that consumer demand has been increasing.

Figure 2 demonstrates that the average price paid for cool/temperate climate1 1 The cool/temperate vs. warm climate definition separates the warmer inland regions of Riverland, Riverina, Murray Darling-Swan Hill from all other regions.

V3 0N 5

Figure 1. Pinot Noir plantings by region – 2012. Source: ABS Vineyards Survey

Figure 2. Average price paid for Pinot Noir. Source: Wine Australia Pinot Noir has been on a gradual upward trend since 2011. In 2015, the average price for cool/temperate climate Pinot Noir increased by 4% to $1433 per tonne.

Conversely, the average price paid for warm inland Pinot Noir declined by 4% to $368 per tonne. These contrasting trends are partly driven by the market, which is demanding more higher-priced Pinot Noir

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

whereas sales of mid- to low-priced Pinot Noir have been flat in key markets.

The regions in which Pinot Noir is predominately grown are relatively more domestically focussed. These regions export a much lower proportion of their wine production than the Australian average, which is approximately 60%.

Adelaide Hills (18% share), Yarra Valley

www.winetitles. com . au

67

BUSINESS MARKETING N E& W S

PINOT NOIR

Figure 3. Australian exports of Pinot Noir and estimated Pinot Noir wine production. Source: Wine Australia

Figure 5. Growth of Australian exports of bottled Pinot Noir by price segment – 2014-15. Source: Wine Australia

Figure 4. Australian exports of bottled Pinot Noir by price segment – 2014-15. Source: Wine Australia

Figure 6. Australian exports of Pinot Noir by destination 2014-15. Source: Wine Australia

(16% share), Tasmania (10% share) and Mornington Peninsula (8% share) are on the lower end of the spectrum in terms of export share.

These regions’ domestic focus is expected as they are located within close to proximity to large cities and are key tourist destinations. The region’s wineries are also generally on the smaller end of the spectrum, meaning export may not be a focus for a number of reasons. This has the effect that Australia’s best Pinot Noir is more often than not consumed domestically. Figure 3 illustrates total exports of Pinot Noir vs. estimated production.

Overall, just 37% of Australia’s Pinot is exported. This is a much lower figure than the estimates for Shiraz (67% exported), Chardonnay (68% exported), Cabernet Sauvignon (62% exported) and Pinot Gris (90% exported).

Like most of Australia’s bottle wine exports, the biggest price segment for bottled Pinot Noir is the $2.50 to $4.99 per litre segment. By value, the second largest segment is the $10.00 to $19.99 per litre segment (Figure 4). Figure 5 illustrates the price segments in which there has been movement over the past year.

There have been contrasting results for the two major segments with the $2.50 to $4.99 declining by 10% whereas the $10.00 to $19.99 segment increased by 16%. The trend is clear; Pinot Noir above $5.00 per litre has been increasing whereas the two segments under this level have been in decline. This growth in the upper price segments and declining lower price segments may be a factor driving the contrasting pricing results for warm and cool/ temperate climate Pinot Noir.

68

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

Figure 7. Top markets for Pinot Noir where the varietal is a top five red varietal – 2014. Source: Euromonitor Figure 6 illustrates the export markets where Australian Pinot Noir is sent. The US is not only the largest export destination for Australian Pinot Noir but is also the largest market for Pinot in the world (see Figure 7). Against the trend of increasing Pinot sales, exports of Australian Pinot declined by 6% to 4.0 million litres in 2014-15. This result was in contrast to the UK (up 22% to 2.4 million litres) where Pinot sales have been increasing strongly. Exports to New Zealand

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

PINOT NOIR

BUSINESS MARKETING N E&W S

Australia

The United States is not only the largest export destination for Australian Pinot Noir but is also the largest market for Pinot in the world.

Cases

Growth

Segment share

Segment 1 <3.49

-

-

0%

0%

160,783

14%

2%

Segment 2 : 3.50-4.99

-

-

0%

0%

281,161

-4%

4%

Segment 3: 5.00-7.99

280,274

-6%

88%

12%

2,329,313

-4%

35%

Segment 4: 8.00-10.99

5,109

-15%

2%

0.3%

1,954,463

5%

29%

Segment 5: 11.00-14.99

32,267

32%

10%

3.1%

1,050,838

16%

16%

Segment 6: 15.00-19.99

324

128%

0%

0.1%

513,100

14%

8%

Segment 7: 20+

were down by 15% to 0.8 million litres.

Exports to China increased strongly, up 283% to 0.7 million litres.

The US is easily the largest market for Pinot Noir. However, it must be noted that data for Pinot Noir sales is only available for countries where the varietal is in the top five reds. A notable exception to Figure 7 is China, where Cabernet Franc is ranked higher. Another nuance is conflicting data sources. The figure shows that Pinot Noir sales in the UK recorded a decline. However, this conflicts with Information Resources Incorporated (IRI) data, which recorded growth of 9% in the off-trade in 2014–15.

As the US is the largest Pinot Noir market, it warrants a more in-depth examination. This time the two datasets are consistent, with the IRI data recording overall growth of 5% to 6.7 million cases

Total Market Aust.

Market share

Grand Total

Cases

Growth

Segment share

387

9%

0%

0.1%

432,057

29%

6%

318,361

-3%

100%

4.7%

6,721,715

5%

100%

Table 1. Off-trade Pinot Noir sales in the United States – 2014-15. Source: IRI (see Table 1). Consistent with Australia’s exports declining, the data shows the Australian Pinot Noir segment in decline – down 3% to 318,000 cases.

Similarly to Australia’s exports, lower price segments are in retreat, whereas upper price segments are recording strong growth. The strongest segment in the market was the above $20 per bottle segment – up 29% to 432,000 cases.

Australia’s strongest segment was the $15 to $19.99 per bottle segment, which grew from a small base by 128% to 324 cases.

The actual opportunity for Australian Pinot Noir is much greater than this data suggests, as this does not include sales

in channels such as on-premise, online and data from many smaller independent retailers.

Australian Pinot Noir is world class and there are awards to prove as such. For example, the Marchand and Burch 2012 Mount Barrow Pinot Noir was awarded a gold medal in Decanter’s 2015 World Wine Awards. However, arguably, the recognition of Australian Pinot Noir could be greater. Of Australia’s 54 gold medals and international and regional trophies, just one was a Pinot Noir. Markets are looking for fine Pinot Noir – and it only seems fair that Australia shares our great WVJ Pinots with them.

Wine Industry Calendar Australia’s wine industry portal by Winetitles

JAN MAY

JUN

Visit

JUL OCT Created and managed by

V3 0N 5

Comprehensive list of local and international events and courses.

Search for wine shows, conferences, trade shows, and more!

www.winebiz.com.au/calendar DEC

for more information!

Got an event to promote?

Email wid@winetitles.com.au W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

69

BUSINESS MARKETING N E&W S

APPS & OPS

ADVERTORIAL

For our third Apps & Ops column - where we’ve been profiling applications and operating systems designed to make running wine businesses easier, create better efficiencies and improve their bottom line - we talked with Vanessa Moore, senior principal consultant for Moore McPhee, distributors for IQMS, which offers a suite of tools to manage wineries’ compliance obligations across a range of international and in-house standards, reducing their costs of doing so and ensuring they are compliant throughout the year.

The gold standard in Standards management

By Vanessa Moore, Senior Principal Consultant, Moore McPhee, work health & safety consultants and distributors for IQMS Systems Management

In a nutshell, what is IQMS Systems Management?

IQMS delivers systems on a Microsoft SharePoint platform to manage a wide range of international and private standards across a diverse range of business and markets. Its key features for our clients include: • ease of use • achieve certification at every audit • improve business processes • save time and money • achieve compliance from operational use of the system.

IQMS is available to small and large businesses using a variety of delivery platforms from in-house platforms, third party cloud servers or the IQMS software as a service-dedicated server.

