Page 1

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 · Volume 31 Number 1

INDUSTRY SUSTAINABILITY

• Winery wastewater treatment and attaining sustainability • Assessing the environmental credentials of Australian wine • Effect of elevated CO2 and temperature on winegrapes • Time to reboot back labels • Tasting: Tasmanian vs Clare Valley vs Eden Valley Riesling


A great wine takes much more than just a bunch of grapes.

At BOC, we understand the effort, expertise and processes needed to create a successful vintage and we’re proud to play an important role. Whether you’re talking about gas solutions, safety equipment or supplementary products including snow horns, flow meters or regulators — we’re there.

BOC Limited, Riverside Corporate Park, 10 Julius Avenue, North Ryde, NSW 2113 Australia ABN: 95 000 029 729 | boc.com.au | 131 262 BOC is a trading name of BOC Limited, a Member of The Linde Group. © BOC Limited 2016. MP16-0015|W&VJ|ML|010216

/bocsouthpacific

/bocsouthpacific

/user/boclimited

You can count on our reputation and commitment to service and safety because your business is important to both of us. To find out more, call our Food & Leisure Customer Engagement Centre on 131 262 or visit boc.com.au


Established 1985 Published bi-monthly 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 Tadro Abbott Guillaume Antalick Alice Barker Tony Battaglene John Blackman Kendra Baumgartner Armando Corsi Gilles de Revel Martin Day Jeremy Dineen Mario de la Fuente Alain Deloire Rebecca Dolan Jen Doyle Peter Dry Everard Edwards Richard Gawel Steve Guy Nuredin Habili Tony Hoare Cathy Howard Dan Johnson Jonathan Kaplan Tony Keys Rachel Kilmister Mark Krstic Mitch Laginestra Rubén Linares Vinay Pagay José Ramón Lissarrague Mardi Longbottom Claudio Radenti Louisa Rose Mark Rowley Leigh Schmidtke Alex Schulkin Paul Smith Katja Šuklje Sophie Tempere Renaud Travadon Michael Treeby Dale Unwin Frank van de Loo Eric Wilkes Qi Wu 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 Published by Winetitles Media ABN 85 085 551 980 Address 630 Regency Road, Broadview, South Australia 5083

Telephone and Fax

Sonya Logan, Editor Welcome to the first issue of the Wine & Viticulture Journal for 2016. I know for many of you, it’s going to be some time before you get the chance to perhaps even open the wrapper containing this issue let alone cast your eyes over its contents. I wrote this editorial on 14 January and the Tweets about vintage in Australia getting under way had begun to trickle in, the majority of them from the Hunter Valley, where Verdelho, Chardonnay and Semillon were among the varieties being picked from about 13 January. Harvest in the Hunter would have begun sooner than that too if it wasn’t for flooding rains that fell around 5 January. But the first harvest of the year may go to Western Australia’s Swan Valley, with Faber Vineyard reporting it had begun to pick Chardonnay on 2 January – its earliest harvest on record. Tweets the start of harvest also came from the Perth Hills (Chardonnay), South Burnett, Queensland (Arneis) and the Riverland (Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc). I also saw signs of vintage fast approaching in other regions in Tweets about veraison from producers in Coonawarra (Cabernet Sauvignon), McLaren Vale (Shiraz), Yarra Valley (Pinot Noir), Hilltops (Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir), Grampians (Shiraz), and the Barossa Valley (Grenache, Shiraz). Meanwhile, producers in Margaret River and Geographe in Western Australia are holding their breath that the devastating bushfires in Yarloop and Waroona to the north weren’t going to cause issues with smoke taint, while for one producer in WA’s Peel wine region,

the effect of the fires was all too real. Drakesbrook Wines’ 12ha vineyard, located about 5km east of Waroona, was significantly damaged in the fire, with owner Bernie Worthington stating on the winery’s Facebook page that they’d also lost their olive grove and orchard to the blaze. That’s after losing their 2015 vintage to smoke taint. A friend and colleague of Bernie and his wife Trish has set up a Go Fund Me page for Drakesbrook https://www.gofundme. com/drakesbrookfire) to support their recovery. With the 2015 vintage described as early by some, and several reporting an earlier vintage still this year, it seems certain that new entries in record books will be written. Which is rather a nice segue that allows me to point to one of the highlights in this issue. Earlier harvests have been linked with global warming brought about by increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. While there has been quite a bit of research into the effects of higher temperatures on vine phenology, little has been done on the effect of higher CO2 on vines. A collaborative study between the Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources and CSIRO has been investigating both and the lead researchers present the results of their first two seasons (page 38). This is just one of several articles on the topic of Industry Sustainability in this issue – may you enjoy them and the other great reads on the pages that follow when the bustle of vintage or vintage preparations permits.

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. ISSN 1838-6547

Conditions

The opinions expressed in Wine & Viticultue Journal are not necessarily the opinions of or endorsed by the editor or publisher unless otherwise stated. All articles submitted for publication become the property of the publisher. All material in Wine & Viticulture Journal is copyright © Winetitels Media. All rights reserved.No part may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic, or mechanical including information and retrieval systems) without written permission of the publisher. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, the published will not accept responsibility for errors or omissions, or for any consequences arising from reliance on information published.

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter! www.facebook.com/WineAndVitiJournal @WineVitiJournal Cover Photo: Shiraz juice droplets squirt from the back of a truck as it prepares to tip fruit into a crusher at Patritti Wines in Adelaide. Photo: Ben Heide REGULAR FEATURES

News 6 WFA 8 Wine Australia 9 ASVO 10 Tony Keys 11 AWRI Report 35

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

Alternative Varieties 57 Varietal Report 70 Tasting 73

WINE & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


IN THIS ISSUE

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

C O NN ET W E N S T S

EVENTS

8 WFA (Tony Battaglene): Sustainability in the wine industry

18 PREVIEW: The International Cool Climate Wine Symposium 2016

9 WINE AUSTRALIA (Steve Guy): Exporting Australian fine wine to the world 10 ASVO (Mardi Longbottom): ASVO announces new board line-up and Fellow, bolsters industry collaboration 11 KEY FILES (TONY KEYS): The Mother of Presidents nurtures a fledgling wine industry – but could it grow too big for its boots?

V I T I C U LT U R E

38 Effect of elevated CO2 and temperature on phenology, carbohydrates, yield and grape composition – preliminary results

W I N E M A K I N G

20 Winery wastewater treatment and attaining sustainability

43 Adapting to climate change: the role of canopy management and water use efficiency in vineyards 47 Virus-associated Shiraz Disease may lead Shiraz to become an endangered variety in Australia 51 Preventing trunk diseases in the vineyard: choosing the best practices 24 1,4-cineole: A contributor to Australian Cabernet Sauvignon typicality

55 TONY HOARE: The evolution of winegrapes – Part 2 Protecting the past to benefit the future

30 Interactions between phenolics, alcohol and acidity in determining the mouthfeel and bitterness of white wine

57 ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES: Graciano

35 AWRI REPORT: Assessing the environmental credentials of Australian wine BUSINESS & MARKETING

59 The only way is up - adapting to the consumer shift to more premium wine

W I N E TA S T I N G

75 Tasmanian Rieslings take on the best from the Clare and Eden Valleys

62 Food for thought for a new year – time to reboot back labels

67 Are Facebook fans really ‘engaging’ with our wine brands? A case study of Australian wine brand Facebook pages V3 1N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

5


N E W S

S N I P S

NEW CHAIR AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR WINE GRAPE GROWERS AUSTRALIA Andrew Weeks has been appointed executive director of Wine Grape Growers Australia following the resignation of Lawrie Stanford. Most recently employed as business manager at Riverland Wine, Weeks has previously worked in various technical and vineyard management roles including as senior viticulture officer with CCW Cooperative Limited. Prior to that he was the vineyard manager at Jubilee Park Vineyards in the Riverland, and he has also held other roles in the Riverland, Murray Valley and Langhorne Creek wine regions. Weeks has served as an executive committee member of WGGA since 2012, and has also been a member of the joint policy forum between WGGA and the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA) and has previously served on the innovation policy committee. WFA welcomed the announcement of Weeks’ appointment. “It is important to have strong leadership in the wine industry and Andrew’s experience will serve WGGA well at this important time when our organisations have joined behind a plan to help lift profitability for the sector,” said WFA chief executive Paul Evans. Weeks joins WGGA’s recently appointed independent chair Joanna Andrew, a capital partner with law firm Mellor Olsson, who replaced long-standing chair Vic Patrick. “We welcome Andrew to this senior position and look forward to working with him and WGGA’s recently appointed chair Jo Andrew as we bring our organisations more closely together to deliver better results for the Australian wine industry going forward,” Evans said.

Andrew Weeks

6

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

WFA SLAMS WINE TAX STUDY The Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA) has slammed a Monash University study on the impact of increasing wine taxation on at-risk consumers. The Monash University study, published recently in the journal Alcohol and Alcoholism, looked at the alcohol consumption habits of 885 Victoria households over a year, including what they spent on alcohol and how it was taxed. The researchers then applied two different tax-policy alternatives: setting a minimum price of $1 per standard drink, or taxing all products based on alcohol content. They concluded these alternative policies could lead to a reduction in heavy drinking compared with the existing taxation system. “The study is poor in its method and its outcomes are not credible,” said WFA chief executive Paul Evans. He said the study had two “critical failings”. The first was that cross price elasticities of demand between alcohol categories (e.g., beer, wine, spirits) were not included in the modelling of what happens when taxes are raised. “The report therefore has very little credibility in predicting what the subsequent consumption behaviour will be. For example, if you increase the price of lower-cost wine, how much will budget beer sales increase? The report cannot answer this,” he said. The second failing was that the study assumed a 100% seamless passon of any increase in wine tax to the consumer. “This is a nonsense assumption. Given the retail liquor duopoly that exists in Australia, it’s more likely any increases in wine tax will have to be absorbed by the wine producer who is already doing it tough,” Evans said. “Unfortunately the report has been used by the public health lobby to whip up media stories demanding an increase in wine taxes based on deeply flawed and narrow thinking. “The claims by the public health lobby ignores the fact that ABS data confirms Australia is moving towards a more moderate drinking culture and Australians are no longer among the world’s heaviest consumers. We are making important headway. “A tax increase on wine is only going to punish the vast majority of responsible wine consumers and hurt winemakers. The impact on heavy drinkers will be negligible because they will simply move their poor consumption behaviours on to alternate alcohol types or to illicit drugs. “The Australian wine industry is W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

already among the highest taxed in the world today. “The Winemakers’ Federation of Australia will continue to strongly advocate for differential tax rates for wine, beer and spirits which reflects the significant differences that exist between wine and other alcohol sectors. Wine should and must continue to be taxed within the existing WET legislative framework and not an excise-based approach as is the case for beer and spirits. The Federation does not have a policy on how the WET tax should be calculated within the WET framework,” Evans said. INDUSTRY FAREWELLS ROBERT OATLEY AND RICHARD CIRAMI Robert (Bob) Oatley, the patriarch of the Oatley family who founded Rosemount Estate, has died aged 87. Oatley established Rosemount in the upper Hunter Valley in 1969 which he and his family expanded over the next three decades; in 2000 Rosemount was the second best-selling Australian brand in the US. In 2001, the Oatley family sold Rosemount to Southcorp for $1.4 billion which subsequently passed into the hands of Foster’s when it bought Southcorp in 2005. The Oatley family returned to the wine business in 2006, opening Robert Oatley Vineyards in Mudgee where it had owned vineyards for some time. In 2014, Oatley was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for his distinguished service to the Australian wine and tourism industries, to the sport of yacht racing, and to the community as a supporter of medical research and visual arts organisations. Wine Australia chair Brian Walsh said Oatley was a “passionate advocate and ambassador for Australian wine, both in the domestic market and, importantly, in export markets”. Meanwhile, Richard Cirami, a pioneer of clonal selection and variety assessment in Australia, has died aged 74. Born in San Francisco, Cirami migrated to Australia in the mid 1960s where he held roles within the South Australian Department of Agriculture during which time he conducted extensive clonal and rootstock comparison trials. He was a member of the Riverland Vine Improvement Committee for more than 20 years, which named the range of wines it produces after him. Cirami also authored and coauthored several articles on clonal selection published in the Grapegrower & Winemaker, the Wine & Viticulture V31N1


N E W S

Journal’s sister publication. He also co-authored a chapter on grapevine propagation for the book Viticulture, Volume 2. Cirami was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to viticulture, particularly through grape vine improvement research. NEW APP TO ASSESS POWDERY MILDEW ON GRAPES Visual assessment of powdery mildew according to the developers of a new, free smart-phone app. Developed by University of Adelaide researchers and collaborators with the support of Wine Australia as part of a wider research project seeking to establish objective measures for quantifying powdery mildew, the iPhone/iPad and Android app PMapp is aimed at helping grapegrowers and wineries make informed decisions about the quality and price of grapes. Development of PMapp has taken place in close consultation with a project reference group of viticulturists, wineries, independent assessors and researchers. “PMapp is a simple tool that facilitates efficient assessment and recording of the severity and incidence

V3 1N 1

of powdery mildew in the vineyard,” said project leader Eileen Scott, Professor of Plant Pathology in the University’s School of Agriculture, Food and Wine. PMapp allows the user to quickly assess visually the severity of powdery mildew on each bunch of grapes (an estimation of the percentage of the surface area of the bunch covered) by matching it with a computer generated image. The app calculates the proportion of bunches affected (the disease incidence) and of surface area affected (severity) and reports the data in a spreadsheet for subsequent analysis. A key reference and browser of images built into the app also help the user familiarise themselves with various disease patterns and severities. A website to support the app is currently being developed and is scheduled for release at the end of January. INDUSTRY WOULD BE BEST SERVED BY A SINGLE SERVICE ORGANISATION Australian wine industry leaders and representatives came together in Adelaide on 1 December to progress discussions and agree on a plan for undertaking industry reform to enable representative organisations to

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

S N I P S

contribute to a return to profitability. In late August more than 40 wine industry leaders from across Australia gathered in Adelaide at Grape and Wine 15 to reach consensus on how representative bodies could play their role in assisting the industry return to profitability. The group re-convened to discuss possible pathways to delivering better outcomes for all industry participants. The meeting reached consensus on a number of issues and agreed a single industry service body would most likely deliver the best outcomes for all industry participants. Such an organisation would assume responsibilities for R,D&E, marketing, regulation and other functions currently provided by Wine Australia along with the various services and industry representation provided currently by national and state representative organisations. The meeting also agreed on a merger of the industry's national bodies, WFA and WGGA, and incorporating state and regional bodies.

Further details on the proposal can be found at http://wfa.org.au/information/ noticeboard/wine-industry-agrees-on-aWVJ plan-for-industry-reform/

www.winetitles. com . au

7


W FA

Sustainability in the wine industry By Tony Battaglene Strategy & International Affairs General Manager, Winemakers’ Federation of Australia INTRODUCTION Sustainability in the wine sector means much more than instituting a sustainability program and producing a product that minimises a business’ environmental footprint. A sustainable wine sector requires that businesses right along the supply chain are profitable with a long-term business plan. The current business environment for the wine sector has some way to go before most businesses meet these benchmarks. Despite around average grape crops and some signs of improved sales, profitability remains low. For example, the 2015 vintage crush of 1.67 million tonnes has been coupled with some modest and patchy strengthening in average winegrape prices and exports. The Winemakers’ Federation of Australia 2015 Vintage Report revealed a 5% increase in average winegrape prices over the past year, albeit off a low base. However, the analysis shows that 92% of production in warm inland areas was unprofitable. Although there are positive shifts in the macro-economic climate with a more favourable exchange rate, the signing of important Free Trade Agreements and improved consumer sentiment in major markets, there is a long way to go before the sector as a whole recovers. ISSUES According to Ibis World, while the industry faces a long and painful process before the market returns to balance, conditions are expected to be less challenging over the next two years. The depreciation of the Australian dollar has improved the competitiveness of exports, better positioning them in overseas markets. Consequently, industry revenue is forecast to grow and profit margins are anticipated to be higher in 2015-16 than five years prior as the industry begins to recover. However, recovery is not guaranteed and the wine sector needs to work

8

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

proactively to build on the positive macro-economic developments. The continued emphasis on premium wines for growth will rely on Asian export markets which will play an increasingly important role in the sector’s future. The Winemakers’ Federation of Australia is championing the need to grow demand for Australian wine and help address the ongoing structural mismatch between supply and demand at profitable price points. Until this happens, we are likely to see poor levels of average profitability continue for both grapegrowers and winemakers. We are lobbying government to invest in the promotional activities being undertaken by Wine Australia with the belief that this can help restore sustained global consumer interest in Australian wine and capitalise on the macro-economic shifts that have moved recently in our favour. WFA and Wine Grape Growers Australia (WGGA) have asked government for $43.4 million over four years in supplementary government investment for Wine Australia’s marketing activities. Moves are also afoot to implement structural reform among the myriad industry bodies serving our industry, including the statutory authority. The initial amalgamation of R&D funding activities, promotion and compliance into a single organisation to form what we now know as Wine Australia (or the Australian Grape and Wine Authority, as it is recognised in legislation) has been welcomed by the sector. However, consideration is being given to the next step of forming a single industry services body that can manage all the national service activities on behalf of the sector. Without doubt, more industry control and direction over the promotional spend and overarching strategic direction will be advantageous. Investment in innovation through research and development is also high on the sector’s priorities. Australia continues to underinvest in grape and wine R&D compared with our major competitors, and while we have worldclass researchers and innovative wine

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

companies, we run the risk of falling behind. Research and innovation will be just as important to the long-term future of the wine sector as increased demand through promotion. OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FUTURE Recent WFA Outlook Conferences have included the call out from various speakers to wine companies to go forth and use “more shoe leather”. While many can be forgiven for seeing such a call as a little clichéd, the real take home message is that for the Australian wine sector to return to its former success, we do need individuals, whether working alone or collectively, to mount the recovery along with us all. Wine Australia, no matter what its promotional budget, cannot alone deliver consumers to our door. The success of our competitors over the past few years has not been due to a better product or greater promotional spend but, rather, a focused attempt to build and, just as importantly, service brands and be ready to move as opportunities present themselves. For Australia’s wine sector to be truly sustainable and meet our human, social, economic and environmental objectives requires that we have, first and foremost, profitability in our sights. Unless we have a profitable industry, profitable brands and an innovative undercurrent permeating through our next generation, it will always be difficult to look at sustainability objectives in isolation. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to capitalise on the positive shifts we are seeing in the macro-economic climate, improving consumer sentiments in major markets and the opening up of new markets – all critical elements that we need to have on our side. The next few years will hopefully see improved profitability for grapegrowers and winemakers and recognition from our consumers that our wine brands are not only their preferred purchase at the counter, but recognised as truly WVJ sustainable.

V31N1


WINE AUSTRALIA

Exporting Australian fine wine to the world By Steve Guy, General Manager Regulatory Affairs, Wine Australia

I

n November 2015, a record breaking 1129 Australian wine export certificates were issued to the Australian wine community by Wine Australia. This is not only the highest month on record – it completely shattered the previous record set in December 2014 by a whopping 20 per cent. Export certificates are required by some markets importing wine to validate its authenticity. These certificates can include Certificates of Origin, Certificates of Free Sale, Cultivar and Health Certificates. With our free trade agreements, export certificates become even more critical, providing validation to support the preferential treatment of Australian wine in that market. The increase in export certificates can be predominantly linked to the growth in the Chinese market for Australian wine – and with the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) tariff reductions commencing in December 2015, this could be a sign that we can anticipate further growth. It is reported that Australia is currently

the second largest exporter to China in terms of both volume and value. In the Wine Australia Export Report September 2015 we reported that China saw the strongest growth of our export markets, rising 47% in value to a record A$313 million. This was driven by demand for wines in the higher price points with exports to China above A$10 now worth A$116 million to the Australian wine sector. Exports to Hong Kong also hit a record in June and continued to rise in the 12 months to September, up 24% to A$118 million. Wine Australia is here to provide the Australian wine community with the information that it needs about different export markets and assistance to navigate each market’s requirements. In addition to providing Export Market Guides for 28 markets, we answer labelling and technical enquiries from the sector to support an educated exporter base. Market access alerts are distributed to Australian wine exporters as required and checklists and labelling advice are published on the Wine Australia website (www.wineaustralia.com)

Financial grants and support are available to Australian wine exporters via two Australian government agencies, Austrade and Efic. Austrade administers the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme, an Australian Government financial reimbursement program for current and aspiring exporters. The scheme supports a wide range of sectors and products for small to medium export-ready businesses. Austrade also provides a number of tailored services. More information can be found at www. austrade.gov.au/Australian/Export Wine Australia recently announced a partnership agreement with Efic, Australia’s export credit agency. Efic operates on a commercial basis and partners with banks to provide financial support to Australian small and medium enterprise (SME) exporters and those in an export supply chain. Efic has a range of loans and guarantees to help exporters take advantage of new export opportunities.