IQMS also offers the opportunity for businesses to outsource the management of their Quality, Work Health and Safety and HR systems. This service is provided by qualified and experienced consultants that can assist and guide staff to ensure compliance across many standards and systems.

What was the reason behind IQMS’ development?

The developer was working as a consultant and observed how business failed to keep current with many of the routine requirements of Standards and the resulting cost of having to take remedial actions and the cost of the non-conformances. So, he identified the key areas that caused these problems and went about developing systems to manage these areas.

What does IQMS bring to the market that differs from other similar products?

Using the cloud provides the ability to have access from anywhere with an internet connection and that, in turn, allows the systems to be a virtual QA manager by sending information about the processes and the systems and controls to the relevant people. It also follows up if things are not completed. It is designed to reduce the cost of compliance across all systems so businesses can just get on with their core needs while being compliant throughout the whole year.

Explain IQMS’ suitability to wine companies?

The system is well suited to wine companies struggling to manage their compliance systems. System modules can be added as the company grows and can cover all management issues from customer relationships management through to process management, work health and safety, certification systems and so on.

How does IQMS integrate with similar systems a wine company might already be operating?

IQMS can be linked to other systems in several ways and in itself manages much of the key areas of operations. So it can interact but it may even replace some systems. In short, it simplifies how you manage and saves unnecessary work practices and non-productive actions.

70

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

IQMS can help wineries manage a wide variety of international and in-house standards.

How easy is IQMS to operate?

Very easy. It uses common Microsoft documentation and the platform can be learned in a few hours of training. Plus, it comes with a library of documentation on how to do a number of tasks that can be referred to. Businesses can also choose to have a support package if they have any concerns.

How long has IQMS been available to the wine industry in Australia or overseas?

IQMS has been available in various forms for more than 20 years both in Australia and New Zealand. The cloud version has really opened up the options for users and that has been available for nearly four years.

Can you name a few wineries in Australia already making use of IQMS? Angoves, Serifino, Kingston Estate and a number of contract bottling halls for the Portavin Group and Vin Pro in New Zealand.

Can you give a rough guide on how much it would cost to purchase IQMS, what is included in the price and any ongoing operating costs?

IQMS build a system to the requirements of the customer.

There are many options and enhancements available so there is no one-size-fits-all and you can add things like project management and customer relationship management. Or, you can choose to outsource the management to consultants. So, there are a wide range of possible prices, from small systems starting at around $2000-$3000 up to very large systems around $25,000-35,000 and monthly access fees.

Is there anything else you’d like wine companies to know about IQMS? It is important to look at the payback outcome of IQMS. Because of the savings that IQMS can bring, often payback can be as quick as a few months to up to 12 months very large multiple site management systems.

For further information call: Moore McPhee WHS Consultants Pty Ltd on 1300 362 351.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

WVJ

V30N5

VA R I E TA L R E P O R T

Going uphill and down dale to produce top Riesling in the Clare and Eden Valleys Of the top wines in our recent tasting of Clare and Eden Valley Rieslings from the 2015, 2014 and 2013 vintages (see page 76 for full results), we selected two from each region and asked their makers to provide some particulars on the wines’ journeys from vineyard to market.

Ian Hongell, Chief Winemaker Andrew Wigan, Winemaking Ambassador Nigel Blieschke, Viticulturist Peter Lehmann Wines Barossa Valley, South Australia Wine: Peter Lehmann 2014 Masters Wigan Eden Valley Riesling (RRP$32.00/bottle) VITICULTURE The fruit for this wine was sourced from a vineyard owned by the Zander family and located on Tanunda Creek Road, in Eden Valley. The site has an elevation of 510 metres above sea level and has a predominantly easterlyfacing aspect, although there are some western-facing slopes as the vineyard is located on the top of a ridge.

The vines grow in a shallow podsolic soil over sandstone, schist and quartz.

It is a cold site with temperatures experienced similar to other high Eden Valley sites. There is limited risk of frost on the eastern slope but the vineyard has a lower-lying area which is frost prone as cold air pools alongs creek line.

The vines were planted in 2002 and 2003. All the vines planted in 2002, which totalled 3.5 hectares, were clone GM 198; the 2003 plantings (4ha) comprised clones GM 239, GM 198, GM110 and I10V14. All the vines are on rootstocks: all the 2002 plantings and the I10V14 vines established in 2003 are on Paulson rootstock. The remainder of the 2003 plantings are on own roots.

The vines are bilaterally trained to a single wire and spur pruned with a catch wire at 30cm. The have a 3.3m row spacing and 1.8m vine spacing.

All the vines are irrigated with dam water via sub-surface drip irrigation.

There are six G-bug monitoring sites across the block. Approximately 1ML/ha is applied annually dependant on the soil moisture monitoring, with most of that occurring during summer rather than spring.

A mid-row sward is maintained using a mix of annual and perennial grasses and legumes.

The vines are mechanically prepruned followed by a detailed spur pruning to 20-30 buds per vine.

There were no disease concerns in these vines in 2014 but botrytis can be

an issue in wet seasons. Given the vines have an open canopy and are on a windy site, disease pressure is generally low.

As the site has a predominantly easterly aspect, sunburn is not a big issue but in the event of a hot/dry season, there is a need to maintain a canopy to limit sunburn. If water is limited then this can become an issue.

The vineyard has had mulch applied to hilltop areas to help maintain soil moisture.

Baume levels are watched closely as harvest nears as we don’t want overripe or under-ripe fruit.

Yields range from 7.41-12.36t/ha; in 2014 the yield was 7.74t/ha.

WINEMAKING The fruit is picked at night by machine and delivered to the winery as quickly as possible to minimise skin contact. Only the free run juice, which has been drained through a Miller drainer, is used and it is cold settled overnight to clarity and then fermented at 12-13°C by a neutral yeast. If fining is required this is done at the juice stage prior to clarification.

Following fermentation the wine is centrifuged, bentonite fined and then cold stabilised prior to bottling.

We find that it is important to pick the fruit early in order to maintain delicacy in the style.

MARKETING

Standing in the Zander vineyard that supplied the grapes for the 2014 Wigan are Ian Hongell (left), chief winemaker, and Andrew Wigan, winemaking ambassador, at Peter Lehmann Wines.

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

The Wigan Eden Valley Riesling is released in very limited quantities as a five-year-old wine to demonstrate just how well great Eden Valley Riesling can look with some bottle age. Each year the best and most delicate parcels of Eden Valley Riesling are selected from one of our nine growers in Eden Valley. We find that different vineyards come up in different years.

The wine is available at cellar door, on-premise and fine wine retail outlets.

The style has not really changed since the first release which was from the 2003 vintage and its complexity makes it an ideal food wine.

▶

www.winetitles. com . au

71

VA R I E TA L R E P O R T

Chris Rogers, Viticulturist Toby Barlow, Senior Winemaker Luke Tyler, Marketing Manager St Hallett Barossa Valley, South Australia Wine: St Hallett 2015 Eden Valley Riesling (RRP$19.95/bottle) VITICULTURE St Hallett sources its Eden Valley Riesling from three grower vineyards.

The percentage of each vineyard in the final blend varies from year to year with the aim of making the best and most consistent wine possible. The three vineyard sites are in the Flaxman Valley (Wyncroft), Springton (Avon Brae) and Moculta (Fechner) areas of the Eden Valley GI. Within each vineyard there are several blocks, each of which is harvested and fermented separately. This diversity provides an important spectrum of flavours, maturities and styles to work with in the winery, but is also important in spreading risk and providing flexibility with vintage logistics.

The climate varies significantly across the Eden Valley GI due to variations in elevation, but also mesoclimatic factors such as aspect and wind. Some typically quoted climatic statistics for Eden Valley are a mean January temperature of 20.3°C and an annual rainfall of 684mm.

There is some frost risk at Avon Brae due to its flatter topography, although this is largely mitigated by the use of frost fans.