More information can be found at www.efic.gov.au/wine

WVJ

Don’t miss a

THING! An essential snapshot of wine business, research and marketing content gleaned from Australian and international wine media sources. Distributed to over 11,000 subscribers

Subscription is free and easy! Visit www.winetitles.com.au to sign up today. Join the list of leading suppliers who use Daily Wine News for an instant advertising message to the industry! Contact Dan Brannan on +618 8369 9515 or d.brannan@winetitles.com.au for details V3 1N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

9


A S V O

ASVO announces new board line-up and Fellow, bolsters industry collaboration By Mardi Longbottom, President, Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology

T

he ASVO recently held its annual general meeting where it was announced that three of its directors, Mardi Longbottom, Brett McClen and Mike Trought, had been re-elected onto the board and Tony Robinson, previously co-opted to the ASVO board, and Matt Holdstock were newly elected to the board. Matt will be known to many in his role as senior oenologist at the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) where he provides technical advice to winemakers on a daily basis to help solve production issues and provide support for best practice wine production. Matt has judged at several Australian wine shows, and participates in tastings for the AWRI’s sensory panel, the Advanced Wine Assessment Course, Winestate magazine and Wine Australia’s Export Approval panel (2009-2012). Matt has also lectured at the University of Adelaide, Wine Australia, WSET, the Institute of Masters of Wine and the Interwinery Analysis Group. The ASVO board met after the AGM and Mardi Longbottom, Brett McClen and Kirsty Bartrop were re-elected to the roles of president, vice-president and treasurer, respectively. Each year the ASVO has the opportunity to award a Fellow to the Society in recognition of outstanding and meritorious contribution to the grape and wine industry. Peter Hayes was awarded this esteemed title at the AGM and was celebrated at the ASVO’s annual awards night at Carrick Hill, in Adelaide, in November. Peter served as ASVO president from 1995-1998 and has contributed to the Australian wine industry throughout a career spanning more than 30 years. In addition to his viticulture

production roles, Peter has contributed to viticulture education and training, research and development investment and management, government and industry issues and has served on numerous industry boards. In his speech at the awards night, Peter shared his passion for the ‘yellow peril’, the Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, and spoke of the recognition and praise that it receives internationally. The ASVO congratulates Peter on the exceptional effort and passion he has brought to the wine industry and welcomes him as an ASVO Fellow. In the spirit of industry unity and consolidation, the ASVO actively sought opportunities to collaborate with industry partners in 2015 to ensure the sustainability of the Society and its ongoing relevance to the wine industry. The ASVO has invested significant resources to coordinate an industry-based technical advisory group to review the best practice guidelines for Australian wine shows. The updated guide is now available online at the ASVO website. The ASVO also joined forces with the AWRI to celebrate its 60th anniversary. Terry Lee, editor of the Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, and specially appointed associate editor Markus Herderich have worked tirelessly with Dan Johnson, Ella Robinson and the majority of the AWRI staff to produce a special edition of the journal which was published in December. The dedication and enthusiasm of the AWRI staff to this huge task is warmly thanked and provides a compelling series of 18 reviews on topics of relevance to the Australian WVJ grape and wine sector.

Storage Tanks

BUY OR RENT

Tanks upto 24,000 Litres available for 2016 vintage

28–34 Neptune Terrace · Ottoway · South Australia 5013

Phone (08) 8245 2100 · Fax (08) 8447 1088 · Email fmc@fmiller.com.au For more information on our wide range of products visit 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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.fmiller.com.au V31N1


K E Y

F I L E S

The Mother of Presidents nurtures a fledgling wine industry – but could it grow too big for its boots? By Tony Keys

While on a recent visit to New Jersey to see family for Christmas, Tony took the opportunity to make the six-hour drive south to the Virginian wine region to revisit its wines and compare what he tasted seven years earlier. While the promise the wines showed not only reminded Tony of the wines he tasted in Australia in the early 1980s, he also discovered a parallel between the aspirations Virginia has for itself and those of some regions of Australia during the start of that decade.

I

f it appears strange an article on the Virginian wine industry is appearing in Australia’s leading wine and viticulture magazine, bear with me. For me the Virginian story starts in 2008 at the London Wine Trade Fair. While walking along the aisles chatting with Oz Clarke, we came across the Virginian wine stand and stopped to taste. Oz being Oz and a star and all, took centre stage and I quietly tasted my way through the wines, undisturbed. None I tasted at that time had the wow factor or rang my bell but they did show promise. In fact, they reminded me of tasting Australian wines in the early 1980s. It was not only the taste of the wines, but the attitude and buoyancy of the producers. Seven years later I find myself in New Jersey visiting family for Christmas. Virginia being a six-hour drive south, I thought it a good opportunity to see what progress the wines had made and how the local industry was faring. This is not a wine review article so I shall skip a great deal of the detail on individual wines, except to say some I tasted were excellent, several were of acceptable standard, and others best described as a work in progress. Which was just how I found many Australian wines in the early ‘80s. For me a further connection between Virginia and Australia exists in where producers in some Australian regions thought they were in the early 1980s and where their future would lie. Comparing them then with today, 30 years later, have those early ambitions been realised? There has been great change but I suggest not necessarily the change wineries predicted back in the day. Memory being fickle, individual and somewhat fragile, others may disagree and comment is welcome. Three Australian regions come quickly to mind when thinking of the ‘80s: Hunter Valley, Mornington Peninsula and the Yarra Valley. The Hunter was well-established and had proved itself via many good wines but it was also a tourist trap with a lot of overpriced, ordinary wine being offered at some cellar doors. Overpricing was also rife in the Yarra and Mornington with the belief that being on the doorstep of a major city would mean adoration and loyalty from Melbournians plus a willingness to pay whatever was asked. Demographics play a huge role in this story, both in the past and present, of the two Victorian regions and the present and future of Virginian wineries.

V3 1N 1

There are now 50 plus wineries in the Mornington Peninsula and more than 150 producers in the Yarra Valley. Today’s tally in Virginia has passed 250 having risen from less than 80 in 2004. The Virginian wine story starts way back in the early 17th century but its most prominent early enthusiast was Thomas Jefferson, the author of the American Declaration of Independence and the USA’s third president. His home was Monticello Plantation, just outside Charlottesville, where he started planting European vines in 1771. Due to the then unknown damage the yet-to-be-named phylloxera bug, downy mildew and other pests and diseases inflicted on European ▶ vines, Jefferson’s dream failed.

Manage Brettanomyces bruxellensis in-house

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 CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

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

11


K E Y

F I L E S

Until the marriage of European vines onto phylloxerathree-tier system of importer, distributor and retailer. It means resistant American native rootstock in the second half of the a winery can service local restaurants and bottleshops directly 19th century, wine production in America was restricted to without losing margin to a distributor. The state also issues native grape varieties. remote licences liberally. These allow wineries to sell wine at In size, Virginia ranks 37th of the US’s 50 states covering farmers’ markets or off-site events. The Fedors say they get 39,000 square miles (101,000km2) and has a population of 8.3 as many as licences they need whereas Maryland, an adjoining million. In comparison Victoria is 227,600km2 in size with a state, only allows each of its wineries to have five per year. population of 5.94 million. Many wineries have a distributor for the rest of the state More importantly, the Virginian wine industry draws on the outside of their locality, surrounding states and DC. Comparing population of surrounding states and Washington DC (600,000 Virginia with Victoria one can see it’s the demographics of residents). More than one winery made mention of DC being population and wealth that separates the two. an hour’s drive away and how many people came down for a Wineries in the Mornington Peninsula and Yarra Valley will weekend break visiting wineries. Worth noting, the median be envious of the charge Virginian wineries impose on visitors. household income in DC is US$88,233 ($122,151) which ranks At North Gate a tasting fee of US$7 ($9.70) a head is levied highest among the US’s 25 most populous metro areas. rising to US$12 per head for groups of eight or more. The Mark and Vicki Fedor came to wine from the computer tasting room is huge, able to accommodate up to 75 people science industry buying land in Loudoun County, northern and packed most weekends. Local cheese, prosciutto, salami, Virginia, in 1997, which also included a small patch of neglected dips, tapenades, hummus and baguettes plus seasonal specials vines. They spent several years working at Corcoran Vineyards make up the food offerings. Visitors can taste, buy a glass or before opening North Gate Vineyards in 2007. The vineyards bottle of wine, plate of food and relax in front of the fire to enjoy. now total 11 acres on the home farm with a further 11 acres North Gate is also showing growth of 20 per cent a year and leased off-site. Mark Fedor said the global financial crisis of like many Virginian wineries faces a shortage of grape supply. 2008 hardly touched the region’s wineries due to well-paid The Fedors are also environmentally aware having attained a Washington public servants. gold level LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) According to the Fedors and others interviewed, the Virginian certification for the tasting room and winery. government is extremely helpful to the wine industry. In The wine varietal selection in Virginia is interesting. In addition to providing free maps (state and local) and guides, it addition to Viognier, Chardonnay, Merlot and Petit Verdot, North allows each winery to self-distribute up to 3000 cases annually Gate offers wine made from Rkatsiteli along with a Meritage within the state. This is important in a country that has the Vintage blend of Merlot, Cabernet Franc and Petit Verdot. Accolade Wines Australia Limited, Aravina Estate, Australian Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beltunga, Bests Wines Great Western, BremertonViognier has become the signature grape for Virginia but Wines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, from the tastings and discussions I had perhaps Petit Manseng Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, would have taken the crown had it been planted more widely Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Estate, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanseand in the ground earlier than Viognier. low Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles Wine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd,Rkatsiteli and Petit Manseng may add exotics to the varietal Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Drive mix but do not generate as much discussion and opposing Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, Hungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood opinion as Norton, a grape of unknown parentage but believed Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Barto be the result of cross-breeding native varieties by Dr. Daniel ry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Norton at his property Magnolia Farm, Virginia, plus fortuitous Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynamic Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Wines luck. The story of Dr. Norton and his grape is a fascinating The Wine Industry’s Leading Online Job Site Group, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, one and fully told by Todd Kiliman in his book The Wild Vine, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, published by Broadway Paperbacks. Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Wines, Portavin Integrated Wine Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SER-Norton has no greater or more loyal supporter than VICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyards, Rymill Coonawarra, Seville Jennifer Lynn McCloud (Jenni), the owner of Chrysalis Vineyard, Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Family Wine Co, Middleburg. McCloud describes herself as a serial entrepreneur The Lane Vineyard, The Scotchmans Hill Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tintara Winery, Tower Estate Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine and has made fortunes several times over from creating and Estates, Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrell’s Wines, selling software companies. Vinpac International, Warburn Estate Pty Ltd, WebAware Pty Ltd, Wine and Vine Personnel International,Wines Overland, Wingara WIneChrysalis Vineyard is part of the 412-acre (167 hectare) Group,Wirra Wirra Vineyards, Zilzie Wines, Accolade Wines Australia Locksley Estate and, according to Jenni, is her last venture and Limited, Aravina Estate, Australian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Belwill be the place she dies. The energy, intellect and personality tunga, Bests Wines Great Western, Bremerton Wines, Brown Brothers of McCloud is jam-packed in the biggest sense and the person Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, as complex as it’s possible for a person to be. Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Estate, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limit-McCloud entwines ideas, conversation and preaching about ed, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles the qualities of the Norton grape and wine at an articulate and Wine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Drive Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, rapid rate. Apart from the grapes, which are turned into wine Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, and sold via tasting room or mailing list, the property has a rare Hungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, breed herd of American Milking Devon cows whose milk is used Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Barry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynamic to make Locksley Estate Farmstead cheese, also made and Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes sold onsite. There are plans to plant Red Fife wheat, which was Australia, McWilliam’s Wines Group, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, MopNorth America’s preferred bread wheat in the 19th century but pity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty created & managed by Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick almost died out in the 20th century. The wheat will be turned 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 EThe & V I TScotchmans I C ULT UR E JO UR NAHill L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016 V31N1 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.

12


K E Y

Jenni McCloud, owner of Chrysalis Vineyard, in Middleburg, and an advocate of the American native grape Norton which was first cultivated in Virginia.

F I L E S

into bread which, in turn, will be made and sold on the property, now collectively called the Ag District. Add in the rare breed Tamworth pigs and assorted chickens and it becomes clear the philosophy of McCloud is value adding and fully sustainable farming. A mainstay of winery economics in Virginia is the VIP or members’ club. To join the Chrysalis VIP club costs US$50, a one-off, non-refundable fee, because according to McCloud people don’t “appreciate” unless they have paid for it. Each member gets allocated two bottles of wine a month, averaging around US$45 total. They can be posted but the winery will keep them for six months as this encourages the member to visit the winery to pick them up and part with more money. VIP members also have special tasting events and often a private area where they can drink wine. This combined with the tasting charge and the higher price of Virginian wine makes for a profitable industry overall. Her software past comes to the fore as McCloud explains the next step in her plans, when several stations will be added to the tasting room where a pre-paid card can be inserted to dispense the wine (by taste or glass), give information and cleverly deduct the appropriate fee. The card can then be taken to another station for another wine and finally to a tablet where an order is placed and more money deducted for the wine, which can be collected on the way out. It’s a system designed to handle more customers at busy times with less staff. Chrysalis produces around 10,000 cases a year from a range of varieties apart from Norton including Albariño, Rubiana, Petit ▶ Manseng, Nebbiolo and Tannat.

AT THE 2016 IRRIGATION AUSTRALIA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION, THE LEADING INDUSTRY EVENT WHERE IRRIGATION PROFESSIONALS COME TOGETHER TO DO BUSINESS IN ONE PLACE, FACE TO FACE.

V3 1N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

13


K E Y

F I L E S

Jim Dolphin, of Delaplane Cellars, whose 4000 case production is split 60 per cent to wine club members, 30-35 per cent via the tasting room and 5-10 per cent via outside retailers or restaurants. Norton, or any other native variety, plays no part in the wines crafted at Jim Dolphin’s Delaplane Cellars, located on Lost Mountain overlooking Crooked Run Valley. A quiet man but with a twinkle in the eye and subtle humour, Dolphin came to wine from the world of finance as CFO of a listed property company after buying a 32-acre property and planting 10 acres of vines. His output is modest at just 4000 cases but his sales split is what many an Australian winery would love to have, 60 per cent to wine club members, 30-35 per cent via the tasting room and 5-10 per cent via outside retailers or restaurants. There can be a drawback to selling the majority of production directly as the consumer requires a range of wines when visiting a tasting room or belonging to a VIP club. It’s not a huge problem but it can be an annoyance on a small property where terroir or winemaking philosophy can be best suited to a limited varietal range. Dolphin has contracts with growers around the state and is particularly fond of fruit from the Shenandoah Valley. At this point in time fruit is scarce and planting is accelerating, again bringing forth memories of the Mornington and Yarra in the ‘80s when the belief was, every vine planted would result in a $30-40 bottle of wine that consumers would be happy to buy. Virginian vineyards crop around 3.5-4 tons per acre with the price ranging from US$1500 to US$2500 a ton. With fruit scarce and prices steep it leaves the door open to manipulation as a US law allows 25 per cent of grapes in a bottle of wine to come from out of state yet allows the producer to claim state regionality. Dolphin and the others interviewed were against the practice but agreed it went on and could potentially become a problem for the reputation of Virginian wine. Dolphin describes his wines as being more French in style than Californian and by inference Australian. It was a statement heard many times from Virginian wine folk. Amusing in part because if the climate argument is evoked, there are more Australian regions closer to Bordeaux and Burgundy than Virginian. One could continue with soils etc. but the point is part of America wants to feel connected to Europe and not the West Coast and certainly not Australia.

14

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

Chris Pearmund was one of the Virginian contingent in London in 2008 and holds American and UK dual citizenship. He trained as a chef before becoming enamored with wine over three decades ago. He has been involved in establishing several wineries and currently has four under his control: Pearmund Cellars, Vint Hill, Bull Run and Effingham. The combined production is around 20,000 cases with winemaking in the hands of Ashton Lough. Lough says he crafts nearly all the wine at each site, therefore capturing the individuality of the wines. He is not a great supporter of terroir, believing “hang time” is more important, and maybe it is in Virginia. Unfortunately there wasn’t a range of wines other than Pearmund Cellars for comparison. Although not doubting Lough’s statement, apart from varietal differences and expertise in winemaking, individual winery style or terroir influence were not particularly apparent across the state especially when compared with varietal individuality. Like Dolphin, Pearmund said the Shenandoah Valley held promise for grapegrowing. He also showed the contents of a case of wine recently delivered referring to it as “on the job training”. The wines came from around the world including one from d’Arenberg. He, Lough and others have a different wine each day at lunch to keep abreast of what is going on in other wine regions. Fortunes made outside of wine run big in today’s Virginian wine industry. None perhaps bigger than Steve and Jean Case, owners of Early Mountain Winery, an impressive property in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Madison County. The Cases are noted philanthropists and involved in many charitable causes. Presidents past and present plus the elite of Washington appear in their social circle. Steve Case was involved in the early days of America on Line (AOL) and at one time sat on the board of Time-Warner. The winery is a Jean Case project with the day-to-day running in the hands of staff. My visit was hosted by sales and distribution manger Patrick Eagan and winemaker Ben Jordan. Jordon is a native Virginian but gained his experience in California. His family also grows grapes in the Shenandoah Valley. The winery was established in 2005 as Sweetly Estate with the Cases taking over in 2011 and renaming the 300-acre property. Money has been spent on the tasting room, winery and vineyards with the current focus being to lift wine quality, a task Jordon

Tony Keys (right) with Chris Pearmond currently has four Virginian wineries under his control - Pearmund Cellars, Vint Hill, Bull Run and Effingham – which have a combined production of around 20,000 cases.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


K E Y

appears more than capable of. At the moment production is 4200 cases but is predicted to grow to 10,000. Should this happen then markets outside of the VIP club and visitors will have to be found. “New York?” I asked. “No, not at first,” was the quick reply. The plan is to go south to North and South Carolina to the cities of Charlotte, Charleston and Atlanta in the state of Georgia, plus Washington DC topping the list. Further south in the Blue Mountain foothills lies Barboursville Vineyards. This estate has a long and prestigious history dating back to the middle of the 18th century. It remained in the Barbour family hands for 200 years. In 1976 it was acquired by Gianni and Silvana Zonin. The Zonins have been making wine in Italy since 1821 and are the largest private vine-growing and winemaking company in the country. They are widely recognised today across the US for their wines including the hugely successful Zonin Prosecco with annual sales in the US close to 300,000 nine litre cases. The Barbour family history is fascinating as is that of the Zonin’s but not to be dealt with here. Luca Paschina, hailing from Piedmont, Italy, has been the resident winemaker since 1990 when there were just 42 wineries in the state. The property is 900 acres with 185 acres planted to vines. Production is around 30,000 cases with the majority of the fruit sourced from estate and 10 per cent bought in. Paschina says two out of 10 vintages are not good because it’s too wet and two out of 10 not good due to it being too hot. The rest he says with a smile are, “OK”. Being one of the largest producers in the state it raises the question, where is the market for the wine? Surely export out of state and overseas is needed.

F I L E S

The ruins of the mansion of former Virginian Governor James Barbour, which are located within the property of Barboursville Vineyards, owned by the Zonin family. The mansion was designed by Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and the Virginian wine industry’s most prominent albeit unsuccessful vigneron during its early years.

The culture of fermentation

“Partially,” says Paschina. Forty five per cent of sales are in Virginia and three per cent is exported overseas mainly to the UK where Zonin has an office, with the remainder distributed along the East Coast. With a state population of more than eight million and more millions not far away, Paschina is optimistic about the future. The ▶ secret, he says, “is to grow but grow wisely”.