The Wyncroft vineyard is the coolest and most elevated of the three sites at 460 metres, and has a mostly easterly aspect. Soils here are typical of Eden Valley: shallow, grey-coloured, light, sandy clay loams over yellow clay or sandstone, with a high content of quartz.

They generally have a low fertility and

are moderately acidic, but are welldrained on slopes. The soils at the Avon Brae vineyard are similar to Wyncroft, whereas the Fechner vineyard at Moculta has deeper red brown clay loams over limestone.

In the Wyncroft and Avon Brae vineyards, mid-row grasses are encouraged and under-vine straw or compost mulches are also used. Winter cereal cover-cropping is used in the Fechner vineyard which is either mown or cultivated in spring.

All blocks are on own-roots with vine age varying from 10 to 80 years. We are unsure of the clones although the majority of the Wyncroft vineyard was probably planted with material from Pewsey Vale.

We don’t consider vine age as critical to high quality Riesling as vine health, balance and canopy architecture. Younger vines can sometimes provide more aromatics, but older vines do seem to offer more palate complexity.

All three vineyards use single wire trellising, with vine spacing varying from 2.75m x 1.8m to 3.6m x 2.1m. Most blocks are hand spur-pruned but some older blocks are cane pruned. All vineyards use drip irrigation (dam or bore) with quite frequent irrigations during the summer months – at least weekly. Row orientation varies between blocks although east-west is preferred to reduce fruit exposure to the hot afternoon sun.

No canopy or crop manipulation is required due to appropriate pruning, and the inherently low vigour of these vineyards. Shading of bunches is very important to reduce the risk of sunburn and high skin phenolics, and to provide better retention of acidity and aromatics.

In recent years ‘screen’ products have also been used prior to forecast heatwaves to reduce the risk of sunburn and leaf

scorch. These products have proven to be quite effective in our experience.

We find that maintaining at least a moderate nitrogen status is important in Riesling to support good canopy growth and heat tolerance, and to ensure sufficient juice YAN levels for healthy fermentation and aromatics. Nutrient inputs typically consist of Neutrog or DAP, and some nitrogen and phosphorus through the drippers during the season and/or post-harvest.

Despite the cooler and wetter climate of Eden Valley, disease and pest risk is arguably quite low. The risk of downy mildew is very low, and a fairly standard spray program provides good control of powdery mildew. Sometimes a spray for light brown apple moth is required.

Botrytis is a risk in Riesling but it rarely presents a problem in low vigour blocks. A botryticide is usually applied at flowering as insurance against latent infection, and also at bunch closure if the season warrants it. Bird netting is used at Wyncroft due to nearby native vegetation and the many resident parrots that like Riesling as much as we do!

Whilst Riesling is generally a reasonably consistent yielding variety, yields vary a lot between blocks due to soil and vine age. Typical yields would range from five to eight tonnes per hectare.

Picking decisions are very much about varietal flavour and acidity. We don’t pick on Baume, but we do look closely at pH and TA from grape maturity samples.

Regular monitoring of flavour in the vineyard from about 10 Baume onwards is very important as flavour can kick in quite quickly and early in some vintages.

Very often we will schedule harvesting with the grower as soon as we see early signs of varietal flavours developing (i.e. terpenes, citrus, florals). For our style of Riesling, we find it important to pick with high natural acidity, and before the flavours go too far and become musklike or oily. We find this is especially important in warmer vintages, and on more exposed blocks.

A typical analysis at harvest: Baume 11.0 pH 3.05 TA 8.5 WINEMAKING

St Hallett viticulturist Chris Rogers (left) and senior winemaker Toby Barlow (right).

72

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

The majority of our Riesling is machine harvested with a few smaller areas handpicked. We always seek to machine harvest in the early hours of the morning to ensure delivery temperature is between 10-12°C and, most importantly, to minimise the time between picking and pressing. Sulfur dioxide is added to the bins in the vineyard at 80ppm.

V30N5

VA R I E TA L R E P O R T

At delivery the grapes are immediately de-stemmed into the press with no must chilling. Press cuts are made at the winemaker’s discretion but usually sit between 400- 550L/tonne depending on vintage conditions. There is some higher tolerance for phenolics in the juice as they contribute to the style of wine. The juice then rests in tank for approximately four to six hours at 12-14°C before it is floated in place using a small Juclas unit. The flotation process is usually between one to two hours depending on the volume in the tank. Post float, the juice then rests for another eight to 12 hours and is racked off the bottom valve the next morning. SO2 additions are kept at a minimum during the flotation and rising process and usually there is no addition to the juice after the PMS in the vineyard. This keeps total and free SO2 concentrations low to enable good yeast acclimatisation.

Post racking the juice is typically between 70-100NTU and at 15°C. We assess for any fining required but typically free run receives zero fining as a few phenolics at the finish help frame the wine. Yeast is propagated in separate tanks with temperature control and air injection and usually takes approximately 48hrs to achieve the target of 200 x 106 cells per mL. The inoculum is added at approximately 2% of tank volume which by the time we rack is typically at 15°C and ready to inoculate.

Fermentation temperatures range from 12-14°C typically for 14-16 days. The key focus is really to just let them be and not shock them too much by large temperature variations. We focus on keeping each parcel and press fraction separate until blending to enable us to learn about the vineyard and the winemaking decisions for that block in the future. The wine is left on yeast lees for about two months before blending, stabilisation, crossflow filtration and bottling. Our goal is to get our acidity right in the vineyard hence, no acidity adjustments are required in the winery.

The main changes in the winemaking method over the past five years have been a reduction in fining of free run juice, the adoption of flotation which means less SO2, no chilling or warming of juices and also a change of yeast selection for certain vineyards to R-HST. MARKETING Our Eden Valley Riesling is the most awarded wine in the St Hallett portfolio which it shares with more high profile Shiraz wines such as Faith, Blackwell and Old Block.

All the grapes for St Hallett wines are sourced from the Barossa GI with Shiraz the dominant variety. The St Hallett

V3 0N 5

message is a simple one: specialists in what Barossa does best, in red varieties it is Shiraz and in white it’s Riesling.

This focussed approach has allowed for consistent messaging over a long period.

The Eden Valley Riesling is mainly sold in Australia with a national footprint. It is sold through direct-to-consumer channels, on-premise, off-premise, independent retail outlets and with Vintage Cellars. St Hallett is distributed by Fine Wine Partners which has an enviable Riesling portfolio that includes Petaluma, Knappstein, Pikes and Henschke. Internationally it is sold in Japan, China and Hong Kong.

John Hughes Winemaker/Proprietor Rieslingfreak Clare Valley/Eden Valley, South Australia Wine: Rieslingfreak 2015 No.3 Clare Valley Riesling (RRP$23.00/bottle) VITICULTURE The fruit is sourced from the family property, situated at White Hutt, just north of the Clare Valley township. Situated in its own little subregion, the majority of the vines on the property are growing north-south, with a small block of Riesling growing east-west. The clone used to make the Rieslingfreak No.3 is St Helga.

The vines have an average age of 15 years, and all are planted on single wire cordons. They are all spur pruned. The vineyard is irrigated from both bores and main water. Depending on the vintage, the vines are watered at pre-flowering and veraison. They are then watered once every seven to 10 days to maintain the canopy, and fruit quality.

WINEMAKING With the warm summer Clare experienced this year, the grapes were harvested nearly two weeks earlier than usual. The Riesling was harvested on the 13 February with a Baume of 12.8. All the fruit was machine picked throughout the evening, with the fruit arriving in the winery early morning.

The fruit was then crushed and pressed.

A light pressing of 520L/t was carried out. Enzyme and sulfur was then added to the juice tray, resulting in a free sulfur concentration of around 15-20ppm in tank.

The juice was then left to settle for a week prior to being racked and inoculated with yeast. In previous years the No.3 has been fermented with R2 yeast. This year I was able to complete two separate ferments (50/50 volume) and used R2 and QA23 yeast. As a result, I saw QA23 provide better colour and aromatics to the wine.