10 / l or 6

90,000,000,000,000 …the number of yeast cells it takes to ferment 90kL of wine. So why compromise using inferior quality yeast? Focus on protecting your wine while enhancing aroma and character development, Fermentis offer a superior range of pure yeast products specifically developed to meet the highest quality standards of winemakers around the world. Contact Brendan Evans T: 0488 138 790 E: brendan.evans@portavin.com.au

Representing Fermentis in Australia and New Zealand

V3 1N 1

portavin.com.au

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

portavin

@portavin

www.winetitles. com . au

15


K E Y

F I L E S

From the old to the new, Stinson Vineyards is a 30 mile (48 kilometres) drive west through the city of Charlottesville. Scott Stinson bought the property in 2009 to retire on. It included a five-acre vineyard that had been planted in the ‘70s and Stinson got the bug. Unfortunately the vineyard was at the end of its life, the humid Virginian climate having taken its toll. Jake Busching, winemaker at Virginia Wineworks, says, “In the Virginian climate 20-year-old vines are beat up.” Stinson ripped out the old vineyard and tempted his daughter Rachel to leave New York and join him in the new winemaking venture. He was lucky in buying surrounding land, increasing his holding to 13 acres with seven acres replanted to vines. The first vintage from bought-in grapes was 2010 and the tasting room opened in 2011. Rachel has learnt her winemaking skills from established local winemaker Mathieu Finot and is studying wine via the local community college which teaches the UK-based Wine and Spirit Education Trust courses. Production is small, around 2500 cases, and sales follow the usual pattern of tasting room, wine club and small amounts of local distribution. A newbie compared with Barboursville Vineyards, the Stinsons share the same passion. “The better wine we are making the better for the region,” says Rachel. Stephen Barnard is South African born and studied oenology and viticulture at Elsenburg Agricultural College. He arrived in Virginia in 2002 as an intern at Keswick Vineyards. In 2004 he moved away but returned to Keswick in 2006 as winemaker and general manager. The 400-acre property is planted to 45 acres of grapes but Barnard has identified a further 55 acres as suitable for planting and plans to increase in size. Al and Cindy Schornberg are the owners, Al also being Barnard’s father-in-law. Barnard is direct, free speaking and somewhat romantic about wine and its role in life. He was a touch defensive on vintage variation, which he wants to promote but others don’t. He likes to make and promote single varietal wines but also has blends in his range. He’s not overly fond of Viognier but recognises a need for it in his portfolio. He follows the handsoff approach in the winery, coaxing not forcing the process of grape to wine. His view on the current Virginian industry is it’s at a “crossroads”. He would like it more wine driven than tourism driven but concedes the profitability is venue based. He looks to RdV Vineyards that make just two wines and asks US$100 a bottle for them. He is also bitterly opposed to allowing up to 25 per cent of out-of-state grapes in a bottle labeled ‘Virginia Wine.’ Barnard’s opinion on the wrongs of the 25 per cent allowance is supported by Michael Shaps and Jake Busching of Virginia Wineworks, a contract winemaking facility in the hills south of Charlottesville. Apart from the contract winemaking (16 customers) there is the Michael Shaps brand and Maison Shaps, a range of wine he makes in Burgundy each vintage. The contract winemaking service includes sourcing grapes, vineyard advice, bottling, label advice and, if needed, storage, distribution and sales. Shaps uses the contract winemaking and tasting room cashflow to invest in ageing some of his Shaps brand wines to offer consumers more integrated wine. It works as his 2005 Petit Verdot and 2007 Merlot were showing very well. Shaps and Busching spoke at length and with deep knowledge on the Virginian industry, Shaps believing there is no incentive for

16

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

Michael Shaps (right) and Jake Busching of Virginia Wineworks, a contract winemaking facility in the hills south of Charlottesville. larger companies to take an interest and invest in the region. He also believes winery expansion is nearing its peak saying he has already seen a few pull out of the business because they couldn’t make it pay. The Virginian wine industry is fascinating to compare with the Yarra Valley or the Mornington Peninsula. It makes one wonder, if the population of Melbourne had been double what it was in the 1980s and there were many more wine drinking wealthy consumers in easy striking distance, how they would have developed? It’s my view they would have spent more time chasing the tourist dollar and perhaps we wouldn’t have the quality wines that we associate with both regions today. Currently there is little need to export Virginian wine overseas nor is there any great need to export wine to other states. This I feel leads to a certain over confidence which could result in hard times ahead. As Andrew Jefford said in a Decanter article last November of Virginia’s Bordeaux varietals, “with a few exceptions make polite, well-bred red wines with freshness and balance, much enjoyed locally, but without the kind of arresting originality and dense core which would send Virginia storming onto the world wine map.” Is Virginia really ideal winegrowing country? Virginians say it is but from what I have observed and tasted I would say it’s marginal in parts. I see it as a local industry that, as Jefford says, will not storm the world with its wines. I will also add more than just the Bordeaux blends. This I know will upset them but the industry is driven by the venues with wine riding on the back of tasting rooms catering for weddings, office outings, conferences, VIP club members and any other function one can think of. Compared with Australian cellar doors, Virginians are lucky their visitors are prepared to pay money for tastings and have such willingness to join the VIP clubs, subscribing to buying wine monthly or quarterly and buying more when they pick up. Australia could learn from Virginia regarding wine tourism and exchanges in winemaking practices are always interesting. Where Virginia will be in another eight years is hard to say but they could learn from Australia that rushing to plant grapes and increasing winery numbers can backfire. Everyone wants a slice of the American pie. Virginian wine will remain profitable only while the pie grows to accommodate the expanding industry. Should the WVJ industry outgrow the pie, need more be said?

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


EVENTS - ICCWS

The ICCWS 2016 is the major international forum focusing on the production and marketing of quality wines from cool climate regions!

The International Cool Climate Wine Symposium 2016 BRIGHTON, UK, THURS 26TH - SAT 28TH MAY 2016

Your chance to discover the burgeoning UK wine industry first hand

Register your interest & find all the latest news at iccws2016.com

N

ext May the UK will host the International Cool Climate Wine Symposium (www.iccws2016. com) in Brighton, one of the UK’s brightest and most colourful seaside resorts on the South Coast, just one hour by train from London and close to many of the burgeoning English wine estates. The three-day conference is aimed at all involved in making, marketing and selling cool climate wines across the world, offering the chance to network, learn and engage with leading practitioners and academics in our global industry. To highlight the development of the UK wine industry broadcaster and writer Oz Clarke will lead a session on English still wines while Essi Avellan MW will present a tasting of English sparkling wines. The program includes a mix of plenary and parallel break-out sessions, bookable in advance, with something for everyone. There will also be plenty of time for networking - between the sessions, during morning and afternoon breaks, lunch and, of course, the array of supporting evening events. On the Wednesday evening before the symposium all delegates are invited to the launch event at the historic Brighton Museum, with a canapé reception paired with English wines. On the Thursday evening, a Sushi & Cool Climate Wine Tasting takes place at The Sea Life Centre, the UK’s oldest aquarium, where guests will taste sustainably sourced sushi alongside cool climate wines from around the world while enjoying the fun surroundings and Brighton’s best swing DJs to soundtrack the experience. On Friday evening the Gala Dinner begins with a sparkling wine reception before guests enjoy a three-course dinner, with each course inspired by some of Sussex’s top chefs. The symposium is also linked to the Brighton Food and Drink consumer festival that weekend, offering the chance to sample some of the best local produce and fine food and drink from across the UK.

18

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

YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE THE UK WINE INDUSTRY As a relative newcomer to the world of wine, England has been punching well above its weight in terms of proven quality performance and resulting publicity. In the last 16 years, England has been awarded no less than 12 trophies for its sparkling white and rosé wines in international competitions - no other country has achieved this. According to market research company Nielsen, English sparkling wines are fourth in the top 10 selling wines in the UK offtrade, having shown a near 50% increase in sales in the last 12 months. It comes behind only Italy, Spain and Australia.

Harvest under way in the Bolney Wine Estate vineyard. Although wines have been produced on and off in England since the Romans brought the grapevine to Britain, the modern commercial wine industry was founded just over 60 years ago. In those early days it was light still wine from Germanic varieties that were produced. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s the direction started to change, with the planting of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier in Sussex - paving the way for what is now the dominant style in English winemaking: sparkling wine. This is the style that now accounts for some twothirds of England’s total production, which will continue to increase. Vines are grown and wine is produced in both England and Wales. The vast majority (nearly 98%) comes from England, although there are some exciting developments in Wales as well.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

The growth of sparkling wine production stems from the South East of England, covering the counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire. This is largely down to the excellent growing conditions and the soil, much of which is very similar to that found in Champagne. The South Downs, which run across much of the South East coast, are created from chalk and limestone and, in fact, are geologically linked to the Cotes de Blancs in the Champagne region. Around 50% of the vineyard hectarage is found in the South East, but there are many other vineyards across the country, from England’s South West, which boasts a number of award-winning vineyards, through the Midlands, East Anglia and as far north as Yorkshire. In Wales, vineyards are located in both the north and the south of the country. In the last eight years alone, vineyard hectarage in the UK has more than doubled. This is now resulting in higher volumes produced and although mainly sold through the domestic market, are now starting to be exported. Only a handful of the larger commercial producers currently export, amounting to some 15 different countries. Currently less than 10% is exported overall, but this figure will rise over the coming years as more volume becomes available. Meanwhile, English wines are carving a niche for themselves domestically, both in the high street stores (supermarkets, off licences and independent retailers) and a welcome inclusion in Britain’s burgeoning hotel and restaurant scene. Food and drink in the UK has seen exponential growth and development over the last decade or so. This sector is now one of the UK’s top exports; the food and drink culture in the UK itself is buzzing. The south of England is one such area that is now a hub of many different top quality food and drink producers and exciting outlets. Brighton itself is a town that exudes gastronomic innovation and activity. This coastal centre also lies in one of England’s wine heartlands, from which there are opportunities to visit some of the country’s leading producers in their own ‘wine

V31N1


EVENTS - ICCWS

country’ – ideally placed, therefore, to play host to the International Cool Climate Wine Symposium 2016 More than 100 vineyards lie within an hour of the ICCWS conference, in the counties of Hampshire, Surrey, Kent and East and West Sussex. These range from the smaller, family-owned and run vineyards established at the start of the modern era of English winemaking, many specialising in still wines from a range of varieties, to the larger commercial operations, focussed on producing the finest Champagne varietal sparkling wines and building their brands for the future.    Sussex is also the home of Plumpton College, which houses the UK’s only centre for viticulture and wine studies. Less than half an hour from the ICCWS conference venue, Plumpton is the only institute in Europe to teach viticulture and winemaking courses in English but also covers the ever important areas of wine marketing and tourism. Alumni not only go on to carve careers for themselves in wine regions across the world, but many provide the backbone to the UK wine industry itself. It is indeed exciting times for the UK wine industry. This year the ICCWS will provide the best of opportunities to both introduce and highlight the wines of the UK and the people behind them. Not only will there be many tastings and wine and food events, but a series of visits to vineyards from Brighton will be organised in conjunction with one of the conference’s supporters and sponsors, wine tourism operators Arblaster & Clarke (www.winetours.co.uk). Further details on the organised visits being offered to delegates will be available on the ICCWS website in due course. Additionally, of course, the ICCWS will itself be an excellent forum to meet with a good number of English and Welsh winegrowers and producers who will also be attending as delegates. May 2016 really will provide a global networking event like no other. SPOTLIGHT ON SOME OF THE PRODUCERS A few of the more notable names lying within easy distance of Brighton are: Denbies Wine Estate, Surrey  The UK’s largest single vineyard, Denbies, is famous not only for its wines (supplying many of the first Supermarket label English wines) but also for its impressive tourism set-up. Denbies has been leading the way in this growing sector and provides innovative ways of making its

V3 1N 1

vineyard a real destination for wine lovers, including vineyard trains and a 360-degree cinema. Definitely worth visiting if you’re interested in capitalising on the growing oeno-tourism market. www.denbies.co.uk

A view of Denbies Wine Estate, in Surrey, the UK’s largest single vineyard, one of the more notable producers that lie within easy distance from Brighton where the International Cool Climate Wine Symposium 2016 will convene in May. For further details on the organised visits being offered to delegates, keep an eye on the ICCWS website. Denbies photo: Helen Dixon Nyetimber, West Sussex A pioneer in the English sparkling world, and one of the most recognisable brands in the country, Nyetimber was the first in the country to dedicate its vineyards solely to the Champagne varieties, and continues to be an innovator in sparkling wines, leading the way in terms of international reputation. Nyetimber is the UK’s largest wine estate with vineyards spread across Sussex and Hampshire. Although not usually open to the public, Nyetimber open its doors on select weekends, allowing wine fans a special opportunity to see something of the vineyard and learn the story behind the premium brand. www.nyetimber.com Ridgeview Wine Estate, Sussex Another leader in English sparkling, Ridgeview was among the first to embrace the traditional Champagne varieties as the basis for its wines, and has been one of the biggest names in the industry for more than 25 years, and one of the first to be exported.  Owned and run by the Roberts family, Ridgeview is now into its second generation and has continued to impress, with its wines served at many state functions, most recently by the Queen to the Chinese Premier. www.ridgeview.co.uk

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

The foru of q

Bolney Wine Estate, West Sussex Another familyBRIG owned and run vineyard, originally established in the early 1970s. The daughter of the founders, Samantha Register your intere Linter, now runs the operation as managing director and head winemaker. Unusually for an English vineyard, the focus of its plantings is on red varieties, producing still and sparkling. Pinot Noir, Pinot Gris and Gamay feature among the varieties grown. Bolney is also now exporting, and its wine is also served on British Airways. Bolney has also built up a successful wine tourism business onsite, complete with cafe (serving dishes with ingredients all sourced from within 10 miles of the vineyard), vineyard tours and shop. www.bolneywineestate.com Hattingley Valley, Hampshire Currently the largest contract maker of sparkling wine in England, and with its own label wines gaining plaudits from their first releases, Hattingley Valley is a rising star in the industry. Its winery, completed in 2010, is state of the art and eco-friendly and has been responsible for many award-winning sparkling wines (including the CSWWCs 2014 World Champion Vintage Rosé – the Hattingley Valley 2011 Rosé) guided by its winemaker Emma Rice, who was last year named the UK’s ‘Winemaker of the Year’. www.hattingleyvalley.co.uk Hambledon Vineyard, Hampshire Hambledon is England’s oldest commercial vineyard, and was initially planted with the help of experts from Pol Roger, back in 1952. It has undergone huge and fundamental changes in the last decade however, with still varieties grubbed, and a new focus on only premium sparkling wines (which were again planted with the help of a new generation of Pol Roger experts) produced by head winemaker Hervé Jestin -  former chef des caves at Champagne Duval Leroy for more than 20 years. Its winery, completed in 2011, is the only fully gravityfed winery in the UK.  www.hambledonvineyard.co.uk

Delegate tickets for the International Cool Climate Wine Symposium 2016 are available now, costing £600 + VAT per head, from the Symposium website: www. iccws2016.com. The Wine & Viticulture Journal is a trade sponsor of the ICCWS 2016. WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

19


I NEE M MA GG WW I N A KKI N I N

W I N E R Y W A S T E W AT E R

Winery wastewater treatment and attaining sustainability By Mitch Laginestra GHD Pty Ltd, 211 Victoria Square, Adelaide, South Australia 5000. Email: mitchell.laginestra@ghd.com

There is no panacea for treating winery wastewater and the choices for treatment are site specific. Mitch takes readers through the various options and considerations. • lagoons and natural systems (biological processes, including anaerobic and aerobic ponds, and wetlands).

INTRODUCTION The management of winery wastewater is important to both business and environmental performance aspects of the wine industry, impacting on the sustainability of the facility. An appropriate approach to wastewater will potentially involve cleaner production, and re-use of properly treated effluent. Suitable wastewater treatment (i.e., treating winery wastewater to the standard required for discharge or recycling) will improve water use efficiency and reduce the risk of environmental impact (GWRDC 2014). Water cycle management at wineries should be close to the heart of all good vignerons, although many wineries struggle with managing water usage and dealing with wastewater that can be quite difficult to treat. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISATION Winery wastewater is generated from cleaning and washing operations during crushing and pressing of grapes, rinsing of tanks, barrel washing, bottling, residuals drainage, cleanin-place operations, filter washing, etc. Waste streams are extremely variable in volume and quality (with peak flows and contaminant concentrations occurring during vintage - typically over 80% of the annual wastewater is produced during this time). This, coupled with stretched budgets and resources, means that choosing and maintaining a treatment system can present daunting tasks. Wastewater characteristics will dictate, to a large extent, the type of treatment system required.

The favoured treatment system is largely dependent on sitespecific factors, including: • wastewater characteristics • effluent quality requirements (i.e., what the effluent is used for, which dictates how clean the effluent needs to be based on regulatory guidelines) • space availability including buffer requirements (lagoons can involve a footprint some 30+ times greater than mechanical systems) • budget – capital and annual (lagoon systems generally represent significantly lower costs than mechanical systems and are simpler to operate) • technical capability – treatment systems require checking and maintenance, although different treatment systems have different operational requirements. Table 1. Winery wastewater characteristics - vintage vs. nonvintage. Parameter

Vintage period

Non-vintage period

BOD, mg/L

2500 – 7000

800 – 1500

pH

4-8

6 - 10

Suspended solids, mg/L

500 - 1500

200 - 800

Nitrogen, mg/L

20 – 75

5 – 25

Total phosphorus, mg/L 10 - 20

5 - 10

(Laginestra 2012)

WASTEWATER TREATMENT Because environmental issues are such a critical factor in industry competitiveness, the optimisation of wastewater treatment and robust choice of processes in order to reduce impacts and save energy becomes important. As indicated by the high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (see Table 1), winery wastewater is highly biodegradable (due to the high concentration of ethanol or sugars) (Andreottola et al. 2014). Consequently treatment should typically involve biological processes. However, there are several broad options for treatment of winery wastewater, including: • physical/chemical processes (e.g., screening, settling tanks, filtration, pH correction) • mechanically based biological processes (activated sludge, trickling filtration, etc.)

20

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

Figure 1. Lagoon treatment – consider boosting aeration during vintage.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


W I N E R Y W A S T E W AT E R

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

Table 2. Typically adopted winery wastewater treatment. Type of winery

Small with limited land availability

Medium – with land availability

Large winery

Type of treatment

Physical system or proprietary biological coupled with filtration

Lagoon system, with aerobic and polishing ponds in series being most common

Mechanical treatment methods for biological treatment and reuse

Aspects for treatment

Can be complex, small space and tucked away, often leads to out of mind mentality when it comes to operations

Lagoons, while forgiving can cause odours particularly during vintage. May suffer from excess algae

Mechanical systems need to be well operated and maintained to optimise performance and mitigate odour issues

Biologically-treated effluents are typically suitable for irrigation (which is the most common form of treated effluent disposal). Filtration downstream of the biological process will further reduce contaminants (mainly aimed at suspended solids) and potentially enables a wider use for the effluent (cleaning of non-wine production areas and washdown). It should be noted there is no panacea for winery wastewater treatment, and choice is site specific. Wineries are often located in rural locations, with space, and consequently lagoon treatment systems are common, followed by irrigation of effluent on vineyards. This is not always the case, and there are many mechanical systems that are generally perceived as easier to implement with minimal footprint. In general, however, systems with a small footprint (higher applied load) have a higher level of complexity. In reality, there are many cases where both types of systems do not perform, or minimal treatment is practised, and poor quality wastewater irrigated, which presents an environmental risk (e.g., soil degradation, surface run-off) ultimately leading to a future cost risk to the winery. While lagoon systems are very forgiving, and can handle hydraulic variations, the vintage period presents greater contaminant loading, and unless additional treatment is introduced, then effluent quality can deteriorate, resulting in odour generation. Overcoming this issue might involve installation of additional mechanical aeration units at the onset and throughout the vintage period (Figure 1). For mechanical systems, it is important to design for vintage BOD (by providing additional aeration). However, hydraulic variation can be an issue and flow balancing is important (often combined with pH correction, as the biomass in mechanical systems is sensitive). A comparison of typically adopted systems based on winery size is outlined in Table 2 (note that there are economies of scale). While there are number of new technologies available in the wastewater industry (in most cases new intensive process Bassett et al. 2014, Gunderson 2015) these will need to be proven specifically for the winery industry and cost and subsequent viability for wineries is considered dubious. A viable alternative to provision of additional aeration during vintage might include implementation of an anaerobic system (degradation of organic matter in the absence of oxygen – involving longer detention times and deeper lagoons >4m). Anaerobic lagoons are rare at wineries because of the vintage/ non-vintage period (and subsequent mismatch in loading, as well as potential for odours and perceived expense of control and installation of the lagoon, which requires much longer detention). Covering of anaerobic lagoons is becoming more common place in other industries, typically for control of odours and collection of methane gas for power generation (Figure 2). This, then, provides an opportunity to obtain a beneficial by-product – methane rich

V3 1N 1

Figure 2. A covered anaerobic lagoon can potentially be used to generate electricity from gas while providing treatment during vintage.

Top shelf wastewater ideas For more than 85 years we’ve been helping clients get the most out of sustainable wastewater solutions With us, you can expect value-for-money solutions for the management of your water resources: • • • •

Wastewater management Water efficiency Irrigation Environmental planning

To learn more visit www.ghd.com or email mitchell.laginestra@ghd.com

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016 2015 ANZ Wine Industry Directory.indd 1

www.winetitles. com . au

21

13/10/2015 4:06:45 PM


I NEE M MA GG WW I N A KKI N I N

W I N E R Y W A S T E W AT E R

biogas that can be used to generate electricity at the winery. Anaerobic ponds are designed to cater for high organic loading, so are suitable for wineries during vintage. Anaerobic systems can lie dormant for long periods of time (non-vintage) but could also be used to cater for residuals from wastewater treatment (aerobic stage) or even external waste streams. If electrical or thermal energy was regarded as beneficial, supplementary organic waste such as manures during the projected high BOD shortfall (non-vintage period), might be considered. However, if no electricity generation is required, covering of the system and flaring of biogas could be adopted (during vintage), and nonvintage wastewater could bypass the anaerobic pond (occasional desludging of solids from the aerobic pond would be fed to the anaerobic system).

and organic loading of land can be an issue. However, they are biodegradable and, consequently, there is an opportunity to stabilise via an anaerobic system (same as that used for wastewater). Products of anaerobic digestion (sludge) contain nutrients and good organic material that might be beneficially used to improve soil characteristics. SUSTAINABLE OPERATIONS Today, it is common in industry to seek sustainable solutions for all activities. Whilst there are a number of definitions, sustainability is generally achieving appropriate environmental, economic and social outcomes. There is perhaps a perception that the term ‘sustainability’ is overused, although I don’t agree. It does mean different things to different people, such as:

RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT

• implementing development that meets present needs without compromising those of future generations

All wastewater treatment systems produce sludge, which is the result of settlement and organic matter degradation in the biological processes, and must be removed to enable optimal operation of the treatment plant. While lagoons might require desludging only every few years, mechanical systems produce more sludge because of energy input and biomass reproduction rate and so require frequent purging of excess sludge (daily to weekly). Residuals generated from wine production (marc and lees) present another issue, and unless dealt with within a short period of time can result in odours. Land spreading is typically employed for disposal, but there are limitations

• achieving the best outcomes for users using least resources

Solar power = business sense • • • • •

Future proof against rising electricity costs Immediate benefits with reduced running costs Promote your “green” business Finance & leasing options Generous government rebates still available

Let us take care of everything, from feasibility to installation & beyond Blue Tongue Solar

E: info@bluetonguesolar.com Ph: (03) 5428 5390 www.bluetonguesolar.com

• use of raw resources that are regenerable • recycling and use of recycled materials • waste to energy and reduced power consumption. So for wineries, sustainable practices might include reduction in use of fertilisers insecticides/fungicides and targeted irrigation (drip), which have been demonstrated in Australia and the USA (Daily News, Quackenbush 2015). Financial sustainability presents another concept, although could be related, through incorporating reduced environmental impact while strengthening a winery’s commercial position. An example could be regarded as treatment of winery wastewater and effluent irrigation which provides greater water supply security for the vineyard. Additional aspects would include energy generation from waste, and beneficial use of residuals by-products from treatment systems and avoiding potential soil deterioration. Consequently, there are broad opportunities to achieve largely sustainable operations at wineries through (see Figure 3): • treatment of wastewater to produce an effluent quality for irrigation (making use of the wastewater, optimising the treatment plant operation and regarding it as a resource) • application of residuals by-product for compost production to provide a beneficial organic resource which may be used to improve soil qualities • re-use of treated winery wastewater beyond irrigation of vineyards or woodlots, with other potential uses of the reclaimed water including washing of concrete areas, service water for heating and cooling and landscape irrigation. Suitable practices to ensure ongoing vineyard sustainability might include: • monitoring (soil chemistry, salinity, crop yields) and working out nutrient budgets • irrigation and soil management practices (incorporating additives required and nutrients/fertilisers added as well as those stemming from recycled water (GWRDC 2014). CONCLUSIONS There is no panacea for winery wastewater treatment. There are a range of aspects to consider and this should be developed

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


W I N E R Y W A S T E W AT E R

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

While wastewater treatment involves a cost, there is a satisfaction from treating the effluent to a standard that allows re-use and there is a payback from ensuring the correct standard of effluent is achieved to prevent deterioration in soil characteristics. If anaerobic systems are utilised, gas generation and utilisation provides energy (thermal and electrical). In addition, waste sludge from the treatment processes could be combined, after dewatering, with marc lees and composted, which could provide a soil conditioning agent. All these components contribute to the sustainability of the winery. REFERENCES Figure 3. Sustainability concept for winery wastewater treatment. on a site-specific basis. Treatment of winery wastewater can be difficult over vintage due to seasonal flow and contaminant increases. Lagoons are cheaper and simpler to build and operate compared with mechanical wastewater treatment systems. However, there are limitations, including lower standard of effluent, algal blooms impacting on effluent quality and neglect in desludging (also impacting on effluent quality). Whilst lagoon systems are very forgiving, the vintage presents much greater loading, and unless additional mechanical aeration capacity is introduced, then effluent quality can deteriorate. Anaerobic systems provide additional opportunities (upstream of aerobic).

Andreottola, G.; Foladori, P. and Ziglio, G. (2014) Biological treatment of winery wastewater: an overview. Water Science and Technology 60(5):1117-1125. Anon. (2015) Gum winery is pick of bunch for sustainability. Warwick Daily News. Published 6 November 2015. Accessed 6 January 2016. Basset, N.; Lopez-Palaua, S.; Dosta, J. and Mata Alvarez, J. (2014) Comparison of aerobic granulation and anaerobic membrane bioreactor technologies for winey wastewater treatment. Water Science and Technology 69(2):320- 327. Gunderson, J. (2015) Brewing & winemaking: sustainable treatment options for high strength effluent challenges. Industrial Water World 15(4). Quackenbush, J. (2015) Sustainability makes good wine business sense. North Bay Business Journal. Published 19 October 2015. Accessed 6 January 2016. Laginestra, M. (2012) Managing winery wastewater for vintage and non-vintage periods. Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker 584:92-95. Wine Australia Resource Kit: Winery Wastewater Management & Recycling – Key Principles for Vineyards (http://research.wineaustralia.com/tools-resources/ winery-waste-water-online-resource-kit/)

WVJ

World Class Yeast Innovation

Through our Maurivin and Next Generation range of active dry wine yeast, complemented with our Mauriferm fermentation aid range, AB Mauri delivers consistently high quality fermentation products to the global wine industry. > THE ART AND SCIENCE OF WINEMAKING

maurivin.com

+61 (0)2 9888 0249 ian.walsh@abmauri.com.au

V3 1N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

23


I NEE M MA GG WW I N A KKI N I N

CABERNET SAUVIGNON

1,4-cineole: A contributor to Australian Cabernet Sauvignon typicality By Guillaume Antalick1*, Sophie Tempere3, Katja Šuklje1, John Blackman1,2, Alain Deloire1, Gilles de Revel3 and Leigh Schmidtke1,2 1 National Wine and Grape Industry Centre, Charles Sturt University 2 School of Agricultural and Wine Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales 3 Institute for Vine and Wine Sciences, INRA, Bordeaux University, France

The aroma of Australian Cabernet Sauvignon wine is often described using specific herbal attributes such as eucalyptus, mint, bay leaf and dried herbs. These descriptors are usually perceived positively by consumers. While the occurrence of eucalyptus character in Australian red wines has been associated with the presence of 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol), the origin of these typical herbaceous notes is poorly understood. 1,4-cineole, a compound with similar structure, odour and natural occurrence to 1,8-cineole, has been recently identified in Australian red wines but quantitative data and sensory characterisation have not been reported. This study investigated the contribution of 1,4-cineole to Australian red wine aroma. INTRODUCTION Around the world, benchmarking of wine regions helps to brand and market fine wines using the concepts of uniqueness and provenance, and this exclusivity assists in achieving higher prices. This process requires both winemakers and wine marketers to better understand the typicality of their wines, with the use of objective compositional measures increasing the capacity to define the discrete styles. In Australia, Cabernet Sauvignon is the second most abundant red cultivar after Shiraz and is used for the production of both straight varietal wines and red blends. Renowned for quality, Cabernet Sauvignon represents approximately 30% of all wines in the 2014 Langton’s Classification, a categorisation based on prices obtained in the secondary market. While Australian Cabernet Sauvignon wines are often appreciated for their distinctive fruit aromas, they are also described using attributes such as ‘eucalyptus’, ‘mint’, ‘bay leaf’ and ‘dried herbs’ (Halliday 2011). These differ from the descriptions commonly ascribed to the predominantly Cabernet Sauvignon wines from Bordeaux, which are often used as a reference for this variety. Studies have demonstrated that these herbal characters are generally positively perceived by consumers (Saliba et al. 2009, Lattey et al. 2010), with the ability to provide balance and

24

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

complexity to the overall wine aromatic spectrum. Besides the occurrence of eucalyptus notes reported to be associated with the presence of 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol) in red wine (Figure 1) (Capone et al. 2011), the origin of these specific aromas remains poorly understood. Figure 1 shows 1,4-cineole, another monoterpene with a similar structure and natural occurrence to that of 1,8-cineole, which has also been reported in Australian red wines (Robinson et al. 2011). However to our knowledge, 1,4-cineole has not been previously quantified in wines and the sensory impact of this compound in wines has not been reported. This study, recently published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (Antalick et al. 2015), investigated the occurrence of 1,4-cineole in red wine and examined its contribution to the aroma of Cabernet Sauvignon wine. A quantitative method was developed and validated in order to perform a survey of 1,4-cineole and 1,8-cineole in the following 104 Australian red wines; 51 Cabernet Sauvignon (mean age 3.5 years), four Cabernet Sauvignon/Merlot blends (mean age seven years), 27 Shiraz (mean age 3.5 years) and 22 Pinot Noir wines (mean age two years). The wines originated from different Australian wine regions, including important regions for Cabernet Sauvignon wine production such as the Barossa Valley,

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

A.

B.

Figure 1. Chemical structure of 1,4-cineole (A) and 1,8-cineole (B).

Figure 2. Distribution of 1,4-cineole concentrations in Australian red wines represented as box plots with the minimum, maximum, median and quartiles. Cab. Sauv. = Cabernet Sauvignon. Different letters represent significant (p ≤0.05) differences. Coonawarra, McLaren Vale and the Margaret River. Discriminative and descriptive sensory methods were used to characterise the contribution of 1,4‑cineole, both independently and in combination with 1,8-cineole, upon ▶ Cabernet Sauvignon wine aroma.

V31N1


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


I NEE M MA GG WW I N A KKI N I N

CABERNET SAUVIGNON

1,4-CINEOLE: AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTOR TO AUSTRALIAN CABERNET SAUVIGNON WINES Compound 1,4-cineole was detected in all wines analysed, with concentrations ranging from 0.023-1.6μg/L. An important varietal effect was observed with average concentrations 8.4 and 2.7 fold higher in Cabernet Sauvignon than in Shiraz and Pinot Noir wines, respectively. All Shiraz wines exhibited concentrations below 0.2μg/L, and 87% of Pinot Noir wines showed concentrations below 0.4μg/L. Conversely, 1,4-cineole concentrations were above 0.4μg/L in 68% of the Cabernet Sauvignon wines analysed, including seven wines with concentrations above 1μg/L (Figure 2, see page 24). A comparison between 53 Australian and 26 French (mean age 11 years) predominantly Cabernet Sauvignon wines revealed that 1,4-cineole concentrations were significantly higher in Australian (0.59 ± 0.33µg/L) than French wines (0.25 ± 0.15µg/L). The same comparison was also completed with consideration of the wine age. This further emphasised the relative importance of 1,4-cineole in Australian wines compared with those from France (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Comparison of the ratio 1,4-cineole concentration:wine age between Australian and French Cabernet Sauvignon wines. Different letters represent significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.

CONTRIBUTION OF 1,4-CINEOLE TO CABERNET SAUVIGNON WINE AROMA The sensory impact level of 1,4-cineole was assessed in Cabernet Sauvignon wine using a series of triangle tests. An addition of 0.54μg/L of 1,4-cineole in a French Cabernet Sauvignon wine, to produce a final

26

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

A.

B.

Figure 4. Descriptive analysis: Evaluation of the contribution of 1,4-cineole and 1,8-cineole to hay (A), bay leaf (B) aromas in a Cabernet Sauvignon wine (CS) using the deviation from reference method (test of similarity). Sample codes are shown. The number of panelists was 33. Different letters represent significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences. concentration of 0.63μg/L, was required before it was detected by the panel (n = 18). Sixty percent of Australian Cabernet Sauvignon wines exhibited higher concentrations of 1,4-cineole than this sensory threshold level, whereas only 9% of Pinot Noir wines and no Shiraz wines exceeded the level of 1,4-cineole required for sensory impact. Descriptive analysis was also undertaken to characterise the effect of 1,4-cineole in the presence and absence of 1,8-cineole. This sensory study focused on the herbal attributes ‘hay’ and ‘bay leaf’ assessed as relevant descriptors of 1,4-cineole in red wines by a small panel of wine experts prior to the sessions. The tests were performed by comparison of aromatic perception of the hay and bay leaf reference standards prepared in a Cabernet Sauvignon wine to the same base wine (control, CS) and wines that had been spiked with 1,4-cineole (1.6μg/L) and/or 1,8-cineole (2.5μg/L). For each test, the panel assessed the olfactory similarity of the samples compared with the standard presented. Statistical analysis showed the addition of 1,4‑cineole, both independently and in combination with 1,8-cineole, enhanced hay aromas in comparison with the control wine (p≤0.05) (Figure 4). The intensity of bay leaf notes were also significantly enhanced by the association of 1,4-cineole and 1,8-cineole (p≤0.05). These findings indicate that 1,4-cineole is probably an important contributor to the hay and dried herb aromas that have been reported in Australian Cabernet Sauvignon wines (Halliday 2011).

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

Figure 5. Effect of geographic origin on 1,4-cineole concentration in Australian Cabernet Sauvignon wines from similar vintages (from 2009 to 2011). MR: Margaret River (n = 13); Bar/ McLV: Barossa/McLaren Vale (n = 13); Coon: Coonawarra (n = 12). Different letters represent significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences. POTENTIAL MARKER OF AUSTRALIAN REGIONALITY The concentration of 1,4-cineole was also compared between Cabernet Sauvignon wines from four important Australian regions (Figure 5). The Cabernet Sauvignon wines originating from Margaret River exhibited higher concentrations of 1,4-cineole than wines from Barossa, McLaren Vale (p<0.05) and, to a lesser extent, Coonawarra (p = 0.08). The Margaret River region (MR) is generally known to produce Cabernet Sauvignon wines with some elegant herbal aromas. 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine (IBMP) has been reported to contribute to green aromas perceived in MR Cabernet Sauvignon wines (Wilkinson et al. 2006). However, the average concentration of IBMP measured in the MR wines in the present study was lower than the

V31N1


CABERNET SAUVIGNON

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

reported perception threshold (1015ng/L) of IBMP in red wines. This suggests that compounds other than IBMP might also contribute to Margaret River Cabernet Sauvignon typicality. Therefore, a specific contribution of 1,4-cineole to the regional herbal aromas of some Cabernet Sauvignon wines from Margaret River, possibly in combination with other compounds such as IBMP and 1,8-cineole, is plausible. ORIGIN OF 1,4-CINEOLE IN RED WINES Preliminary investigations studying the origin of 1,4-cineole in red wines was also undertaken. The 1,4-cineole:1,8-cineole concentration ratios in Australian Cabernet Sauvignon wines ranged from 0.015 to 1.24. This indicates that the distribution of 1,4-cineole was different in comparison with 1,8-cineole and that the two compounds may have different origins. The presence of eucalyptus trees within the vicinity of vineyards has been reported to favour higher contents of 1,8-cineole in the corresponding wines (Capone et al. 2012). Other studies suggest that 1,8-cineole found in Australian wines could also be derived directly from grapes, particularly in the case of Cabernet Sauvignon (Kalua and Boss 2009). The large variability in the 1,4-cineole:1,8-cineole concentration ratios, in conjunction with the previously described varietal and regional differences, indicates that occurrence of 1,4-cineole in wine is probably not due to the proximity of vineyards to eucalyptus trees. Additionally, analyses of different vintages of a unique Australian and French wine label from different vintages demonstrated that the concentration of 1,4-cineole increased with vintage age (Figure 6). The analysis of an Australian Cabernet Sauvignon wine, artificially aged by heating at 40ºC for five weeks, showed an increase of 1,4-cineole concentration from 0.090.23µg/L. Both of these results suggest that 1,4-cineole are either partially or totally chemically synthesised during wine ageing. As varietal and regional differences have also been observed, it appears that some portion of the final 1,4-cineole concentration originates from grape-derived precursors through chemical reactions in wine.

V3 1N 1

Figure 6. 1,4-cineole concentrations in an Australian (single cultivar) and a French (blend) Cabernet Sauvignon wines from different vintages. CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

This study demonstrated that 1,4-cineole may be a valuable aromatic contributor to Australian Cabernet Sauvignon wines, with different concentrations appearing to be indicative of origin. Vintage age and preliminary artificial ageing experiments point towards the synthesis of 1,4-cineole in the final wine. Further studies to investigate in detail the origin of 1,4-cineole in wines are warranted.

Antalick, G.; Tempere, S.; Šuklje, K.; Blackman, J.B.; Deloire, A.; De Revel, G. and Schmidtke, L.M. (2015) Investigation and sensory characterisation of 1,4-cineole: A potential aromatic marker of Australian Cabernet Sauvignon wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 63:9103-9111.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Kalua, C.M. and Boss, P.K. (2009) Evolution of volatile compounds during the development of Cabernet Sauvignon grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 57:3818-3830.

The authors thank Australia’s grapegrowers and winemakers through their investment body, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority (AGWA) and the Australian Federal Government for their financial support. We are grateful to Dr. Magali Picard for the analyses of some of the French Cabernet Sauvignon wines reported in this article, and the sensory panelists of the Bordeaux University who contributed to this study. The National Wine and Grape Industry Centre is an alliance between Charles Sturt University, New South Wales Department of Primary Industry and the New South Wales Wine Industry Association.

Capone, D.L.; Van Leeuwen, K.; Taylor, D.K.; Jeffery, D.W.; Pardon, K.H.; Elsey, G.M. and Sefton, M.A. (2011) Evolution and occurrence of 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol) in Australian wine. J. Agric.Food Chem. 59:953−959. Capone, D.L.; Jeffery, D.W.; Sefton, M.A. (2012) Vineyard and fermentation studies to elucidate the origin of 1,8-cineole in Australian red wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 60: 2281−2287. Halliday, J. (2011) Australian Wine Companion, Hardie Grant books.

Lattey, K.A.; Bramley, B.R. and Francis, I.L. (2010) Consumer acceptability, sensory properties and expert quality judgements of Australian Cabernet Sauvignon and Shiraz wines. Aust. J. Grape Wine R. 16:189-202. Robinson, A.L.; Boss, P.K.; Heymann, H.; Solomon, P.S. and Trengove, R.D. (2011) Development of a sensitive non-targeted method for characterising the wine volatile profile using headspace solid-phase microextraction comprehensive two-dimensional gaschromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J. Chrom. A.: 1218, 504-517. Saliba, A.J.; Bullock, J. and Hardie, W.J. (2009) Consumer rejection threshold for 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol) in Australian red wine. Food Qual. Pref. 500−504. Wilkinson, K.L,; Kennedy, U. and Gibberd, M. (2006) Green characters in Cabernet Sauvignon. In: Proceedings of Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Seminar; Oag, D.; De Garis, K.; Partridge, S.; Dundon, C.; Francis, M.; Johnstone, R.; Hamilton, R. (eds): 60-65.

WVJ

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

27


Some of Australia’s Sources of inspiration from every wine region

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

RICK

– 2007 – WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TIM

WILKIE

– 2003 – WESTERN AUSTRALIA

First impressions may deceive There is a complexity about this flagbearer for the Swan Valley and Margaret River that discerning judges quickly come to appreciate. Grown on an exposed north-facing slope refreshed by Indian Ocean breezes, the Horbury balances light initial roughness with a smooth, gentle finish.

Science meets inspiration Bold, vibrant freshness with a dry finish characterise this very approachable blend of sophisticated chemistry and youthful exuberance. Despite many years of very enjoyable drinking to come, such a clever example of the scientific approach to winemaking is already worth getting to know.