The biggest difference was the colour,

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

John Hughes, winemaker and proprietor of Rieslingfreak. with the R2 being much darker in colour.

The juice was then fermented at 13-15°C, taking 12-16 days to complete ferment.

Once the ferments were complete both wines were racked and blended in one tank. The wine was then sulfured and stabilised. The wine was bottled mid-June.

MARKETING With the success of Rieslingfreak and the feedback I am receiving from the market, I believe the demand for Riesling is growing. I believe there is a need for education, as there are still many consumers that think Riesling is a ‘sweet’ wine. I think with the success of Rieslingfreak and other great Riesling producers, we are slowly getting Riesling in the mouths of consumers and changing their perception of this varietal.

Neil Paulett and Kelvin Budarick, Winemakers Matthew Paulett, Vineyard Manager Paulett Wines Polish Hill River, Clare Valley, South Australia Wine: Pauletts 2014 Polish Hill River Riesling (RRP$22.00/bottle) VITICULTURE The fruit for this wine is all estate grown in the Polish Hill River subregion of the Clare Valley. We have eight independent Riesling blocks on our property which gives us an even spread of ripening and subtlety of flavour. Our vineyards generally have an easterly aspect with rows running east/west,

www.winetitles. com . au

73

VA R I E TA L R E P O R T

Neil (left), winemaker, and Matthew Paulett, vineyard manager, of Paulett Wines, in the Polish Hill River region of South Australia’s Clare Valley. although a couple of our older blocks trend more north/south. Our blocks range in altitude from 450-480m above sea level, all on gentle slopes. Air drainage is very good to the extent that we have never had any frost issues.

Soils range from quite heavy and deep, alluvial, black self-mulching with high fertility to the Tapley Hill Formation, which makes up the majority of the soil in our vineyards – shallow, medium brown clayey topsoil over weathered grey clay and siltstone. These soils have low fertility and very good water-holding capability.

The vine ages range from 16 to 46 years old and are grown on own roots. We have no idea what clones we have but do know for certain that one is very good and from which we consistently see and taste quality fruit. When we purchased the property in 1982, the vineyards were typical single wire and sprawl. We converted them to vertical shoot positioning but only run the canes vertically for a short distance then allow them to fall and add some shade, particularly on those few vines that have fruit exposed to the west. Most of the vineyards are planted at a row and vine spacing of 3m by 3m.

Our pruning regime is initially by machine followed by hand to two-bud spurs. We prune to the vigour of the vine and not to any set bud number. We see this as being vital to our quality and consistency of fruit as we do not irrigate.

We stopped the water in 1999 and we found after about four years that the vines had found their own balance and yields became quite consistent at 6.0-6.5 tonnes per hectare. In most years we have good summer rains that see the grapes through to harvest.

We have started a regime of cover cropping every second row to retain and improve soil organic matter. In association with this we have also commenced trials with under vine mulching (Peats nitro mulch), but to date there is no positive effect. We do expect this to show in future years. Prior to this we grew weeds as our cover crop and side slashed under vines to maintain structure and coolness. Weeds give good bulk.

We have few to no disease pressures in typical seasons although there have been some isolated powdery issues in the past. We find that medium to low vigour and openness of the canopy negates disease potential.

2014 was a very good Riesling year.

Good winter rains were followed by a relative dry spring but there was ample soil moisture to sustain the vines. A cool November extended flowering which led to a slight crop reduction from a couple of blocks. Dry and warm conditions to Christmas gave good berry development and much promise. Then came the heat in January with the temperature peaking over 40°C for several consecutive days.

This brought on early veraison and somewhat quicker ripening. Relieving rains arrived mid-February which gave relief to drying soils and thirsty vines.

This rain event seemed to signal the

The fruit for Paulett’s Polish Hill River Riesling is all estate grown. There are eight independent Riesling blocks on the property giving an even spread of ripening and subtlety of flavour

74

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

start of autumn with ensuing mild days and cool nights providing ideal ripening conditions.

WINEMAKING We walk the vineyard looking for our flavours, typically influences of lime and citrus, although these do not always express as such. We also pay particular attention to the quality of the fruit in relation to sunburn (none) and condition and overall balance of the grapes that we taste.

We have no set analytical parameters as balance and flavour become our main determiners.

Harvest across the blocks was from 7-17 March with an average analysis of the following: Baume 12.3 pH 2.9 TA 7.4g/L Grapes are machine harvested in the cool of morning and transported to the winery in 2.5-3.0 tonne parcels. Within 15 minutes of harvest we destem via a must chiller to tank press. The juice is tasted during draining and pressing until phenolics start to show, at which stage the cut between free and pressings is made.

If we consider any balancing adjustments are necessary these are done ex press.

Solids are separated through flotation with the lees filtrate returned to the clear juice for fermentation.

Fermentation occurs over about two weeks and we look for an even fermentation rate at as low a temperature that will sustain this.

Post fermentation the wines are protein and cold stabilised in situ, then racked, crossflow filtered, blended and bottled.

MARKETING Paulett Wines produces sparkling and table wines. The dry Riesling has always been the core wine in the range and with this grape variety we also produce a sparkling Riesling and a slightly sweeter style – the Late Harvest Riesling.

With its crisp, clean flavours of lime and citrus, Riesling is very suited to a wide range of foods and also equally enjoyable without food. Sales to on-premise and off-premise establishments continue to grow steadily.

The wines are sold through distributors within Australia, overseas to the UK and China, and through our cellar door, mailing list and our recently-opened café.

The 2014 Polish Hill River Riesling has been very successful receiving gold medals at the 2014 Royal Adelaide Wine Show and the 2014 Small Winemakers Show.

WVJ

V30N5

W I N E TA S T I N G

Australia’s classic Riesling regions go head-to-head The results of our recent taste-off of young Rieslings from the Clare and Eden Valleys are in!

N

otwithstanding some of the fine examples of Riesling coming out of regions such as Tasmania, Canberra, Western Australia’s Frankland River, and Victoria’s Henty, South Australia’s Clare and Eden Valleys remain the classic regions for this variety in Australia, and our recent blind tasting served to reinforce this view.

Thirty-five young Rieslings – 18 from the Clare Valley and 17 from Eden Valley – were submitted, ranging from a recommended retail price of $20 to $45. Twenty-three were from the 2015 vintage, 10 from 2014 and two from 2013.

While the Wine & Viticulture Journal is not in the habit of publishing scores, we decided for the sake of determining a regional winner to have a bit of a play with the points awarded by our three judges: Andrew Wigan, wine ambassador for Peter Lehmann Wines; Don Young, white wine maker for Pernod Ricard Winemakers; and John Hughes, proprietor and winemaker for Rieslingfreak.

We averaged the scores awarded by each judge for each wine which revealed the following: • 91% of the 35 wines in the tasting received a bronze or higher • 9% received a gold medal, 43% silver and 40% bronze • of the wines from Eden Valley, 12% received gold, 53% silver and 29% bronze • of the wines from the Clare Valley, less than 1% received gold, 33% silver and 50% bronze In short, the standard of the wines overall was quite high, with Eden Valley just pipping Clare for regional honours.

Before the tasting got under way, we asked each taster for their thoughts on the differences between Rieslings from Clare and Eden Valley.

“At Peter Lehmann we tend to regard Eden Valley Rieslings as slightly tighter, more austere wines with a finer backbone and very strong lime juice characters. With Clare Rieslings, we’ve tended to find those wines more floral and upfront as young wines. They’re not quite as tight and closed as Eden Valley Rieslings, and have a slightly richer fragrance,” said Andrew Wigan, adding

Our Rieslings tasters (from left) Andrew Wigan, wine ambassador for Peter Lehmann Wines; Don Young, white wine maker for Pernod Ricard Wineamakers; and John Hughes, proprietor and winemaker for Rieslingfreak. that those differences could be partly explained by the timing of harvest.

“I tend to think that a number of Clare winemakers pick a little bit riper than their counterparts in Eden Valley.