Intriguing complexity rewards investigation

HUGH

A

RM

S T RO N G

R B U RY HO

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 2002 – SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Intense power with an expansive palate

DARREN

E AL

XANDE

A rewarding challenge for the more refined palates, the ‘Hughie’ can make a slightly abrasive first impression but quickly mellows once given a bit of air. There are complex hidden depths here that gradually open up and reveal a veritable encyclopedia of flavour from which ample grace notes constantly emerge.

R

– 2014 – SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The quintessential South Australian experience: full-bodied and powerful with a bold, charismatic style that will soften over time with no loss of character. Drinking magnificently for some years already, the onset of full maturity will surely just enrich the lasting enjoyment.

NEW SOUTH WALES

IAN

M

c

MASTER

– 2009 – WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Steadily climbing towards a distant peak Despite showing abundant youthful promise and drinking well already, the McMaster won’t peak for a good many years yet. Complex fruit undertones are already much in evidence with very low acidity, so great things are predicted by many good judges. One to watch.

GRAHAM

NICOL

– 1994 – NEW SOUTH WALES

There’s no time like the present! A lush late picking ripe for full enjoyment right now, the pride of Mudgee embodies the joys of life. After years of flavour development, cellaring at this stage would be a criminal waste. Our advice: track down Graham Nicol and prepare to spend a few hours engrossed in pure quaffing pleasure!


finest VICTORIA

GREG

DAV I E S

– 2010 – VICTORIA

SHANE

AINER TR

– 2007 – VICTORIA

The perfect companion for al fresco eating Like the most robust sparkling shirazes of a bygone era, here’s the perfect complement to festive occasions. Opens with a pop, fizzes with enthusiasm and brings the party to life. But below the bubbly surface lies the sort of substance and structure only insiders truly appreciate.

Climatic extremes provide fine balance Transplanting from Margaret River to the cooler climate of Victoria demands some fairly drastic climatic adjustment. Yet the transition has been smooth in this case. Early results are very promising, with surprisingly little change in character detected so far. A valued product of the west now seems set to flourish in the east.

MICHELLE

BURNS

– 2015 – VICTORIA

AEDEN

RMAN GO

– 2014 – VICTORIA

A touch of class from across the ditch A relative newcomer further enhancing Marlborough’s reputation for irresistible appeal, this classy import has crossed the Tasman with undiminished charm. A surprising effervescence simply underlines the initially disarming blend of forward freshness and underlying finesse.

Full-blooded early bloomer set for stardom A Sunraysia classic in the making. Already well-rounded, this product of Mildura stock has soaked up the abundant sunshine and turned it into a rich and concentrated blend that packs a lot of punch. The Gorman’s early development has been rapid, but the real glory years still lie ahead.

Packing some punch ALISTAIR

BEYER

– 2007 –

Unmistakably central Victorian in character: substantial and deceptively high-powered, but will soften with age. Very robust with emerging signs of refinement. You won’t forget an encounter with Alistair Beyer in a hurry and many wine lovers are left raving about the experience.

Our viticulture experts are as individual as the winemakers they live among and work alongside. What they have in common is the experience and specialised expertise to help you achieve effective crop protection that suits your situation and preferred approach. Find out more about the practical and technical support we offer by visiting our website or calling 1800 804 479.

bayercropscience.com.au

VICTORIA

Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd, ABN 87 000 226 022, 391– 393 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East, Victoria 3123. Technical Enquiries 1800 804 479. BCH0787


I NEE M MA GG WW I N A KKI N I N

BITTERNESS

Interactions between phenolics, alcohol and acidity in determining the mouthfeel and bitterness of white wine By Richard Gawel, Alex Schulkin, Martin Day, Alice Barker and Paul A. Smith Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064

The bitterness of white wine has traditionally been attributed to phenolics. However, phenolics in white wines comprise a diverse group of compounds. Two studies have shown which phenolics contribute to bitterness and how the alcohol content and pH of the wine affects bitterness perception. The effects of different juice handling and extraction methods (whole bunch pressing, hyperoxidation, pressings, skin contact, partial skin and solids fermentation) on phenolic content and white wine bitterness are also explored.

P

alate textures such as viscosity and even perhaps light astringency are becoming an accepted part of fullbodied white wine styles, while other characters such as bitterness, metallic taste and hotness are clearly unacceptable. What these positive and negative mouthfeel attributes have in common is that they all have been attributed to wine phenolics. Wine phenolics comprise a broad family of small and mostly monomeric compounds that possess at least one six carbon ring with one or more hydroxyl groups (-OH) attached. While some are found in a simple free form, most are more complex, present as esters of tartaric acid or ethanol, bound to amino acids, or bound to sugars such as glucose, rhamnose and glucuronic acid. These basic modifications together with other structural arrangements can influence how they taste and feel in the mouth. The chemistry of white wine phenolics has been extensively reviewed (see Monagas et al. 2005). In summary: • Hydroxycinnamic acids (e.g. caffeic and coumaric acids) are phenolic acids that are located in the vacuoles of the pulp and skin cells of grapes. In wine they can exist in their free form, but they are mostly found as their respective tartaric acid esters (e.g. caftaric and coutaric acids). • Grape reaction product (GRP) is an enzymatically formed complex of caftaric acid and the grape amino acid glutathione, and is particularly abundant in wines made using oxidative juice handling. • Hydroxybenzoic acids are phenolic acids which are also found as ethyl or methyl esters. • Flavonols are a major phenolic class in wine that originate from the grape skin particularly during skin maceration prior to fermentation. They mostly exist in glycosylated forms (e.g. as glucosides, glucuronides and rhamnosides). • Flavanols are also located in the skins, but also in the seeds and stems. They exist either in a free form (e.g. epicatechin) or as gallic acid esters (e.g. epicatechin gallate). • Flavanonols are also found in grape stems and skins, with astilbin (the rhamnoside of dihydroquercetin) and its aglycone both found in white wine (Trousdale and Singleton 1983). The sensory effects of this class of compounds are currently unknown.

30

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

New analytical techniques have expanded current knowledge regarding the number and complexity of phenolic compounds that exist in white wines. However, understanding of how white wine phenolics influence taste and mouthfeel in the context of differences in alcohol and acidity remains largely unexplored. In an attempt to address these knowledge gaps, work has been done to: 1. Correlate the intensity of taste and mouthfeel characteristics of white wines of similar acidity and alcohol made using different must handling and extraction techniques with their phenolic composition (study 1) 2. Assess the interactions between phenolic composition and pH and alcohol with respect to mouthfeel and taste (study 2). METHODS Study 1 Different techniques were used to produce wines with different phenolic profiles to assess their effects on white wine mouthfeel and bitterness. Riesling (Eden Valley), Chardonnay (Lyndoch) and Viognier (Western Barossa) wines from the 2011 vintage were made using the following seven different juice extraction and handling methods: • free run juice, obtained by draining and pressing at less than 0.5 bar • heavy press juice, obtained by draining and pressing 1-2 bar • hyperoxidised free run juice produced by sparging the free run juice with oxygen • hyperoxidised heavy press juice, produced by sparging the heavy press juice with oxygen • maceration on skins conducted for 60 hours at 5°C prior to pressing • partial (10% by weight) skin fermentation • full solids fermentations. Replicate ferments were conducted (S. cerevisiae EC1118 strain + 1g/L bentonite). As perceived viscosity and astringency in white wine have been shown to be strongly influenced by pH

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


BITTERNESS

(Gawel et al. 2014) the wines were adjusted to approximately the same pH (3.2). Phenolic composition was determined by HPLC using tandem C6-Phenyl columns coupled with mass spectroscopy. Fourteen assessors experienced in the texture profiling of white wine were trained to rate the intensity of eight mouthfeel/taste attributes using a 15cm unstructured line scale. The wines were assessed in triplicate over four tasting sessions using accepted tasting conditions and experimental design protocols. Study 2 Whole phenolics were extracted from free run, hard pressings and skin macerated wines before being divided into two fractions using a combination of multilayer countercurrent chromatography and preparative scale C18 reverse phase chromatography. The two fractions were differentiated by the amount of skin-derived flavonols and ethyl esters of hydroxycinnamic acids (Figure 1). The fractions were dissolved in model wines at the same total phenolic concentration (measured using absorbance at 280nm) at pH 3.3 and 3.5 and alcohol levels of 11.5% and 13.5% v/v. The bitterness, palate hotness and perceived acidity were assessed by the trained tasters, using the same tasters and protocols as study 1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Study 1 Twenty phenolic compounds were positively identified based on matched HPLC retention time, UV-spectra and mass

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

F1

HBAs HCAs+flavanols flavonols F2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 1. Phenolic composition of the two fractions: HBA=hydroxybenzoic acids: HCA= hydroxycinnamic acids. HPLC analysis showed the fractions were composed mainly of these classes of compounds or their derivatives. spectra to that of their standards (listed in Table 1, see page 32). Statistically significant variations in wine mouthfeel attributes as a result of juice extraction and handling were observed (Smith and Waters 2012). The correlations between the concentration of the identified phenolic compounds (grouped by class) and the mouthfeel intensity ratings are shown in Table 1. The hydroxycinnamic acids and their derivatives were consistently positively correlated with perceived acidity. While these phenolic acids individually are found in low concentrations (<30mg/L) and have pKa values around 4.4, which implies that they are only weakly acidic (Beltran et al. 2003), the results of both studies suggest that their presence can accentuate the â&#x2013;ś perception of acidity in white wine.

When setting priorities, we always start at the top. ENO144393-D/WVJ/DEC2015

By promoting your brands and products, we encourage consumers to discover your wines.

V3 1N 1

We are the only Australian manufacturer of sparkling and still wine capsules, ranging from various materials to the premium options in the market. As experienced wine industry suppliers, we understand your requirements, and make it easier for you to sell your wine and build your brands.

08 8347 0455 | www.enoplastic.com.au

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

31


I NEE M MA GG WW I N A KKI N I N

BITTERNESS

Palate hotness and burning aftertaste in the wines were correlated with their flavanol concentrations. The perception of burning aftertaste was also associated with the concentrations of hydroxybenzoic acids, flavanonols and dihydroxyquercetin. While none of these compound classes have previously been associated with increases in hotness, total white wine phenolics at a level equivalent to that of hard pressings was able to increase the perceived hotness of lower alcohol (11.5% v/v) model wine (Gawel et al. 2013a). In this study, hydroxycinnamic acid concentrations were negatively related to hotness and burning aftertaste. Consistent with this, caftaric acid (the major hydroxycinnamic acid in white wine) was found to suppress the burn sensation produced by another white wine phenolics and also ethanol (Gawel et al. 2013b). Viscosity and oiliness are two sensory characters normally associated with full-bodied white wines. These attributes were correlated with syringic and gentisic acids, quercetin glucuronide and dihydroquercetin (Table 1). Higher perceived viscosity in white wines has been shown to occur in the presence of higher total phenolics (Cejudo-Bastante et al. 2011), and greater oiliness was observed in model wines containing higher concentrations of the phenolic compound, grape reaction product (Gawel et al. 2013b). The wines with the highest polysaccharide levels were also deemed to be the most oily. The wines made from juices high in solids were perceived to be more metallic than the other treatments which did not differ (data not shown). However, none of the phenolic classes (which

represent the broad spectrum of white wine phenolics types) were positively associated with metallic character, suggesting that non-phenolic compounds may be responsible for the metallic taste in these wines. A flavonol rutinoside has been reported to be a potent astringent compound in red wines (Hufnagel and Hoffman 2008). However, in contrast, the two major flavonol glycosides including a rutinoside were found to be negatively associated with perceived astringency. The reason for this is unclear. Astringency was positively associated with the concentration of flavanols, which are known to elicit astringency at least in high concentrations (Fischer and Noble 1984). The relationships between flavanol concentrations and the intensity of the mouthfeel attributes were diametrically opposed to that of their flavonol concentrations. Specifically, flavanols were positively associated with, and flavonols negatively associated with, the intensity of bitterness, hotness and burning aftertaste. Whilst correlation does not necessarily imply causation, these results suggest that minimising seed rather than skin extraction could improve the mouthfeel of white wine. Study 2 Two phenolic fractions (F1 and F2) were produced (Figure 1). F2 was found to contain phenolics that would be expected to mostly derive from the skins (flavonols), which were absent from F1. Both fractions contained flavanols which are extracted from both seeds and skins during winemaking and hydroxycinnamic

Viscosity

Oily

Bitter

Metallic

Hotness

Burn

Acidity

Gallic acid

0.22

0.34

0.09

0.35

0.09

0.30

0.21

0.01

Syringic acid

0.44

0.37

0.24

0.11

0.06

0.10

0.40

0.20

Gentisic acid

0.52

0.38

0.32

0.12

0.05

0.10

0.39

0.44

Hydroxybenzoic acid

0.37

0.07

0.09

0.15

0.25

0.14

0.09

0.28

Protocatechuic acid

0.30

0.00

0.15

0.21

0.01

0.10

0.24

0.02

Gallic acid EE

0.23

0.36

0.13

0.37

0.07

0.32

0.22

0.07

Coumaric acid

0.11

0.36

0.27

0.03

0.17

0.10

0.20

0.46

Ferulic acid

0.43

0.08

0.12

0.19

0.25

0.38

0.34

0.25

Caffeic acid

0.32

0.64

0.40

0.20

0.06

0.06

0.23

0.41

Caftaric acid

0.02

0.38

0.23

0.09

0.08

0.18

0.26

0.35

Caffeic acid EE

0.19

0.59

0.41

0.09

0.12

0.14

0.31

0.50

Ferulic acid EE

0.09

0.42

0.39

0.32

0.15

0.27

0.45

0.62

Flavanols

Catechin

0.13

0.38

0.09

0.37

0.01

0.28

0.23

0.03

Epicatechin

0.18

0.36

0.10

0.40

0.00

0.31

0.24

0.08

Procyanidin B2

0.24

0.36

0.12

0.35

0.09

0.30

0.19

0.09

Quercetin (Q)

0.21

0.03

0.14

0.15

0.08

0.21

0.12

0.45

Q-3-glucuronide

0.40

0.30

0.32

0.23

0.32

0.16

0.01

0.42

Q-O-rutinoside

0.46

0.13

0.07

0.43

0.37

0.36

0.23

0.08

*

Dihydroquercetin

0.41

0.07

0.22

0.24

0.06

0.09

0.31

0.27

**

Naringenin

0.40

0.01

0.08

0.17

0.24

0.17

0.00

0.11

Hydroxycinnamic acids

Hydroxybenzoic acids

Astring

Flavonols

Table 1. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Heatmapâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; showing the correlations between mouthfeel attributes and compounds identified in white wines made from three varieties using various juice extraction and handling methods. Green indicates positive correlation, purple negative. Deeper colours imply stronger correlations. EE=ethyl ester, * Flavanonol, ** Flavanone.

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


BITTERNESS

BITTERNESS

and is one of the dominant phenolic compounds in white wine, has the ability to reduce the hot aftertaste produced by ethanol ▶ (Gawel et al. 2013b).

6 Mean Bitterness Rating

acids which are mostly derived from the pulp but also the skins. Both phenolic fractions and the wine matrix (acidity and alcohol) contributed to the taste and mouthfeel characteristics rated by the sensory panel. As expected, higher alcohol model wines were perceived as more ‘bitter’ (Figure 2) and ‘hot’ (Figure 4) than the lower alcohol model wines, and the lower pH model wines were perceived as being more acidic than the higher pH wines (Figure 3).

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

4

4

PERCEIVED ACIDITY

Mean Hotness Rating

4

Mean Hotness Rating

Wine

Mean Acidity Rating

Mean Bitterness Rating

Mean Bitterness Rating

Mean Bitterness Rating

Figure 2 shows a significant interaction between phenolic type and wine matrix with respect to bitterness. The 13.5% 2 model wines were perceived to be more bitter than the 11.5% model wines. F1 phenolics did not increase bitterness at any pH or alcohol level and, while not significant, a trend was6observed of lower bitterness in the lower pH wines. While F1 contained Model 0 6 flavanols which are known bitterants, it was dominated by 11.5%-pH3.3 11.5%-pH3.5 Model 13.5%-pH3.3 +F2 Wine13.5%-pH3.5 hydroxycinnamic acids which may have acted as a suppressant 6 +F1 +F2 Model Wine due to their contribution to perceived acidity (Figure 1, 4 Figure 3). Bitterness was increased in the presence of F2 phenolics, +F2 Figure 2. Effect of phenolic type, pH+F1 and alcohol on perceived particularly when pH was higher4and alcohol lower, with the bitterness intensity. +F1 influence of pH being greater than that of alcohol. The results 4 of study 1 indicate that the flavonols (i.e., skin phenolics) 2 which 6 distinguished F2 from F1 did not contribute to bitterness to the wines. The study 1 wines had2an average pH of 3.2 and alcohol 2 content of 13.0% v/v. Adding F2 phenolics to a model wine of similar composition (e.g. pH 3.3, alcohol 13.5%) had the 0 4 least effect on bitterness compared with any other pH/alcohol 11.5%-pH3.3 11.5%-pH3.5 13.5%-pH3.3 13.5%-pH3.5 combination, which is consistent0with the results of study 1. The 11.5%-pH3.3 11.5%-pH3.5 13.5%-pH3.3 13.5%-pH3.5 substantial increase in bitterness in the higher pH wine compared 0 with the11.5%-pH3.3 lower pH wine at the same13.5%-pH3.3 low alcohol level (11.5%) 11.5%-pH3.5 13.5%-pH3.5 2 suggests that the phenolic bitterness was elicited from F2 but was masked by acidity. At the higher alcohol level, the model wines were perceived as more bitter, and the F2 fraction had less 4 of an effect on bitterness as a result.

0

3

Model Wine

11.5%-pH3.3 11.5%-pH3.5 Model 13.5%-pH3.3 +F2 Wine 13.5%-pH3.5

Model Wine

+F2

+F1

0

11.5%-pH3.3 11.5%-pH3.5 13.5%-pH3.3 13.5%-pH3.5

HOTNESS

2

2

ean Hotness Rating

V3 1N 1

Hotness Rating

tness Rating

Previously work has shown that whole white wine phenolics 4 added to both model or real wine increased perceived hotness, particularly in wines that would 4 be considered low in alcohol (Gawel et al. 2013a). In this study, the effect of phenolics 4 3 on ethanol hotness appeared to be neutral or marginally 3 for this is unclear, but it is suppressive (Figure 4). The reason known 3 that caftaric acid which was present in both fractions,

2

Mean Hotness Rating

Mean Hotness Rating

When the acidity and alcohol 3 content of the base wine was +F1 low, the addition of both phenolic fractions significantly increased Figure +F2 3. Effect of phenolic type, pH and alcohol on perceived 3 2 acidity +F1 intensity. perceived acidity. Both fractions contained hydroxycinnamic acids, which may account for this 2 (study 1). When added to a 4 similar model wine matrix to that of the real wines in study 1 2 1 (pH 3.3, alcohol 13.5%), neither phenolic fraction contributed to perceived acidity. Interpreting1combined results from model 3 studies involving additions and sensory studies of real wines is 1 0 problematic. However, there is some evidence to suggest in both 11.5%-pH3.3 11.5%-pH3.5 13.5%-pH3.3 13.5%-pH3.5 studies that hydroxycinnamic acids 0 may contribute to perceived 2 13.5%-pH3.5 11.5%-pH3.3 11.5%-pH3.5 13.5%-pH3.3 acidity in white wine.

1 0

Model Wine 11.5%-pH3.3 11.5%-pH3.5 Model 13.5%-pH3.3 +F2 Wine13.5%-pH3.5

Model Wine

+F1

+F2 Figure 4. Effect of phenolic type, pH+F1 and alcohol on perceived in-mouth hotness intensity. +F1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

1

+F2

www.winetitles. com . au

33


I NEE M MA GG WW I N A KKI N I N

BITTERNESS

Many active molecules have complex taste profiles in that they are not purely acidic, sweet, salty or bitter. In the case of hydroxycinnamic acids which contain both phenolic and carboxyl (acidic) functional groups, this may be the case. In informal tastings of phenolic fractions rich in hydroxycinnamic acids experienced wine tasters have reported perceiving both acidic and metallic/hard water like tastes. Whilst this is only anecdotal, the role of the hydroxycinnamic acids in wine taste and texture may merit further investigation in the context of understanding the concept of ‘hardness’ in white wine. CONCLUSIONS Different phenolic classes impacted differently on mouthfeel attributes and on bitterness and acidity, suggesting that skin and seed management during juice extraction and handling can be used to manipulate the mouthfeel and taste of white wine. Increases in bitterness and acidity of phenolic fractions containing more ‘skin-derived’ phenolics was dependent on wine pH and alcohol content, being higher in wines of higher pH and lower alcohol. Phenolics that are mostly ‘pulp’ derived also enhanced perceived acidity at low alcohol and high pH. However, perceived bitterness and acidity were significantly affected by alcohol concentration and wine pH, respectively. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by Australia’s grapegrowers and winemakers through their investment body Wine Australia, with matching funds from the Australian Government. The authors also thank Pernod Ricard Winemakers for its support of the AWRI’s research on white wine phenolics. The AWRI is a member of the Wine Innovation Cluster in Adelaide. REFERENCES Beltrán, J.L.; Sanli, N.; Fonrodona, G.; Barrón, D.; Özkan, G. and Barbosa, J. (2003) Spectrophotometric, potentiometric and chromatographic pKa values of polyphenolic acids in water and acetonitrile–water media. Analytica Chimica Acta 484:253–264. Cejudo-Bastante, M.J.; Castro-Vázquez, L.; Hermosín-Gutiérrez, I. and PérezCoello, M.S. (2011) Combined effects of pre-ferementative skin maceration and oxygen addition of must on colour-related phenolics, volatile composition, and sensory characteristics of Airén white wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 59:12,171-12,182. Fischer, U. and Noble, A.C. (1994) The effect of ethanol, catechin concentration, and pH on sourness and bitterness of wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 45:6-10. Gawel, R.; Van Sluyter, S.C.; Smith, P.A. and Waters, E.J. (2013a) Effect of pH and alcohol on perception of phenolic character in white wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 64:425-429. Gawel, R.; Schulkin, A.; Smith, P.A. and Waters, E.J. (2013b) Taste and textural characters of mixtures of caftaric acid and grape reaction product in model wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20:25-30. Gawel, R.; Day, M.; Van Sluyter, S.C.; Holt, H; Waters, E.J. and Smith, P.A. (2014) White wine taste and mouthfeel as affected by juice extraction and processing. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 62:10,008-10,014. Hufnagel, J.C. and Hofmann, T. (2008) Orosensory-directed identification of astringent mouthfeel and bitter-tasting compounds in red wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56:1376-1386. Monagas, M.; Bartolome, B. and Gomez-Cordoves, C. (2005) Updated knowledge about the presence of phenolic compounds in wine. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 45:85-118.

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

34

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

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

Smith, P.A. and Waters, E.J. (2012) Identification of the major drivers of ‘phenolic’ taste in white wines Final Report #Project Number AWR 090 http:// research.wineaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/AWR-0901-FINALREPORT.pdf Trousdale, E.K. and Singleton, V.L. (1983) Astilbin and engeletin in grapes and wine. Phytochemistry 22:619-620.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

WVJ

V31N1


W I N EA M WR A IK I N G

Assessing the environmental credentials of Australian wine By Tadro Abbott, Mardi Longbottom, Eric Wilkes and Dan Johnson Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064

Managing director Dan Johnson

Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a method for assessing the environmental impact of a product or process, taking into account all of the steps from ‘cradle to grave’. While LCA has been used to assess specific Australian wine products in the past, this is the first time the method has been used to examine the environmental impact of the Australian wine industry as a whole. An indicative carbon footprint of Australian wine was calculated and found to be relatively low, but the analysis also identified particular ‘hot spots’ where improvements could be realised. INTRODUCTION As a product of agriculture that is marketed in terms of its place of origin, wine has an important connection to the land and the environment. The Australian wine industry has a strong image of being clean and green, which is essential to its reputation in many markets. Alongside this, many international markets are starting to include sustainability metrics for the products that they sell. A number of major retailers including Walmart, Tesco and Systembolaget (the Swedish liquor monopoly) have introduced sustainability criteria into their sourcing policies, or offer specific contracts for sustainably produced goods. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change and strives to transition to a low carbon economy, these types of supply arrangements may become more common and require industry-wide solutions. Entwine is the Australian wine industry’s umbrella environmental assurance program and was developed by the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia in 2009 to help wine producers communicate their commitment to environmental management and improve market access. Members of Entwine report environmental data such as electricity, fuel and water use from their grapegrowing and winemaking businesses on an annual basis. Applying the method of life cycle analysis to the aggregated Entwine data has allowed calculation of an indicative greenhouse gas emission profile of Australian wine, for both bottled and cask formats, as well as domestic and export sales in bulk and bottled formats.

V3 1N 1

AT A GLANCE • Sustainability metrics are becoming increasingly important for wine retailers, particularly in international markets. • Entwine, the Australian wine industry’s environmental assurance program, provides a mechanism for Australian grapegrowers and winemakers to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability. • Entwine collects environmental data from its vineyard and winery members annually and this data is used by members to benchmark their performance and identify opportunities for improvement. • For the first time, the method of life cycle analysis (LCA) has been applied to the aggregated Entwine data to develop a picture of the overall carbon footprint of the Australian wine industry.

Figure 1. Entwine data coverage. WHAT IS LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT? Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method for assessing the environmental impact and performance of processes and products. Life cycle assessments are typically said to be either ‘cradle to grave’ – considering all impacts from extraction and processing of raw materials, energy production, use, recycling and disposal – or ‘cradle to gate’ – considering all impacts until the product leaves the producer. An LCA on grapes may be performed up to the

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

point of leaving the vineyard gate, ready for a winery to use the data in its own LCA. Likewise an LCA on a bottle of wine may be performed up to the winery gate, or to also include transport, sale and disposal of the packaging. Cradle to gate assessments are useful for intermediate products that will be further processed by another producer, like winegrapes. Cradle to grave assessments are usually used for finished products destined for the consumer, such as bottled wine. When an environmental claim is made about a product, international

www.winetitles. com . au

35


WA R IK I N G W I N EA M

standards require this to be backed up by science-based methods like LCA. The methodology has evolved with the aim of minimising misleading claims by making sure that the whole story is always taken into account. A classic example is the introduction of the first hybrid electric cars. On one hand, these vehicles consumed far less fuel than conventional motors, but they were also criticised for needing a lot more energy to produce the lithium-ion batteries that powered them. These facts were traded back and forth in isolation until LCA was used to settle the matter by looking at the entire production, use and disposal cycle as one. The analysis eventually showed that the hybrid vehicle caused fewer carbon emissions over its life cycle than conventional vehicles (Burnham et al. 2006). LCA can be used to investigate a number of different environmental impacts such as atmospheric acidification (leading to acid rain), eutrophication (leading to algal bloom in waterways), and ozone depletion. However, the most common assessment is global warming potential (GWP) or the carbon footprint. This category is arguably the most pressing environmental concern facing the world and, indeed, the wine industry, contributing to compressed vintages and impacting on grape and wine quality (Webb et al. 2010). GWP is measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), a unit which converts all greenhouse gases, like methane, nitrous oxide and refrigerants, to a single common basis. THE ENTWINE DATABASE The Entwine program collects comprehensive data from vineyards and

wineries on their fuel and electricity use, water use, nitrogen input, and a range of other metrics that contribute to production efficiency and environmental performance. This year the data collection was expanded to enable onsite carbon footprint calculation and the ability for users to benchmark their operations against their peers. The Entwine database currently covers a considerable proportion of Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grape and wine production, approximately 25% of the total vineyard area and tonnage harvested from vineyards, and 43% of the volume produced by wineries. This makes it a useful data source from which to draw a representative sample and model the industry as a whole. As more Australian grapegrowers and wineries commit to environmental management and become involved with the Entwine program, the accuracy of the data will increase, as will its usefulness as a communication tool. The Entwine database combined with data from other sources allowed an overall LCA of Australian wine to be performed. It is important to note that the data collected and the analysis conducted have not been independently verified, which means that the results of the LCA should be considered indicative only at this stage. The LCA analysis, however, provides a good example of how the data collected through Entwine can be applied. THE LIFE CYCLE OF AUSTRALIAN WINE

Methods The model used to calculate the average carbon footprint for Australian wine drew on primary production data from the Entwine database. Averages

1.2

Destination Bottling

1.0

Transport

0.8

Packaging

0.6

Winemaking

0.4

Grapegrowing

0.2

Cradle to gate

0.0 Domestic Domestic Cask Bottle

Export Bulk

Export Bottle

Average Case

Figure 2. Greenhouse gas emissions of Australian wine delivered to domestic and export markets in different formats, showing both cradle to grave and cradle to gate emissions.

36

Table 1. Sales formats for Australian wine. Domestic Sales

36%

Export Sales

64%

Cask

32%

Bulk

57%

Bottle

68%

Bottle

43%

Results The indicative cradle to grave carbon footprint of Australian wine was calculated to be 1.16kg CO2e/L. This is at the lower end of the range of results found for wine production in other LCA studies: 1.11-4.68 kg CO2e/L (Amienyo et al. 2014), and is also lower than that seen in other AWRI studies performed for individual wineries. This result is probably a reflection of the fact that 65% of Australian wine is produced in large facilities with the benefit of high economies of scale, whereas most published LCA studies have been performed for small to medium-sized single producers.

0.25

1.4

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

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg CO2e/L)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg CO2e/L)

1.6

for small, medium and large sites were developed to capture scale effects. The model was weighted to represent the incidence of these sized sites throughout the industry. Additional data were taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the National Water Commission, O-I Glass and previous wine industry LCA projects. The model incorporated the proportion of wine sold domestically and exported to different markets, including the different formats in which they are delivered, according to Wine Australia export data. The breakdown of packaging formats by market type is given in Table 1. Standard 500g glass bottle weights were assumed, but the impact of lightweight glass was also assessed separately.

Nâ&#x201A;&#x201A;O emissions

Agrochemicals 0.20

Grape Transport Fertiliser Irrigation

0.15

Diesel

Wastewater 0.10

Dry ice Refrigerants Caustic

0.05

Citric acid

LPG

0.00 Vineyard

Winery

Electricity

Figure 3. Vineyard and winery emission sources.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


W I N EA M WR A IK I N G

The cradle to grave impacts of Australian wine sold domestically in cask and bottle formats, as well as exported in bulk and in bottle are shown in Figure 2. The cradle to gate impacts are shown on the same chart by the thick black line. This chart indicates the importance of performing assessments over the whole life cycle. The cradle to gate impacts of wine shipped in bulk are far lower than that for exporting in bottle however, the impacts of glass production have only been shifted outside the wine producer’s gate and do not necessarily represent a real reduction in emissions over the product life cycle. Overall, wine exported in bulk is less emission intensive due to lower emissions in shipping as the glass weight is not transported over large distances. Glass production in the destination market may be more or less carbon intensive than production in Australia. Factory specific data would be required to make such an assessment. Transport and glass packaging were obvious ‘hot spots’ in the study, together representing approximately 68% of the average life cycle. Grapegrowing and winemaking gave similar contributions at 15% and 17%, respectively. In grapegrowing, diesel use, electricity used onsite, and electricity used by irrigation providers were the main contributors to emissions. On the winemaking side, electricity was by far the biggest contributor, accounting for 82% of emissions. The use of renewable energy like solar power is captured within the Entwine database and has been included in the models. As more producers in the industry take up alternative energy sources, the emissions from electricity will fall, but currently this represents the biggest opportunity

for improvement. Refrigeration is often the largest user of winery electricity and there are many steps that can be taken to improve refrigeration efficiency, from zero cost changes like increasing brine temperature, to investing in greater insulation across the site. More information can be found on this topic in the Improving Winery Refrigeration Efficiency handbook, available from the AWRI website.

for the main LCA, however, premium glass bottles can weigh up to 750g. Figure 4 shows an analysis of the impact of packaging format in the domestic market. Using 330g bottles reduced the domestic life cycle impacts by 18%, while using a 750g bottle increased the life cycle impacts by 26%. Packaging in cask reduced the life cycle impacts over packaging in 500g glass by 48%, or 37% over packaging in 330g glass.

PACKAGING FORMAT

SUMMARY

Packaging innovation is one of the strengths of the Australian wine industry. From the invention of the cask to the early adoption of the screwcap, winemakers have been keen to give their products an edge, whether that is aesthetically on the shelf, in terms of technical performance, by minimising production costs, or lowering emissions. Packaging manufacturers are continuing to innovate giving winemakers a wealth of choice for finished wines. Figure 4 shows the large difference in greenhouse gas emissions between wine packaged in cask compared with glass. Glass bottles require a large amount of energy to produce due to the high melting temperatures of the materials. Cask packaging is much lighter and easier to produce. Cask wine is also a larger volume format, further contributing to lower emissions on a per litre basis. A four-litre cask was assumed for this analysis, but the results are still favourable regardless of the package size, as shown in Figure 4. Another packaging alternative is the use of lightweight glass. Advances in glass production have enabled 750mL bottles as light as 330g to be produced. A standard bottle weight of 500g was used

A number of ‘hot spots’ were identified in the carbon life cycle of Australian wine production. These were glass packaging, transport and winery electricity use. Exporting wine in bulk reduces the life cycle impact by about 13%, however, glass production emissions still occur in the destination market. The indicative impact of Australian wine production was at the low end of the range generally found in wine LCAs at 1.16kg CO2e/L. The Entwine database was the primary data source for this assessment, providing a significant sample size to assess the industry’s production. As this database continues to grow, the coverage and accuracy of the data will improve, providing valuable information to producers as well as international markets. To find out more about participating in the Entwine program, visit the AWRI website or contact Dr Mardi Longbottom (mardi.longbottom@awri. com.au)

Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2e/L)

1.6

1.4 1.2 1.0

Transport

0.8

Packaging Winemaking

0.6

Grapegrowing

0.4 0.2 0.0 2L Cask

4L Cask

330g Glass 500g Glass 750g Glass

Figure 4. Effect of different packaging formats on greenhouse gas emissions. V3 1N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 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. Ella Robinson is thanked for her editorial assistance. REFERENCES Amienyo, D.; Camillen, C. and Azapagic, A. (2014) Environmental impacts of consumption of Australian red wine in the UK. J. Cleaner Prod. 72:110-119. Burnham, A.; Wang, M. and Wu, Y. (2006) Development and applications of GREET 2.7 - The transportation of vehicle-cycle model. https://greet. es.anl.gov/publications Webb, L.; Dunn, G.M. and Barlow, E.W.R. (2010) Winegrapes. Stokes, C. and Howden, M. (eds.) Adapting agriculture to climate change: Preparing Australian agriculture, forestry and fisheries for the future. Melbourne, Vic.: CSIRO Publishing: 101-118. WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

37


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

CLIMATE CHANGE

Effect of elevated CO2 and temperature on phenology, carbohydrates, yield and grape composition – preliminary results By Rachel Kilmister1, Dale Unwin1, Michael Treeby1, Everard Edwards2 and Mark Krstic3 1 Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, PO Box 905, Mildura VIC 3502 2 CSIRO Agriculture, Private Bag 2, Glen Osmond SA 5064 3 Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 34, Mooroolbark VIC 3138

INTRODUCTION Depending on the emissions scenarios used in climate modelling studies (Whetton 2013), current predictions have most Australian winegrape-producing regions tracking towards an increase in mean temperature of 0.1-0.7oC by 2020 and 1.1-6.4oC by 2100. Earlier harvest and the compression of vintage have both been already linked with global warming brought about by increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013). This shift forward in grapevine phenology has been attributed, in part, to the shifts in temperature, but also to improvements in the way that vines are managed, such as irrigation, fertiliser supply and canopy management (Webb et al. 2012). While there has been a great deal of interest in the effects of elevated temperature on vine phenology and a number of published scientific studies in this area (Webb et al. 2012, Petrie and Sadras 2009), there has been little study of the effect of elevated CO2 on the vine. In general, plants respond to elevated CO2 with increased photosynthesis, increased growth and reduced water use per unit area of canopy. However, studies have shown that the nitrogen concentration is often lower in plants exposed to elevated CO2. For example, when wheat was grown under elevated CO2 there was a decrease in grain protein content, a key quality attribute (Fernando et al. 2012). Unlike climate warming, there is no debate about whether atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising, therefore, there is a need to better understand the impacts of higher atmospheric CO2 on winegrape production and potential wine quality. When plants are grown in different environments they can adjust their

38

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

growth, morphology and physiology to a degree, in order to optimise their success in each environment. This is known as ‘acclimation’ and can occur in response to changing levels of environmental CO2. For example, leaves of plants grown under high CO2 may have lower leaf nitrogen, protein content and photosynthetic capacity. Acclimation of this sort would be observable as a lower rate of photosynthesis in leaves from a plant grown under high CO2 concentrations than that in leaves from plants grown under lower CO2 concentrations, when measured in the same air (i.e., the same CO2 concentration). However, acclimation is usually incomplete, that is leaves of plants grown under elevated CO2 will still have higher assimilation rates under their growth conditions than leaves of plants grown under ambient CO2 concentrations. To provide the industry with knowledge about the effects of elevated CO2 and temperatures on winegrapes, a collaborative study was initiated in 2013 between the Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) and CSIRO. The experiment was established in a Shiraz vineyard on the DEDJTR research station at Irymple, near Mildura, in the Murray Darling wine region. The Murray Darling, Riverland and Riverina wine regions are currently responsible for producing approximately 68% of Australia’s grape crush (WFA 2015 Vintage Report). Both elevated CO2 and temperature treatments were applied, either alone or in combination, to determine the effect of each of these important environmental attributes and any interaction between them. The experimental set-up has been described previously (Sommer et al. 2013), but, briefly, it involved applying the elevated CO2 and temperature treatments

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

in 5.5m x 8m x 2.4m open top chambers (Figures 1 and 2) as described in Table 1. This experiment has now been running for two growing seasons (201314 and 2014-15). This article describes observations over two seasons of the timing of key phenological events (budburst, flowering, veraison and harvest), changes in leaf carbohydrates, yield and grape composition. Because small but statistically significant differences were observed between the non-chambered control and the chambered control treatments for some data, all references to the control in this article refer to the chambered control to ensure that the ‘chamber’ effect is not overlooked or attributed wrongly to the treatments. In other words, because there was an effect on some aspects of the vines’ behaviour simply from having them enclosed in an open-top chamber, it is from the starting point of the chambered control that the effects of elevated CO2 and/or elevated temperature must be assessed. PHENOLOGICAL CHANGES Budburst, flowering, veraison and harvest dates were earlier in both of the elevated temperature treatments (eTemp and eCO2+eTemp). Elevated temperature had a stronger influence than elevated CO2 alone on advancing phenology at all key stages of grapevine growth and development. However, there was evidence of an interaction between the elevated CO2 and elevated temperature treatments, primarily on harvest date. In the first season, although elevated CO2 did not alter harvest date when combined with warming, there was a small advancement (two days) when elevated CO2 was supplied at ambient temperature (Figure 4, see page 42). In the second season, there was a larger effect of elevated CO2 on harvest

V31N1


CLIMATE CHANGE

date at ambient temperature (advancing eight days), but elevated CO2 also retarded harvest under the warming treatment by two days. While previous reports have demonstrated an advancement in phenology based on an increase in temperature (Petrie and Sadras 2009, Webb et al. 2012), early results in this study indicate that elevated CO2 levels can also affect phenology, albeit to a lesser extent. However, potential effects of elevated CO2 are probably indirect, via its influence on vine carbohydrate levels. This suggests that the effects of elevated CO2 may increase year-on-year. The difference seen in effects of elevated CO2 on harvest date between the first and second seasons of treatment is consistent with this scenario. CHANGES IN CARBOHYDRATE LEVELS The primary effect of elevated CO2 on a plant is to increase the rate of leaf photosynthesis. This generally results in increased carbohydrate levels, which may be consumed in general metabolism, used for growth of plant organs such as shoots and fruit, or stored. The carbohydrate status of the canopies of the vines in this study was assessed and separated into water soluble (free sugars) and water insoluble (starch) fractions. The sum of these two fractions is referred to as total non-structural carbohydrates because it does not include carbohydrates such as cellulose, which are incorporated into vine structure and do not play a role in general metabolism. Leaves were collected at flowering (E-L stages 20-26), bunch closure (E-L Stage 32-34) and pre-harvest

Table 1. The five treatments applied to drip-irrigated 17-year-old Shiraz grapevines, grafted to 1103 Paulsen and trained to a two-wire vertical trellis with a quadrilateral cordon with sprawling canopy. The vines received the equivalent of 6ML of irrigation water/ha/season. Treatment

Technical details

Non-chambered control

Control vines not growing in an open-top chamber and exposed to ambient temperature and CO2 (approximately 400ppm in 2015).

Chambered control

Control vines grown in open-top chambers, and exposed to ambient temperature and CO2 (approximately 400ppm).