Similarly, you could find someone in Eden Valley who picks a little bit riper and if that’s the case those wines will be a little bit fuller. But, generally, the tighter, crisper wines are from Eden Valley and the richer, more floral wines are from Clare. I’m also aware of some winemakers in Clare Valley who pick earlier and I regard them as producing more of an Eden Valley style,” Wigan said.

Don Young’s thoughts were along similar lines.

“Eden Valley Rieslings are generally very restrained and delicate initially, with a line of acid that is really precise given a typical picking window of 11-12 Baume. They are also very long and tight with lemony profiles, and stony, flinty notes. The usually have a greater potential to age. Clare Rieslings are a bit more generous and vivacious and more upfront with their aromas, which often include tropical, lime, white floral and jasmine notes,” Young said.

John Hughes concurred with his fellow tasting panellists, saying Eden Valley Rieslings were “very delicate, restrained and refined” while their Clare Valley cousins were richer and riper with

upfront fruit and generous palates and noses.

“You get a lot of talc and white blossom on the nose in Eden Valley Rieslings whereas you tend to see more citrus and sometimes mandarin aromas in Clare Rieslings,” said Hughes, noting the diversity of Rieslings from the north and south of Clare.

“In the north they are very generous, rich, ripe and fruit-driven whereas in the south in regions like Polish Hill River they show more mineral and slatey notes,” he said.

In selecting the top wines in the tasting, the judges decided to single out the best from both regions from the 2015 and 2014 vintages.

From 2015, the best from Eden Valley were the St Hallett 2015 Eden Valley Riesling, Orlando 2015 St Helga and Peter Lehmann 2015 Hills & Valley Riesling, while from Clare the best were Pauletts 2015 Polish Hill River Riesling, Rieslingfreak 2015 No.3 Riesling, and Richmond Grove 2015 Watervale Riesling.

From 2014, top honours from Eden Valley went to Peter Lehmann 2014 Wigan Riesling and Jacob’s Creek 2014 Steingarten Riesling while from Clare they went to Pauletts 2014 Polish Hill River Riesling and Jim Barry 2014 The Florita Riesling.

WVJ

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

75

TA S T I N G N OT E S

Riesling

ST HALLETT 2015 EDEN VALLEY RIESLING Barossa Valley, South Australia 12.2% v/v - screwcap RRP$19.00/bottle Best of tasting: Pale straw in colour with delicate green tints. Tight and fine nose with fragrant apple blossom, a touch of lemongrass, kaffir lime and maybe a hint of spearmint which is sometimes apparent in Eden Valley Rieslings. Lovely, delicate, racy palate with generous flavours of lime, lemon, melon, soft tropicals, lemon sherbet; good acid and length.

ORLANDO 2015 ST HELGA RIESLING Eden Valley, South Australia 11.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$19.99/bottle Best of tasting: Pale straw in colour with green hues and delicate green/gold tints. Very generous aromas on the fruit-driven nose which has a lovely light limey lift; lemons, lemon blossom, rose petals, meadow flowers, green apple and talc also evident. Palate is tight, slatey and also fruit-driven with green lemons, limes and green melon; good length with a very soft, low phenolic, elegant acid line and some chalkiness.

PAULETTS 2014 POLISH HILL RIVER RIESLING

Clare Valley, South Australia 12.5% v/v - screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle

Clare Valley/Eden Valley, South Australia 12.5% v/v - screwcap RRP$23.00/bottle

Clare Valley, South Australia 12.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle

Best of tasting: Pale straw in colour with green hues.

Lovely clean and understated nose with lime notes and great fruit purity including melon, apple and tropical characters. Soft, tight palate with lemon, soft fleshy/juicy/zingy acidity, and some TDN notes; good length. “Delicate and appealing,” noted one taster.

“Building blocks of a very good wine,” said another.

Best of tasting: Vibrant, very pale straw green colour.

Delicate and flinty nose of white florals, lime, lemon and powdery talc notes. Very subtle, delicate, lively and juicy palate with lemons, slatey notes and hightension acidity; good length; dry, flinty, tight, crisp finish. “Very stylish with a bright, crisp finish,” said one taster.

Best of tasting: Lovely, delicate green/gold in colour.

Ripe limes and lemons on the nose as well as buttered toast, florals, jasmine, white blossom and a flinty/burnt match character. Very generous flavours on the mineral and tight palate including lime, lemon, melon; good acid and length. “A beautiful wine,” said one taster.

PETER LEHMANN 2015 HILLS & VALLEY RIESLING

PETER LEHMANN 2014 WIGAN EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

JACOB’S CREEK 2014 STEINGARTEN EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

Barossa Valley, South Australia 11.0% v/v - screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle

Barossa Valley, South Australia 11.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$32.00/bottle

10.7% v/v - screwcap RRP$42.99/bottle

Best of tasting: Beautiful colour of pale green straw.

Nose features talc, white blossom, limes and lemons, flint and green apple characters. Tight palate with some prominent acidity; lovely mouthfeel. “Just falls away slightly at the end,” noted one taster. “A great style of a classic Riesling,” said another taster.

Best of tasting: Pale straw in colour with delicate green hues. Nose is flinty and features white florals, tropical and herbaceous notes. Palate is pure, pristine and very restrained; grapefruit, mint, savoury and tropicals evident; smoky finish. “This wine has a long way to go,” said one taster.

76

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

B Sa ott m le pl e

RIESLINGFREAK 2015 NO.3 CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

B Sa ott m le pl e

PAULETTS 2015 POLISH HILL RIVER RIESLING

Best of tasting: Pale straw in colour with green hues.

Fresh, vibrant, flinty, stony and flowery nose of green lemon, flowers, and white apple blossom. Tight, stylish, flowery mineral palate of limes, lemons, grapefruit and green apple; chalky acidity; good length. “A good example of how a wine should age for its time,” said one taster.

V30N5

TA S T I N G N OT E S

RICHMOND GROVE 2015 WATERVALE RIESLING

JIM BARRY 2014 THE FLORITA CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

O’LEARY WALKER 2015 POLISH HILL RIVER RIESLING

Barossa Valley, South Australia 12.6% v/v - screwcap RRP$22.99/bottle

Clare Valley, South Australia 11.9% v/v – screwcap RRP$45.00/bottle

Clare Valley, South Australia 12.0% v/v - screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle (cellar door price)

Best of tasting: Bright straw colour with green hues.

Nose has a lovely citrus lift as well as aromas of white blossom, talc and lemon balm. Very flowery palate with good acidity, blossoms, lemon, lime, some grapefruit characters and spice; good balance of residual sugar; good length; soft fleshy acidity.

Best of tasting: Pale straw in colour with delicate green tints. Lemongrass, fleshy citrus peel, delicate limes, herbaceous and confectionary notes on the nose which is slightly closed; very little development at this stage. Lively, delicate and very pure palate of lemon, lemon pith and florals; slightly sweet but well balanced by the acid. “This wine has a long way to go,” said one taster.

Straw in colour with green hues. Ripe and slightly phenolic nose featuring subtle lemon, rich citrus notes and melon and jasmine essence; a touch yeasty. Firm phenolics on the palate with lemon, melon, peach and lots of citrus. Drying finish. Good flavour balance. “Lacks a little bit of delicacy,” thought one taster.

BUNDALEER 2015 STONY PLACE CLARE VALLEY RIESLIG

VICKERY 2015 EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

NAKED RUN 2015 THE FIRST CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

Southern Flinders Ranges, South Australia 12.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle Straw in colour with yellow hues. Some fullness to the fruit characters on the ripe, attenuated nose which has a slight estery lift. Ripe citrus characters on the palate which is somewhat thin, lacking fruit, and short. Touch hard on the finish.

Clare Valley/Eden Valley, South Australia 12.50% v/v – screwcap RRP$23.00/bottle Pale green straw in colour. Floral, citrus, talc, blossom, lemon sherbet and waxy lemon balm aromas with a minerality; a touch reductive. Soft, delicate, youthful and mineral palate which has good length and great limes and lemons; lovely zingy mouthfeel and good length.