Elevated CO2 (eCO2)

Vines grown in open-top chambers and exposed to ambient temperature, but with CO2 levels maintained at an average of 650ppm (the predicted atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2060-2070) for the entire growing season (budburst through to leaf fall).

Elevated temperature (eTemp)

eCO2 +eTemp

Vines grown in open-top chambers at ambient CO2 levels, but with the air temperature inside the chamber maintained at an average of 2oC above ambient for the entire growing season, day and night, using in-field fanassisted electrical heaters. Vines grown in open-top chambers with an average CO2 concentration of 650ppm, and air temperature maintained at 2oC above ambient.

(E-L stage 37) during both experimental seasons. In addition, woody material and canes were sampled during dormancy, but these data are not currently available. The data presented in Table 2 (see page 40) are averages of four sampling time points in 2013-14 and three in 2014-15. They clearly demonstrate that the elevated CO2 treatments (eCO2 and eCO2+eTemp) enhance starch concentration and, hence, total non-structural carbohydrates in these tissues. This may be attributed to the higher rates of net photosynthesis observed in these two treatments (Unwin et al. 2015). No major differences were observed between any of the water

Figure 1. Open-top chambers in a 17-year-old Shiraz vineyard, used for applying the treatments described in Table 1. Chamber dimensions are 5.5m x 8m x 2.4m (LxWxH). V3 1N 1

VV II TT II CC UU LL TT UU RR EE

soluble carbohydrate fraction averages. This suggests that levels of water soluble carbohydrates are tightly regulated in vines. It was also interesting to note that the elevated temperature (eTemp) treatment alone decreased the levels of starch in those grapevines by 12-15% compared with the control. The project team is planning to look more closely at vine physiology in the next couple of seasons, in particular examining night time respiration rates for each treatment because respiration is highly temperature responsive and may explain the lower starch concentrations in leaves from the â&#x2013;ś elevated temperature treatments.

Figure 2. Inside an elevated CO2 and temperature treatment (eCO2+eTemp) open top chamber. CO2 emitters and fan-assisted electrical heaters are located below the vinesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; canopies.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

39


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

CLIMATE CHANGE

A.

B.

Figure 3. Images taken on 22 September 2014 showing the progress of budburst as a function of temperature. (B) Chambered control (treatment 2), and (A), eTemp (treatment 4). Note: the presence of the Stevenson screens hanging beneath the upper cordons in each image. A logger in each chamber continuously measures and records the air temperature. INFLUENCE ON YIELD, YIELD COMPONENTS AND GRAPE COMPOSITION The 2013-14 and 2014-15 growing seasons were quite different in the Murray Valley, with approximately 20 o days >40 C in the 2013-2014 season (December to February), compared with o 10 days >40 C in the 2014-15 season. These large seasonal differences make it challenging to determine whether differences in yield, yield components and grape composition between each of the treatments were consistent. Only the second season’s observations are reported here because the grape production cycle is two years from the time of inflorescence initiation through to harvest. In other words, only the second season’s potential crop size was determined under the influence of elevated CO2 and/or elevated temperature. Preliminary results indicate that Shiraz yield in the 2014-15 season was increased in both the elevated CO2 treatments by more than 25% (Table 3). This was consistent with the carbohydrate data, which demonstrated that the elevated CO2 levels improved carbohydrate status of vines (Table 2). The cause of this increase in yield appears to be explained by bigger berries and more berries per bunch (data not shown). The latter observation suggests that elevated CO2 levels may also influence the percentage of flowers that set and become berries. This is something that needs to be examined more closely in future seasons.

40

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

In terms of grape composition, some interesting differences were observed in relation to juice pH and titratable acidity (TA) levels. The surprising result was that both elevated CO2 and elevated temperature, alone and in combination, appeared to increase the level of acidity in grapes (Table 3). This appears counterintuitive for the elevated

temperature treatment, and something that requires further investigation. The differences observed in both anthocyanins and tannins appear minor in relation to the differences observed in carbohydrate levels, and suggest that there may be contrasting mechanisms for enhancing anthocyanin levels when elevated CO2 or elevated temperature are applied alone,

Table 2. Effect of elevated CO2 and/or elevated temperature on leaf carbohydrate fractions, expressed as a percentage relative to the control. Positive numbers indicate higher concentrations than the control, and negative numbers indicate lower concentrations than the control. Note – WSC = water soluble carbohydrates; Insol = water insoluble carbohydrates (starch); and TNC = total non-structural carbohydrates. 2013-14 Season Treatment

WSC

Insol

2014-15 Season TNC

WSC

Insol % diff

% diff eCO

3

47

eTemp

-2

eCO2+eTemp

-1

2

TNC

22

6

19

15

-12

-6

9

-15

-7

29

12

6

30

22

Table 3. Control vines’ average yield, yield components and grape composition for the 2014-15 growing season, and the effects of elevated CO2 and/or elevated temperature, expressed as a percentage relative to the control vines. Treatment Parameter

Control

eCO2

eTemp

eCO2+eTemp

%diff kg grapes/vine

18

27

bunches/vine

233

17

7

0

g/berry

1.0

19

15

14

pH

4.1

-5

-4

-6

-9

27

g TA/L

4

9

24

34

mg anthocyanins/g skin

6

12

20

-3

mg tannin/g skin

11

1

-4

-10

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


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

CLIMATE CHANGE

but when applied together they appear to negate each other. This demonstrates that more years of observations are required to better understand the likely changes in key grape compositional and quality components, particularly given that these compounds are known to be present in lower amounts in grapes produced in warmer climates compared with grapes produced in cooler climates. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This article summarises findings from the second year of a project investigating Figure 4. Timelines for times to reach target maturity of 13.3Baume (24o Brix) for the the influence of the projected future 2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons as affected by elevated CO2 and/or elevated temperature. atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature on grapevine growth and development. Results demonstrate that while increases these important impacts. sampling and analysis. Mark Krstic was in temperature have the effect of Climate change and climate engaged by DEDJTR to assist in the advancing phenology and harvest date, variability present a major challenge to production of this article and was not the interaction with elevated CO2 is more grapegrowing and winemaking worldwide. involved in any of the research conducted complex and will likely change over the Understanding how vines will function in this project. length of time a vine grows under elevated and behave in a different environment is CO2 conditions. critical to enabling the Australian wine REFERENCES It appears that, as with other industry to better plan for its future. Fernando, N.; Panozzo, J.; Tausz, M.; Norton, crop plants, elevated CO2 levels play ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS R.; Fitzgerald, G. and Seneweera, S. (2012) Rising an important role in modifying the atmospheric CO2 concentration affects mineral carbohydrate status of grapevines. This, nutrient and protein concentration of the wheat grain. J. Food Chem. 133:1307-1311. in turn, has secondary influences on This project (DPI 1202 ‘The impact IPCC 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical 2 growth, yield and fruit composition. It is of elevated CO and its interaction with Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the clear that a number of years of data will elevated temperature on production Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D.; be required to fully understand the longand physiology of Shiraz’) is supported Plattner, G.-K.; Tignor, M.; Allen, S.K.; Boschung, J.; term complexities of elevated temperature by Australian winegrape producers and Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V. and Midgley, P.M. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK and New and CO2 levels on grapevine physiology, winemakers through their investment York, NY, USA, 1535pp. productivity and wine quality potential. body Wine Australia, with matching funds Mollah, M.R.; Norton, R.M. and Huzzey, J. (2009) Wine Australia has recently committed to from the Australian Government, and Australian grains free air carbon dioxide enrichment (AGFACE) facility: design and performance. Crop and a further two seasons of funding, providing with co-investment from DEDJTR and Pasture Sci. 60:697-707. at least four years of continuous elevated CSIRO. Annette Boettcher and Alex Lawlor Petrie, P.R. and Sadras, V.O. (2009) Advancement Accolade Australia Limited, Aravina Estate, Australian Vintage Wines, Bel- of grapevine maturity in Australia between 1993 CO2 andWines warming treatments to examine (CSIRO) assisted withLtd, the Barwick carbohydrate tunga, Bests Wines Great Western, Bremerton Wines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Estate, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles Wine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Drive Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, Hungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Barry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynamic Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Wines Group, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, Orlando The Wine Industry’s Leading Online Wines, Job SitePortavin Integrated Wine Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyards, Rymill Coonawarra, Seville Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Family Wine Co, The Lane Vineyard, The Scotchmans Hill Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tintara Winery, Tower Estate Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine Estates, Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrell’s Wines, Vinpac International, Warburn Estate Pty Ltd, WebAware Pty Ltd, Wine and Vine Personnel International,Wines Overland, Wingara WIne Group,Wirra Wirra Vineyards, Zilzie Wines, Accolade Wines Australia Limited, Aravina Estate, Australian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beltunga, Bests Wines Great Western, Bremerton Wines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Estate, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles Wine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Drive Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, Hungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Barry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill created &Biodynamic managed by Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Wines Group, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Wines, Portavin Integrated Wine Services, R&D SERVICES WPTY Oatley Cowww.w i n eti tl es .cVITICULTURAL om.au I N E &LTD, V I T I CRobert ULT UR E JO UR NA LVineyards, JANUARY/FEBRRymill UARY 2016 cha

Go with the site that leading wine industry companies use.

42

and 2006: putative causes, magnitude of trends and viticultural consequences. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 14:33-45.

Sommer, K.; Unwin, D.; Kilmister, R.; Edwards, E.; Mollah, M.; Fitzgerald, G. and Downey, M. (2013) Tank installation aids grape research at Mildura. Aust. N.Z. Grapegrower and Winemaker 598:28-29. Unwin, D.; Sommer, K.; Kilmister, R.; Mollah, M. and Edwards, E. (2015) Shiraz in a future climate. Aust. N.Z. Grapegrower and Winemaker 613:30-31. Webb, L.B.; Whetton, P.H.; Bhend, J.; Darbyshire, R.; Briggs, P.R. and Barlow, E.W.R. (2012) Earlier winegrape ripening driven by climate warming an drying and management practices. Nature Clim. Change 2:259-264. WFA 2015 Vintage Report - http://www.wfa.org.au/ assets/vintage-reports/WFA-Vintage-Report-2015.pdf. Accessed on 1/12/2015. Whetton, P. (2013) Climate predictions for key wine growing regions in 2030 and beyond - http://www. awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Penny_ Vintage_CSIRO.pdf. Presentation given at ‘Vintage 2030 and beyond - producing quality wines in warmer times’ symposium on 19 June 2013 at the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC. Accessed on 1/12/2015. WVJ

V31N1


CLIMATE CHANGE

VV II TT II CC UU LL TT UU RR EE

Adapting to climate change: the role of canopy management and water use efficiency in vineyards By Mario de la Fuente, Rubén Linares and José Ramón Lissarrague Departamento de Producción Agraria. Grupo de Investigación en Viticultura. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Ciudad Universitaria s/n. 28040 Madrid, Spain

A big challenge to climate change adaptation is water use efficiency due to its scarcity, mainly in semiarid conditions like the Mediterranean. A study was undertaken to assess the relevance of canopy management, irrigation and the efficient use of natural resources in yield and berry quality within a Mediterranean viticultural context. INTRODUCTION Water is likely to be sufficient for food production in 2050, but increased competition means two-thirds of the world will be affected by water scarcity (FAO 2015). As a result, one of the main objectives today in Mediterranean vineyards is water use efficiency. During the growing season, total available water is significantly lower than the evaporative demand, which is a limiting factor for quality production. Among other factors, choosing an adequate training system can help mitigate this negative effect on soil-plant hydric consumption. Training and trellising systems are one of the most relevant factors in managing the water that plants consume (Carbonneau and Costanza 2004, Van Huyssteen 1998). The role of some variables like water availability, air temperature, sun exposure and wind can determine the efficiency of several physiological processes in the plant (like photosynthesis or transpiration rates, among others). In that sense, plant geometry plays a key role in optimising plant physiology because the placing of leaves, bunches and clusters inside the plant can modulate these variables (mainly solar radiation and light interception), and help to increase the natural conditions for a better microclimate (Bergqvist et al. 2001, Spayd et al. 2002). In warm climates, where problems like over-ripening and sunburnt clusters often appear, the use of porous systems can help plants to establish a better leaf and cluster distribution, providing more space and enhancing certain physiological processes (de la Fuente et al. 2013), and causing a better utilisation of natural resources.

Vegetative (aerial parts or root development) and reproductive yield are frequently determined by two inputs: water consumption and sun exposure (mainly, among others like soil composition, weather conditions, etc). However, grape roots are usually the great unknown in grapevine development (Comas et al. 2000). They appear to have phenotypically distinct stages of development, but some aspects like water distribution pattern, root system development, or the behaviour during the growth cycle are still unknown (Sebastián et al. 2015). In reference to water consumption, vegetative growth may be more strongly affected by water limitations than the plant’s reproductive growth. Reproductive demands for carbon highest in the developing roots of the plant (Deloire et al. 2004, Comas et al. 2005). Water limitations could appear especially in warm, dry climates or under scarce water conditions, (e.g. where irrigation systems are not available). Although this scenario could vary in the future due to climate change, water management is now a real concern in many viticultural regions worldwide. The main objective of the present work was to examine the effects of three different training systems on water consumption (relationship between soil and plant), and their effect on yield and grape quality under Mediterranean warm climate conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS This field experiment was conducted (2006) in an experimental trial in Toledo (Spain), on a fine clay-sandy soil (more than 50% clay at a 50cm depth). The weather conditions

VINEYARD CANE RAKES • Very efficient at raking canes and debris • Rake and mulch in one pass • Single or double sided with swing back protection system

An innovative solution for processing pruned canes from the vineyard floor

V3 1N 1

SUPERIOR HEDGING SYSTEMS

 Hedger Bar Systems  Cane Rakes  Masts and Mounting Systems Designed and manufactured in AUSTRALIA by Whitlands Engineering Call 1800 702 701 for a colour brochure/DVD or to find your nearest dealer

• Affordable modular system - add as you go • Available in four lengths and multiple configurations • Medium or heavy duty • Between the post and minimal pruning systems • Easy mounting to tractor with hydraulic masts • Versatile – Use or pruning or trimming • Robust construction, low maintenance

www.whitcovinquip.com.au

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

The extra edge in productivity and canopy management

www.winetitles. com . au

43


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

CLIMATE CHANGE

VSP1 treatment.

Sprawl treatment.

were typical for a Mediterranean semiarid climate (Papadakis 1966). The variety was Syrah, grafted on 110R and spaced 1.2m in NW-SE orientated rows with 2.7m between rows. Irrigation system drippers (3·l h-1) were spaced at the same plant distance along the planting line and the amount applied (248mm during total cycle) was equal for all treatments. The climatic conditions of 2006 were extremely warm. Differences can be observed mainly in accumulated growing degree-days (2525 GDD), low effective rainfall (168mm) and in evapotranspiration reference (1211.1mm) index too, so the use of irrigation was highly recommended. The trial was designed with three treatments placed in an experimental design with four random blocks (20 plants per single plot) by treatment. The three examined treatments, in order to assess the impact of training system and crop load, were: i) VSP1, Espaldera or vertical positioned system (VSP) with 12 shoots/m of crop load; ii) S1, Sprawl with 12 shoots/m of crop load; and iii) S2, Sprawl with 18 shoots/m of crop load (50% crop load more than VSP1 and S1). Vines were spur pruned and trained in a bilateral cordon at a height of 1.40m. The sprawl system had a single vegetation wire from 0.4m to the basal wire with 0.6m between wires. The VSP system had a couple of wires from 0.3m to the basal wire and a higher wire at 1.5m to the basal wire. Water relationships were monitored through two parameters:

• Plant water status was estimated measuring leaf water potential at midday (ψ12h) and stem water potential (ψstem), using a Scholander type pressure chamber (PMS, Portland, Oregon). All leaves chosen were of similar age and type following the Williams and Baeza methodology (2007). Measurements were carried out at three phenological stages (fruitset, veraison, and end of ripening). • Monitoring soil water content. Soil moisture content was monthly monitored by an encapsulated capacitance sensor (Diviner 2000, Sentek®) inserted in a continuous probe. Tubes were placed between two plants in the row and in three replicates of each treatment during the growth season. Yield partitioning was also evaluated through two parameters: • Dry matter was partitioned by samples of representative shoots per treatment, and were classified into clusters, principal leaves, principal stem, secondary leaves and secondary stems. They were weighed separately in a scale (COBOS® S.A. model C-600-SX; ±0,01g sensibility) expressing fresh weight results. Then, some samples were dried in a stove (SELECTA® model) until constant weight for calculating the dried ratio. • A reproductive yield study was done during the harvest (30 August 2006) on 10 previously selected plants for each treatment and block. Cluster number, average cluster weight, average berry weight and berry number per cluster and yield (kg m-1) were calculated and counted, and each

Figure 1. Leaf water potential at fruitset, veraison and harvest1 in 2006. 1Sig: significant differences; ns,* and ** means there are no significant differences; P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively. The values with the same letter are equal (T. Duncan). P-values were determined by analysis of variance.

44

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


CLIMATE CHANGE

VV II TT II CC UU LL TT UU RR EE

cluster individually hand-harvested from each plant. A digital field balance (Jadever® JCA series; maximum capacity 60kg; accurate to 1g) was used for experimental data measurements. In addition, during the harvest a 100-berry sample per single plot was collected to follow 100-berries weight (g), SST (ºBrix), pH and phenol maturity, according to Glories (2001) method, so the final values corresponded to the harvest date of this year. Finally, all data were analysed by statistical procedures (ANNOVA; software SPSS v.15.0). Duncan’s multiple range tests at 5% significance level were used to compare means among treatments. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Leaf water potential was an indicator of real water stress in the plant. Values measured (Figure 1) at fruitset for midday (ψ12h) tended to show small differences between treatments. Under the same water availability conditions, the biggest difference appeared during veraison and with the stem water potential (ψstem), causing S2 to bring the highest stress to the plant (9-11% higher). There was a clear effect: higher crop load and sprawl system (Dufourcq et al. 2005) of the plants. It is also relevant that during most of the ripening period the potential values meant a high stress according to Van Leeuwen et al. (2009), due to the severe climatic conditions in 2006. These values (being under -1.5MPa) could be a limiting factor for physiological processes (Deloire et al. 2004, Van Leeuwen et al. 2009). Water relationships in the plant can be related to the soil water tension and soil water content (Figure 2) availability. Differences appears in veraison, where soil water content reveals that S2 scored 1.5% less percentage of water content at veraison, compared with VSP1 and S1 treatments. In the same way, de la Fuente et al. (2005) found that sprawl systems (S1 and S2) scored higher values of tension compared with VSP (-0.02 vs -0.20 MPa, respectively), mainly between 20-50cm soil depth (data shown in de la Fuente et al. 2015). Differences in tension and soil water content among treatments were clear within 20-50cm (rootzone). At levels deeper than 0.5m, the soil kept its original structure Table 1. Dry matter partitioning for three treatments. Treatment

Principal (g/shoot) Stem

Leaves

Secondary (g/ shoot) Stem

Leaves

VSP1

46.9

16.2

S1

44.8

21.1 a

1.9

15.6 a

S2

25.9

20.8

2.3

5.7 b

ns

*

ns

**

Sig

2

Treatment

b

3.4

7.9 b

a

Principal (nº) Leaves

Stem

VSP1

12.5

11.0

11.0

S1

18.5 a

S2

V3 1N 1

Table 2. Yield partitioning for three treatments. Treatment

Yield partitioning 2006 Nº Clusters·m-1

Leaves

Yield (Kg·m-2)

Cluster 100 Berries Nº average average berries·cluster -1 weight (g) weight (g)

b

27.4 b

VSP1

24.68 b

1.73 b

190.42 a

111.34 a

171.19 a

17.2 a

13.4 a

37.4 a

S1

23.82

1.71

195.10

104.57

b

187.34 a

20.1 a

19.7 a

11.2 b

21.6 b

S2

36.20 a

2.05 a

153.24 b

101.05 c

152.06 b

*

*

*

**

**

**

**

**

**

b

b

Sig: significant differences; ns, * and ** means there are no significant differences; P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively. The values with the same letter are equal (T. Duncan). P-values were determined by analysis of variance. 2

and revealed no differences between treatments. It seems that sprawl systems could explore more extensively the soil profile during the hardest period with respect to drought (veraison), specially S2 (due to its higher crop load), which seems to explore deeper the soil profile to find more water (Comas et al. 2005), making a real improvement to the root system (De la Fuente et al. 2015). However, water efficiency is not only explained by soil and plant water relationships; the knowledge about where our inputs are fixed is relevant too. Water efficiency and soil interaction should increase yield due to a better use of natural resources (De la Fuente et al. 2010). Dry matter results (Table 1) show that leaves (number and weight) from principal shoots were higher in S2 and S1 compared with VSP1 (+5 g/shoot) and within the same crop load; sprawl system was higher too. Less secondary shoot development was shown in S2 treatment due to the crop load effect (<15-45% for S1 and VSP1, respectively), and no secondary clusters in S2 treatment were found. Referring to yield (Table 2), the higher load treatment (S2) had more clusters (per metre) and therefore, a yield increment of 16% compared with the others treatments. Even though it had a lower average bunch weight (from 17.0 to 22.5%), reduced number of berries (from 12 to 21%) and a low berry weight (from 4.4 to 9.2%) per cluster, S2 reached a higher yield due to its higher cluster number per vine (from 32 to 35%). Therefore, a sprawl system could achieve bigger active leaves than the VSP system per shoot, giving more photo assimilates to the plant. On the other hand, with an increment of load, the berry

Secondary (nº)

Nudes

Sig2

Figure 2. Average percentage of soil water content of three treatments1 between field capacity and permanent wilting point (soil conditions: %FC= 26,1 and %PWP = 12,75). 1Sig: significant differences; ns and *** means to there is no significant differences and P<0.001, respectively. The values with the same letter are equal (T. Duncan). P-values were determined by analysis of variance.