Barossa Valley/Clare Valley, South Australia 12.9% v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle Bright green in colour with watery hues. Some minerality on the nose which is fruit driven and delicate but a touch closed; characters of ripe limes, rose petal, crunchy Granny Smith apples. A tight, fresh, steely and flinty palate featuring lemon, and limes; great acid and length; a slightly green finish.

“This wine shows great potential with time,” noted one taster.

LEO BURING 2015 CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

O’LEARY WALKER 2015 WATERVALE CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

BROCKENCHACK 2015 MACKENZIE WILLIAM 1896 EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

12.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$19.95/bottle

Clare Valley, South Australia 11.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle

Eden Valley, South Australia 11.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle

Vibrant green straw colour. Very floral nose including white blossoms, rose petals, jasmine as well as talc and some fuller tropical lime notes. Palate is soft, rich, balanced and fruit-driven with citrus flavours that linger; some stonefruit notes also apparent. “A ripe style that is very well made,” said one taster.

Very pale straw colour with green hues. Slight sulfide/reductive character on the nose which is flinty and slightly herbal; hints of jasmine as well as some spice, green citrus and green apple. A very slatey/ stoney palate which is slightly green; sherbet and green lime characters evident; very dry finish.

Nice straw colour with a green/gold tinge. Lovely floral lift on the nose with some richness; stonefruit and lemon blossom characters apparent. A rich, ripe, round, generous and flavoursome palate which has good texture. “A wine that could put Riesling on the map for average consumers,” said one taster

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

www.winetitles. com . au

77

TA S T I N G N OT E S

PIKES 2015 TRADITIONALE CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

EDEN HALL 2015 RESERVE EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

VICKERY 2015 WATERVALE CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

Clare Valley, South Australia 12.0% v/v - screwcap RRP$24.00/bottle

Eden Valley, South Australia 11.1% v/v – screwcap RRP$35.00/bottle

Clare Valley/Eden Valley, South Australia 13.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$23.00/bottle

Straw colour with delicate green tints. A rich, fruitdrive nose including ripe lemon, melon, pineapple characters; slightly yeasty with some delicate apple blossom notes. Rich, fruit-driven palate with lots of lemon, limes and mandarin and some yeasty notes; good length and balance of residual sugar; good acid.

Vibrant straw colour with green hues. Herbaceous characters on the nose as well as ripe lime, stonefruit, spice and slight estery and yeasty notes.

Rich fruit including ripe lime and lemon pith on the palate which is generous thanks to a touch of sweetness; some flinty minerals; lovely clean finish.

“Big in flavour,” said one taster. “It won’t have a long life but a very appealing young Riesling,” said another.

Yellow in colour. Rich nectarine and pineapple notes on the nose. Rich, ripe and simple palate with dull fruit and some phenolics; slightly hot finish.

“Advanced for its age,” said one taster.

STAGE DOOR WINE CO 2015 GREEN ROOM EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

EDEN HALL 2015 EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

GRANT BURGE 2015 THORN EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

Eden Valley, South Australia 11.9% v/v – screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle

Eden Valley, South Australia 11.6% v/v – screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle

Barossa Valley, South Australia 12.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle

Lovely straw colour with attractive green tints. Nose features ripe limes, lemons, lemon peel, green vegetable notes and some minerals. Palate is creamy and viscous and has good length; ripe limes and lemon also evident in the mouth; lovely clean finish.

Pale yellow in colour with watery hues. Soft, slightly closed fruit nose of ripe limes and lemons, some stonefruit as well as some low-intensity florals.

Some lemon, stonefruit and confectionary notes in the mouth; slightly phenolic. “A bit simple and lacks freshness,” said one taster.

Pale straw colour with green hues. Restrained nose of green apples, green limes, flint, citrus notes and a slightly herbaceous character. Palate is soft, delicate and has good minerality; characters of lemon and limes, sherbet, lemon flower and honey

JIM BARRY 2015 WATERVALE CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

CLOS CLARE 2015 WATERVALE RIESLING

TIM GRAMP 2015 WATERVALE CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

Clare Valley, South Australia 12.8% v/v – screwcap RRP$19.00/bottle

Clare Valley, South Australia 12.1% v/v – screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle

Clare Valley, South Australia 12.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$21.00/bottle

Pale yellow in colour with watery hues. Nose is slightly closed; herbaceous, grapefruit and tropical notes evident. A touch of firmness in the mouth with some guava and green herbaceous notes as well as lively lemon and limes.

Pale green, slightly leaden in colour. Green lemon and herbaceous notes on the nose with some estery tropicals coming through. Sweet and sour palate with herbaceous, green citrus, lime pith and tropical characters. Delicate, clean finish with good acidity.

Yellow in colour with green hues. Slight closed nose in a ripe style featuring sweet spice, tropical lime fruit, rose petal, jasmine and confectionary notes. “Very Germanic in style,” noted one taster. Palate is broad and slightly phenolic with soft fleshy lime fruit. Good length and balance of residual sugar and acidity. “A very approachable style,” noted another taster.

78

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

V30N5

TA S T I N G N OT E S

THE COLLECTIVE WINE COMPANY ‘ARTISTE’ 2014 SOUTH FACE EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

RIESLINGFREAK 2015 NO. 4 EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

ST JOHNS ROAD 2014 PEACE OF EDEN RIESLING

Clare Valley/Eden Valley, South Australia 11.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$23.00/bottle

Barossa Valley, South Australia 12.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle

Pale straw in colour with green hues. Light and restrained fruit nose with some yeast, musk, herbaceous and vegetal notes. Palate is quite tight with good acidity but is simple and lacks some fruit; good acid and length.

Mid straw in colour. Soft, restrained development on the flowery nose which also has aromas of stonefruit, apricot, lemons and limes, mint and orange peel; touch of nectarine; slightly Germanic. Flowery palate with sweet fruit, stonefruit, mandarin, jasmine and rose petal; soft acidity; tight mineral finish. “Softer style offering good flavour,” said one taster.

Mid green straw in colour. Some honey and buttery notes on the nose but plenty of vibrant citrus fruit including lemon and mandarin peel. Big, fleshy, ripe and soft palate of limes, stonefruit, apricot and some caramel-like notes; rich mouthfeel. “Palate has lots of flavour and vivacity,” said one taster.

JEANNERET 2014 SEVENHILL SINGLE VINEYARD RIESLING

LEO BURING 2014 EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

JEANNERET 2014 WATERVALE SINGLE VINEYARD CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

Clare Valley, South Australia 12.8% v/v –screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle

12.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$19.95/bottle

Clare Valley, South Australia 12/0% v/v – screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle

12.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$22.95/bottle

Dark straw in colour. TDN characters on the nose as well as grassy, honey and lime notes. Ripe palate with lots of blossom, lemons and limes and tropicals.

Straw in colour with green hues. Ripe citrus, honey, toasty and buttery characters on the nose. Round, rich and generous palate of ripe citrus, tropicals, lemon curd, butter and some toast; great acid and length. “Touch broad and slightly developed for its age,” said one taster.

THE COLLECTIVE WINE COMPANY ‘ARTISTE’ 2014 EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

HANDPICKED 2013 REGIONAL SELECTIONS EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

HANDPICKED REGIONAL SELECTIONS CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

12.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$22.95/bottle

11.3% v/v – screwcap RRP$33.99/bottle

12.8% v/v – screwcap RRP$33.99/bottle

Slight leaden, straw green colour. Aged petrol type notes on the nose as well as loads of lime juice, cooked lime, stonefruits, apricots, jasmine, spice and just the start of some toasty development coming through. Slightly forward palate with ripe lime flavours; slight phenolic grip.

Mid green straw in colour. Aroma of lime marmalade on butterered toast on the nose as well as lemon toast, lemon butter, waxy lanolin and a slight petroleum note. Some good toast and buttery notes on the flinty palate which has great limes and lemons, and apple notes.

Straw in colour with green hues. Grassy, tropical, lemon, grapefruit, hessian and barley sugar characters on the nose; nice touch of toast starting to show; some TDN apparent. Lemon and butter notes on the palate which has some nice aged notes; lovely lingering flavour; slightly hard, phenolic and hot.

V3 0N 5

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

Bright mid-green straw in colour. Nose is flinty and slightly yeasty with some nice lime juice, lemon, barley sugar and some buttered toast coming through. Palate is chalky, mineral, savoury, linear and slightly broad and hard; lacking varietal notes with green apple evident. “Lots of flavour,” noted one taster.

www.winetitles. com . au

79

PRODUCTS & VA R I E TA L R E P O R T SERVICES

Tonnellerie Cadus is replanting trees!

T

rees have given the wine industry the barrel, and now a French cooperage is ensuring the barrels return the favour.

For each barrel it delivers, Tonnellerie Cadus has committed to planting a tree in France.

“This is a major innovation in the world of cooperage, a generous and altruistic contribution to nature and one that every customer may be proud of,” a company spokesperson said.

In partnership with a Burgundy nursery, a French leader in re-forestation with a policy of compensatory planting, Tonnellerie Cadus will replant sessile and common oak trees in several regions in France.

The company said public forests in France were in decline so in replanting forests it was: • fighting against climate change by creating stocks of CO2 • halting desertification by hydrating the ground • preserving biodiversity that provides an infinite number of ecological services • developing regional economies.

The independent organisation Ecocert Environment, internationally renowned for its forestry and organic farming certification, will monitor and check that the trees are maintained, that the number of trees planted is as prescribed, as is the density and area of planting; and that the growth of the future forest is assured.

Because of its concern for the environment, Cadus has gained certification with the world’s largest forest certification system, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), a not-for-profit, non-governmental organisation dedicated to promoting sustainable forest management.

The recycling of waste material from the cooperage was the logical next step. With the help of the Conseil Régional de Bourgogne (Burgundy Regional Council), FEDER (European Regional Development Fund) and ADEME (Energy and Environment Agency), the company made an investment of 500,000 Euros in 2011. A wood furnace now ensures the cooperage’s energy independence using wood chippings, shavings and sawdust.

Cadus barrels have also benefited from the company’s culture of environmental awareness with the introduction of the Pur® protocol – a toasting method that balances the natural potential of oak against and the undesirable effects of barrel toasting. The performance of this 100% natural toasting method is perceptible from the very first months of wine storage. Pur comes standard on the Cadus Sensoriel range of barrels, ensuring a reliable and outstanding product promise.

For further information visit: www.tonnelleriecadus.com.

New fungicide offering benefits for Langhorne Creek grapegrower

T

he new chemical group of DuPont Talendo® fungicide has been a welcome addition to the program on the property of David Eckert, of Langhorne Creek, South Australia.

“We felt that it offered a few benefits in that it was from another family from a chemical point of view,” Eckert said.

“Previously, we relied heavily on DMIs and Strobies so we just figured that it would be another shot, in another group that we could implement to reduce the reliance on those other families.”

He said Talendo fungicide was initially used on a block of Chardonnay grapes for the control of powdery mildew.

“We realised the Chardonnay is the most vulnerable to powdery,” Eckert said.

“We used it in early November with the early flowering spray.”

He said they had no issues at all with powdery mildew across the year.

“It’s paramount to get your sprays on in a timely fashion. It’s timing and also technique and the right products,” Eckert said.

“We are confident we’ve cleaned up the carry-over spores and we are very pleased with the outcome of the grapes.”

He said the Talendo tank mixed well with Bravo and a trace element.

80

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

“We’ve got a fair area to cover. You don’t want to have multiple passes for one spray. It’s important that it does tank mix and tank mix well and gives you that flexibility.”

The translaminar activity is also a huge bonus because of its ability to move through the leaves and provide additional protection to areas that didn’t receive the initial spray application.

“Certainly something that you can hit the leaf and it can work through the leaf,” Eckert said. “In 2011 that was the problem we had. We just had a wall of leaves and fruit and we just couldn’t penetrate into the canopy.

“Something such as Talendo, that can hit the leaf and then move within the leaf, certainly does have a lot of benefits that way.

“Certainly you want something that once it hits the target, it is translaminar and moves into the plant. It’s not washed off within a couple of hours.”

He said Talendo had a short withholding period which could be a real benefit late in the season in a high pressure year.

“It can be used up to 28 days prior to harvest so that would certainly have a lot of benefits there in a high pressure situation.”

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

Grapegrower David Eckert, of Langhorne Creek, in South Australia, sees a lot of benefits in the new Talendo fungicide for winegrapes.

Eckert farms 180 acres of grapes which is split evenly between Shiraz, Cabernet and Chardonnay.

“We started planting in ‘95 and finished planting in about 2002 and have been just maintaining them ever since.

“We supply some Shiraz and Cabernet to Orlando and some Shiraz and Cabernet to Treasury Wine Estates. We are focussed on growing quality. Just trying to get the best quality we can for their labels.”

V30N5

PRODUCTS & VA R I E TA L R E P O R T SERVICES

Abeve launches Protec XTri optical sorter at Winetech 2015

A

ustralian winemaking equipment supplier Abeve used the recent Winetech exhibition held in Adelaide to launch the Protec XTri sorter onto the Australasian market.

Designed to separate out anything from berries that might alter the quality of wine, Xtri utilises a multi-camera system – technology that up until now has only been seen in specialised research laboratories.

A spokesperson for Abeve said the Protec XTri was the leading optical sorter in Europe and America and was sought after by premium wineries.

“In France wineries such as Château Lafite Rothschild, Château Joseph Drouhin, and Château Jaboulet Aine have invested in the XTri, while in America Protec counts wineries such as Teucer, Laird, Cardinale as valuable customers,” the spokesperson said.

Now Abeve has brought the XTri optical sorter to the Australian and New Zealand markets.

What differentiates the Protec XTri is that it utilises three or more cameras enabling it to detect: • chlorophyll by infrared fluorescence

For further information and pricing contact Abeve on 1300 768 976, email sales@abeve.com.au or visit www.abeve. com.au

• foreign objects such as rodents, snails, wood • pinking in red grapes.

Protec manufactures the optical sorter in three belt sizes: • 0.5 metres wide for production of 5 tonnes/hour • 1 metre wide for production of 10 tonnes/hour • 1.5 metres wide for production of15 tonnes/hour

The XTri sorter utilises a multi-camera system to sort berries.

Australian and NZ wineries reaping the benefits of local capsule production

W

ith full production facilities in Adelaide and Auckland, Enoplastic is producing a wide range of still wine polylaminate capsules. Australian and New Zealand customers are enjoying the benefits of this local production with colour matching, foiling and forming occurring in each country, significantly reducing the hassle of logistical issues with imported alternatives.

The company has also recorded an increase in demand for plain capsules which it holds on the floor with orders growing to an unprecedented level.

Brodie Atkinson, sales and marketing

V3 0N 5

manager for Enoplastic Australia, said one of the most cost-effective methods of customising polylaminate capsules is with the addition of foil on stock base colours, stamped at the point of forming the capsule. He said small runs can be economically produced without the need for expensive cylinders and printing costs being amortised over a small number of capsules.

“Effective foiling plates made locally within the Adelaide region at a fraction of the cost of printing cylinders is the latest continuous improvement Enoplastic has added to its already impressive stable of products,” Atkinson said.

W I N E & V I T I C ULTUR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

“We have worked closely with a local specialist tool maker in order to have a supply of foiling plates of world class standard produced here at an economical cost. Lead time from the Adelaide-based supplier for the plates is within a week of artwork approval, improving our already shorter lead times in the region,” he said.

A comprehensive summary of the full Enoplastic range including stock colours is available at www.enoplastic.com.au or alternatively contact in Australia, Brodie Atkinson via b.atkinson@enoplastic.com or in New Zealand, Kevin Vujcich via kevin@enoplastic.com

www.winetitles. com . au

81

PRODUCTS & VA R I E TA L R E P O R T SERVICES

Ausperl perlite filter aids - meeting the flow rate and turbidity demands of the Australasian wine industry

A

usperl is a specialist mineral processing business operating perlite quarries and crushing and processing plants in Australia and New Zealand.

Perlite filter aid is classified by the US EPA as ‘generally recognised as safe’. It is chemically stable and inert.

The family-owned business has produced perlite filtration media since 1993. It only selects high quality perlite ore to produce a complete range of products that are uniquely capable of meeting the flow rate and turbidity demands of Australasian winemakers.

Perlite’s processing facilities are ISO9001 approved and its products comply with all halal, kosher and related regulations.

The company has recently relocated to a new 12,000m2 primary manufacturing facility in Padstow, New South Wales to allow for the continued growth and development of its product range to meet its vision of providing engineered mineral solutions for all its clients.

The facility supports the company’s warehouses in Griffith, Mildura, the Riverland, Adelaide, Margaret River and Perth which offer fast and efficient service to its clients.

Perlite has reconfigured its packaging to meet work health and safety requirements, and as well as offering 15kg bags, can now provide bulk bag decanting solutions to allow staff to operate in a dust-free filtration environment.

Perlite has reconfigured its packaging to meet work health and safety requirements.

As well as offering 15kg bags, it can now provide bulk bag decanting solutions, meaning staff can operate in a dust-free filtration environment.

“We have continued to strengthen our commitment to the wine industry. Our team of 60 personnel can not only provide the technical support when you need it but also give you the satisfaction and comfort in knowing that we service every wine region in Australia and New Zealand

as well as markets in Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, China and Spain.

"When time is precious, and you need it done now, and done right, choose perlite. It won’t let you down,” a company spokesperson said.

GroGuard marks a quarter of a century in business

W

holly Australian owned vineguard producer GroGuard is celebrating 25 years of success.

GroGuard Australia Pty Ltd was incorporated on 23 August 1990 to begin the manufacture and sale of the GroGuard vineguard.

Proven cost savings in training and weed control, together with earlier productivity of vines, have led to the widespread adoption of the GroGuard.

Nearly 10 million GroGuards have been sold to date.

Legendary for its ruggedness and reliability, GroGuard is now the establishment tool of choice for many

82

www.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

major projects, and with the success of these projects, GroGuard has forged strong relationships in the industry.

The GroGuard began with two trials conducted by the company’s founder and current managing director Graham Due in 1988 and1989. Plastic tubes were used to protect newly-planted grapevines on land near Euroa, north of Melbourne.

In June 1990, Due published the results of these trials in an article that appeared in the Wine & Viticulture Journal’s sister publication Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker, titled ‘The use of polypropylene shelters in grapevine establishment – a preliminary trial’.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2015

GroGuard constantly developed the vineguard in the years that followed leading to the GroGuard ‘ZipSafe’ product so widely used today.

Twenty five years on, GroGuard continues to supply Australian-made GroGuard ZipSafe vineguards to the grapegrowing industry.

“We wish to thank our customers past, present and future for their valued support,” Due said.

For information on GroGuard vineguards phone GroGuard toll free on 1800 644 259, email gdue@groguard.com.au or visit www.groguard.com

V30N5

ines Great Western, Bremerton Wines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Cas a Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vin ards, Delegats Wine Estate, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Fi tar Wines, Fowles Wine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jon ines, Henry’s Drive Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solution oward Park Wines, Hungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabb ineyard, Jim Barry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Lt rinklewood Biodynamic Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes Austral cWilliam’s Wines Group, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie austral exthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarr lantagenet Wines, Portavin Integrated Wine Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robe atley Vineyards, Rymill Coonawarra, Seville Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Fa y Wine Co, The Lane Vineyard, The Scotchmans Hill Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tinta inery, Tower Estate Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine Estates, Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrel ines, Vinpac International, Warburn Estate Pty Ltd, WebAware Pty Ltd, Wine and Vine Personnel Intern onal,Wines Overland, Wingara WIne Group,Wirra Wirra Vineyards, Zilzie Wines, Accolade Wines Austr Limited, Aravina Estate, Australian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beltunga, Bests Wines Great Wester remerton Wines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, C rmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wi state, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowl ine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Dri ignerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wine ungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Bar ines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodyna Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Win roup, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenot ty Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Wine ortavin Integrated Wine Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyard ymill Coonawarra, Seville Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Family Wine Co, T ane Vineyard, The Scotchmans Hill Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tintara Winery, Tow state Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine Estates, Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrell’s Wines, Vinp nternational, Warburn Estate Pty Ltd, WebAware Pty Ltd, Wine and Vine Personnel International,Win verland, Wingara WIne Group,Wirra Wirra Vineyards, Zilzie Wines, Accolade Wines Australia Limite ravina Estate, Australian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beltunga, Bests Wines Great Western, Bremert ines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmast roup, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Estate, D gat’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles Wine, Fu ine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Drive Vignero ty Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, Hungerfo ill Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Barry Wines, Ka Bindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynamic Vineyar Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Wines Group, Memst ondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Optio ine Merchants, Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Wines, Portavin In rated Wine Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyards, Rymill Coon arra, Seville Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Family Wine Co, The Lane Vineyar he Scotchmans Hill Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tintara Winery, Tower Estate Pty Lt reasury Wine Estates, Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrell’s Wines, Vinpac Internation arburn Estate Pty Ltd, WebAware Pty Ltd, Wine and Vine Personnel International,Wines Overland, W ara WIne Group,Wirra Wirra Vineyards, Zilzie Wines, Accolade Wines Australia Limited, Aravina Esta ustralian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beltunga, Bests Wines Great Western, Bremerton Wines, Brow rothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charl elton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Estate, Delegat’s Wine E ate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles Wine, Fuse Wine Servic ty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Drive Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentl arm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, Hungerford Hill Wines, Ing ood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Barry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kin on Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynamic Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aram & managed by ineyards, Leeuwin created Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Wines Group, Memstar, Mondo Consultin oppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Options Wine Merchan rlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Wines, Portavin Integrated Wine Serv s, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyards, Rymill Coonawarra, Seville Esta tella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Family Wine Co, The Lane Vineyard, The Scotchmans H roup Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tintara Winery, Tower Estate Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine Estate Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrell’s Wines, Vinpac International, Warburn Estate Pty Lt

The Wine Industry’s Leading Online Job Site

Go with the site that leading wine industry companies use.

Melbourne

Adelaide

New Zealand

FLOTATION-

REDUCE YOUR FOOTPRINT With the benefit of twenty years’ experience, JUCLAS is able to offer a clarification and stabilization process for grape juice using flotation in batch or continuous process.

With over 100 installations throughout Australia and New Zealand, the efficiencies that are gained from Juclas flotation are now clearly demonstrated.

Easyfloat for 1,000-50,000L tanks

JUICE TRAY TRAY TO INOCULATION IN LESS THAN 4 HOURS IMPROVEMENTS IN EFFICIENCIES · Reduction of refrigeration loads · Elimination of cold settling · Three times faster than largest centrifuge · Large reduction in diatomaceous earth requirements · Reduction of downgraded juice · Accelerated turnover of tanks · Decrease in waste products

Batch system up to 50,000 L/hr

Products available: FLOTTOBENT - EXTREMELY PURE ACTIVATED BENTONITE FLOTTOGEL - PURIFIED GELATINE WITH HIGH ELECTRICAL CHARGE FLOTTOSIL - SILICON DIOXIDE IN COLLOIDAL SUSPENSION FLOTTOCARB - EXTREMELY PURE VEGETABLE CARBON FLOTTOZIMA L - LIQUID PECTOLITIC ENZYME

Continuous system up to 50,000 L/hr

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