Sig1

b

b

a

Sig: significant differences; ** means to there are significant differences with P<0.01. The values with the same letter are equal (T. Duncan). P-values were determined by analysis of variance. 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

45


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

CLIMATE CHANGE

Table 3. Must composition for three treatments. Treatment

Must Composition 2006 Total antocian content (mg·L-1)

Antocian extractables (mg·L-1)

ºBrix

pH

Acidity (g ac tartaric/L)

IPT

VSP1

25.1

3.5

5.9

46.7

1470,35 b

794.33

S1

25.9

3.5

5.2

54.7

1804,34 a

936.95

S2

25.8

3.5

5.2

52.7

1903,30

983.94

Sig

Ns

ns

ns

ns

*

2

a

ns

Sig: significant differences; ns, and * means there are no significant differences or P<0.05, respectively. The values with the same letter are equal (T. Duncan). P-values were determined by analysis of variance. 2

size will decrease but the number of berries will increase (better skin/flesh ratio), giving more yield due to the increase in cluster number. Finally, what about quality? Because leaves and cluster microclimate are usually key factors determining the must parameters and consequently, wine composition (De la Fuente et al. 2013). No differences were obtained during 2006 for Brix, acidity and pH values (Table 3), but data for total and extractable anthocyanin reflect around 20% more content in open and nonpositioned free systems, which is useful in winemaking process (Haselgrove et al. 2000). It should be noted that cv. Syrah is sensitive to changes in thermal effects during synthesis of the final berry anthocyanins. The effect of increasing shading cluster area causes differences in berry anthocyanin content, which is more relevant under extreme hot conditions (2006). CONCLUSIONS The present work shows that in warm climates and with the same amount of water (168mm and 248mm for rainfall and irrigation, respectively) a sprawl system resulted in a better plant microclimate for our trial conditions. The sprawl system demands higher amounts of water in the soil profile because its root system expands deeper, benefiting more from the available water capacity, increasing the roots’ efficiency. Crop load has a relevant effect in increasing these water consumption differences. Use of free and non-positioned systems in warm climates has some relevant benefits, not only in water efficiency. They could improve the exposure of leaves and clusters (avoiding the undesirable over-ripening and dehydration berry effects); maximise the internal canopy ventilation (porous system); allow an increase in vegetative growth and yield without disrupting main berry quality parameters; and could increase phenolic and anthocyanin berry content, if there is enough water available in the plant-soil system. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the effort of Osborne Distribuidora S.A. company for technical and financial support on the implementation of this project (MEC, IDI: P030260221). The author did the works during its research formation at U.P.M (2004-2008). This paper is based on a scientific conference paper presented during the latest 38th OIV World Congress (De la Fuente et al. 2015) and published by EDP Sciences; BIO Web of Conferences.

46

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

REFERENCES Bergqvist J.; Dokoozlian N. and Ebusida N. (2001) Sunlight exposure temperature effects on berry growth and composition of Cabernet-Sauvignon and Grenache in the Central San Joaquin Valley of California. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 52(1):1-7. Carbonneau, A. and Costanza, P. (2004) Response of vine leaf water potential to quick variation in canopy exposure. Example of canopy opening manipulation of Merlot (Vitis vinifera L.). J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 38:27-33. Comas, L.H.; Eissenstat, D.M. and Lakso, A.N. (2000) Assessing root death and root system dynamics in a study of grape canopy pruning. New Phytol. 147:171-178. Comas, L.H.; Andersson, L.J.; Dunst, R.M.; Lakso, A.N. and Eissenstat, D.M (2005) Canopy and environmental control of root dynamics in a long-term study of Concord grape. New Phytol. 167:829-840. De la Fuente, M.; Baeza, P.; Sánchez de Miguel, P. and Lissarrague, J.R. (2010) Relation between exposed leaf surface, level of intercepted radiation and overall yield of plants. 33rd OIV World Congress of Vine and Wine. 8th General Assembly of the OIV, 20-25 June 2010, Tbilisi, Georgia. 13. De la Fuente, M.; Linares, R.; Baeza, P. and Lissarrague, J.R. (2013) Importance of canopy porosity into vineyard and the relationship with the grape maturity. Digital estimation method. Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola. 28, and Proc. of 18th International GiESCO Symposium 633-638. De la Fuente, M.; Linares, R. and Lissarrague, J.R. (2015) Canopy management and water use efficiency in vineyards under Mediterranean semiarid conditions. EDPsciences (Bioweb of conferences). 38th World Congress of Vine and Wine 14th General Assembly of the OIV. Mainz (Germany); 01005; 1-6. DOI: 10.1051/bioconf/20150501005 Deloire, A.; Carbonneau, A.; Ojeda, H. and Wang, Z. (2004) La vigne et l’eau. Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin 38:1-13. Dufourcq, T.; Gontier, L.; Serrano, E. and Ollat, N. (2005) Leaf area and crop yield ratio: Effects on vine water status, must quality, wine quality for four varieties trained in south-west France. Progrès Agricole et Viticole 122:503507. FAO (2015) Towards a water and food secure future. Critical Perspectives for Policy-makers 69. Haselgrove, L.; Bottingf, D.; Heeswijck, R.; Rod, P.B.; Dry, P.; Ford, C. and Illand, P.G. (2000) Canopy microclimate and berry composition: the effect of bunch exposure on the phenolic composition Vitis vinifera L. cv Shiraz grape berries. Aus. J. Grape and Wine Research 6:141-149. Sebastian, B.; Baeza, P.; Santesteban, L.G.; de Miguel, P.S.; De la Fuente, M. and Lissarrague, J.R. (2015) Response of grapevine cv. Syrah to irrigation frequency and water distribution pattern in a clay soil. Agricultural Water Management 148:269-279. Spayd, S.E.; Tarara, J.M.; Mee, D.L.; Ferguson, J.C. (2002) Separation of sunlight and temperature effects on the composition of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot berries. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 53:171-182. Van Leeuwen, C.; Tregoat, O.; Chone, X.; Bois, B.; Pernet, D. and Gaudillere, J.P. (2009) Vine water status is a key factor in grape ripening and vintage quality for red Bordeaux wine. How can it be assessed for vineyard management purposes? J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 43:121–134. Van Huyssteen L. (1988) The grapevine root and its environment. Department of Agriculture and Water Supply 44-54. Williams, L.E., and Baeza, P. (2007) Relationships among ambient temperature and vapour pressure deficit and leaf and stem water potentials of fully irrigated, field-grown grapevines. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 58(2):173-181.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

WVJ

V31N1


SHIRAZ DISEASE

VV II TT II CC UU LL TT UU RR EE

Virus-associated Shiraz Disease may lead Shiraz to become an endangered variety in Australia By Nuredin Habili*, Qi Wu and Vinay Pagay School of Agriculture, Food & Wine, Waite Campus, The University of Adelaide, South Australia *Corresponding author email: nuredin.habili@adelaide.edu.au INTRODUCTION Shiraz (syn. Syrah) is the principal winegrape variety in Australia. In 2015, it yielded 395,154 tonnes with an increase of 9% over 2012 (ABS 2015). It has been ranked number one in cultivation and demand amongst both red and white varieties in Australia. Unfortunately, this variety is sensitive to attack by a number of viruses including Grapevine virus A (GVA) which causes Shiraz Disease (SD). Here, we report the deleterious effect of GVA on Shiraz which is a cause for concern among Shiraz growers from the Riverland to Langhorne Creek, in South Australia, and in the Yarra Valley, in Victoria. The possible routes of SD spread are also discussed. WHAT IS SHIRAZ DISEASE? Shiraz Disease (Figure 1) is a destructive virus disease of Shiraz that can kill the affected vine within two years. It was first reported in South Africa in Shiraz, Merlot and Gamay grape varieties (Corbett and Wiid 1985). The virus causing

the disease is Grapevine virus A (GVA, genus Vitivirus, family Betaflexiviridae). In South Africa, in addition to GVA, Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 (GLRaV-3) is usually detected in SD affected plants. SD should not be confused with Syrah Decline (SyD), a disease occurring in Europe and North America with an unknown etiology. Although GVA is present in other countries, it is symptomless except when infected vines are grafted on the Kober 5BB rootstock. In Australia, SD affects Shiraz, Merlot, Malbec and Sumoll varieties. Many other grapevine varieties and rootstocks do not show the symptoms of SD. EARLY OBSERVATION The Waite Diagnostics Laboratory of the University of Adelaide (https://agwine. adelaide.edu.au/facilities/wdiag) has been testing thousands of samples of different varieties for GVA since 1998. We first reported the GVA-associated Shiraz syndrome in September 2000 in an article in National Grapegrower. Two own-rooted (non-grafted) Shiraz vines (clone BVRC12), separated from each other by 35 vines in row 4 of the Coombeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Vineyard at the

Figure 1. Symptoms of Shiraz Disease on Shiraz top-worked on Chardonnay at McLaren Vale. GVA was the causal agent. This vineyard was destroyed due to the lack of productivity.

Vines in the Adelaide Hills infected by Shiraz Disease being pulled out. V3 1N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

47


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

SHIRAZ DISEASE

Waite Campus, showed delayed growth in the spring, followed by reddening of leaves, green canes and a rubbery texture in the autumn. The vines died within two years. We are not sure how these two Shiraz vines acquired GVA. The virus might have come from the neighbouring row 3 which was Cabernet Sauvignon, clone SA125, a clone that is infected with three viruses including GVA, the causal agent of SD. Cabernet Sauvignon is tolerant to GVA and does not typically show symptoms of SD. In Australia, the incidence of the virus has increased from 3.4% in 2001 to 16.6% in 2004 (Habili and Randles 2004). Typical symptoms of SD include: • late budburst in spring and/or restricted spring growth (RSG) • poorly lignified canes, red leaves with red veins, leaf margins curl downwards and turn leathery • poor growth, few bunches and death • retention of leaves through the winter. RECENT OBSERVATIONS Since 2014, we've observed two additional symptoms associated with Shiraz Disease. These are depicted in Figure 2. In a vineyard in the Barossa Valley where Shiraz was grafted on GVApositive Chardonnay, typical SD symptoms developed about four years after grafting. The Shiraz in this vineyard displayed an additional symptom which included deep cracking on canes (Figure 2A) which we observed for the first time. Informed growers now consider those cracks as a reliable indicator of SD in their vineyards. The second symptom (from a Riverland vineyard) was swelling and roughness (rugose) of canes (Figure 2B) similar to the corky bark (CB) symptoms known to be associated with Grapevine virus B (GVB), another vitivirus. In this scenario, GVA is mixed either with GLRaV-1 or GLRaV-3 (Table 1). Figure 2C shows a healthy Shiraz cane. The presence of GLRaV-3 is not a surprise because this virus is usually present in SD-affected vines in South Africa (Goszczynski and Jooste 2003). When either of these leafroll viruses accompanied GVA, the decline of Shiraz vines was observed to be more rapid (Figure 3). In all cases GVA is detected in SD-affected vines while in a number of vineyards GLRaV-1 or GLRaV-3 has also been detected in these vines.

48

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

A.

B.

C.

Figure 2. Symptoms of Shiraz Disease on a Shiraz cane in autumn: the symptom in 2A shows cracks on unlignified cane while 2B shows swelling as well which resembling ‘corky bark’ . Figure 2C is a healthy cane. VIRUS SPREAD We have observed the natural spread of SD in Willunga, Langhorne Creek and the Riverland in South Australia. In the autumn of 2015, two Shiraz vineyards displaying SD were surveyed. One vineyard was at McLaren Vale and tested positive for Grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus (GRSPaV), GVA and GLRaV-1 (Table 1). Another vineyard was located in the Riverland, 250km north east of Adelaide, and showed the SD symptoms on Shiraz grafted on the Ramsey rootstock (Figure 3). Test results showed that SD-affected samples from this vineyard were also infected with three viruses, GRSPaV, GVA as well as GLRaV-3. The corky bark (CB) symptom on canes is a new symptom for SD (Figures 2B and 2C). CB is known to be associated with GVB (Bonavia et al. 1996), rather than GVA. Besides, no CB-inducing GVB strain has been reported to date in Australia. This suggests that CB symptoms are no longer a reliable indicator of GVB infection. A total of 68 samples were collected from a Shiraz/Ramsey vineyard in the Riverland and 20 from the neighbouring block of symptomless Chardonnay of which 12 were infected with GLRaV-3 and GVA located near the hot spot (shown in Figure 4). Both mealybugs and scale insects were also observed on Chardonnay and Shiraz vines. The background virus, GRSPaV, was always present in all plants in all vineyards but it does not produce any symptoms. For simplicity, we have ignored this virus

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

in our remarks. GVA and GLRaV-3 in symptomless Chardonnay produced a virus hot-spot in a 5ha Shiraz block (Figure 4) which killed about 20% of the Shiraz vines. The Chardonnay vines remain healthy and show vigorous growth. All young replanted vines (Figures 3, light green cells in Figure 4) tested negative for the two viruses one year after planting, indicating that removing and replanting dead vines would be a beneficial management strategy. South African scientists claim that a long time is needed for the new plants to become re-infected (Almeida et al. 2013). Grapevine scale insects (Parthenolecanium persicae) were highly abundant on virus-infected Merlot vines in a Willunga vineyard (Figure 5, Table 2, see page 50). The Merlot block was adjacent to a SD-affected Shiraz block which showed the disease spread in a hot-spot pattern (similar to the above-mentioned Riverland vineyard), indicating the spread of both GLRaV-3 and GVA from Merlot. We were able to detect both GLRaV-3 and GVA in the RNA extracts of the scale insect nymphs collected from the Merlot using the RTPCR procedure. GLRaV-3 was at least 10 times more concentrated in the bodies of the crawling insect nymphs compared with GVA. This agrees with the observation that the number of vines infected with GLRaV-3 was much higher than those tested positive for both GLRaV-3 and GVA. In addition to being noted at Willunga, this was also observed in Shiraz vines growing in the Riverland where the natural spread

V31N1


SHIRAZ DISEASE

VV II TT II CC UU LL TT UU RR EE

Table 1. Pairwise samples from six vineyards (with and without SD) tested for grapevine viruses. Examined vine pairs

Area/year

Symptoms

Viruses in symptomatic plants1

Pattern of SD occurrence2

Shiraz/Chard

Barossa Valley/2014

SD, cracks on woody canes

GVA

Random

Shiraz

McLaren Vale/2012

SD, cracks on woody canes

GVA, GLRaV-1

Hot-spot

Shiraz/Ramsey

Riverland/2015

SD, cracks and swelling of stem

GVA, GLRaV-3

Hot-spot

Shiraz/Chard

Langhorne Creek/2015

RSG in spring (see also Fig.1)

GVA

Random

Malbec/Chard

Langhorne Creek/2015

RSG in spring (see also Fig.1)

GVA

Random

Shiraz

Willunga/2015

RSG in spring (see also Fig.1)

GVA, GLRaV-3

Hot-spot

GRSPaV was present as a background virus both in healthy and infected plants. 2 Infected vines either appear as random following top working on symptomless vines or as a hot-spot pattern due to the crawling nature of insect vector nymphs. 1

of SD is occurring. Vector transmission studies by Waite Diagnostics showed that one out of seven potted vines that received P. persicae became infected with both GVA and GLRaV-3. In vineyards where top-working is practised, only GVA is detected in SDaffected Shiraz. In these vineyards the affected vines appear randomly and no natural spread of SD is observed (Table 1). This indicates that human activities may be responsible for the introduction of SD in a vineyard following mixed plantings of healthy and unknowingly infected Chardonnay vines. On the other hand, when SD-affected Shiraz vines occur clumped together and are recognisable as vineyard hotspots, spread of the viruses is most likely by insect crawlers (vectors). We have observed that in these vineyards, GVA is usually accompanied by either GLRaV-1 or GLRaV-3 (Table 1). In this scenario, neighbouring blocks act as the source of infection (inoculum) as noted above. We conclude, as outlined by others, that in order for GVA to be transmitted by vectors, either GLRaV-1 or GLRaV-3 needs to be present as a helper virus. The helper-virus theory for GVA is controversial at this stage and needs further elucidation (Almeida et al. 2013). ECONOMIC IMPACT Six years after grafting Shiraz onto GVA-positive Chardonnay (top-working, Figure 1) at McLaren Vale, the vineyard lost 98% of its yield in 2010 (Habili, unpublished, Habili and Randles 2012). At Langhorne Creek, a large block of Shiraz top-worked on Chardonnay developed

V3 1N 1

Figure 3. Symptoms of Shiraz Disease on Shiraz/Ramsey (planted in 1994) in spring in the Riverland of South Australia. The infected vines have restricted spring growth and are infected with GVA and GLRaV-3. Newly replanted vines are boxed. One may confuse these symptoms with those caused by grapevine trunk diseases including eutypa.

x

x x

x

x x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

xx x

x xx

x x

x

SD symptoms, not tested (visual) Tested Shiraz, GVA + LR3, symptoms Tested Chard, GVA + LR3, no symptoms Tested vines, LR3 only, no symptoms

x x x

Removed, dead vines Tested mature vines, negative Tested young vines, negative

x x

Figure 4. The map of a section of a Shiraz vineyard in the Riverland showing the spread of Shiraz Disease. Chardonnay on the top row (pink cells) is believed to be the source of infection. Young re-planted vines tested negative one year after replanting (light green cells). The symptoms were recorded in spring. W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

49


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

SHIRAZ DISEASE

Table 2. Scale insects in Australia as potential grapevine virus vectors.

1

Scale name

Scale species

Vectored virus

Country

Grapevine scale

Parthenolecanium persicae

GLRaV-3, GVA

Australia (this work)

Frosted scale

Parthenolecanium pruniosum

No report

Plum scale

Parthenolecanium corni

GLRaV-1, GLRaV-3, GVA

Italy, France

Soft brown scale

Coccus hesperidum

GLRaV-3 (C. longulus)

South Africa1

Black scale

Saissetia sp.

GLRaV-3

South Africa

Nigra scale

Parasaissetia nigra

GLRaV-3

South Africa

Long soft scale

Coccus longulus

GLRaV-3

South Africa

All South African citations were from Kuger and Douglas-Smit (2013)

Figure 5. Female scale insects (Parthenolecanium persicae) and crawlers on a virus infected Merlot cane at Willunga, South Australia. The crawling nymphs on the hump of the mother scale insect tested positive for GLRaV-3 and GVA. This species was identified by Waite Diagnostics using DNA bar-coding.

SD in 20% of its vines by showing RSG symptoms. According to the grower, the cost of removing infected vines, replanting and taking into account the elapsed time ahead of the first profitable crop, was estimated to be around $400,000 for a 6ha block. An independent vineyard consultant assessed the damage cost at $70,000/ ha which matched the above estimate. This block tested positive for GVA with no GLRaV-3 (Table 1, random infection). The same grower top-worked Malbec onto Chardonnay; the Malbec scion showed RSG two years after grafting. The Malbec vineyard has since been destroyed. All affected vineyards that we have visited have either been destroyed by roguing (pulling out vines) or are in the process of being destroyed. Some growers are even considering replanting their vineyards with almond trees. We continue to struggle to locate an ongoing diseased vineyard for our research purposes. If this trend continues, it is possible that ‘Shiraz’ grapevines will be at risk of extinction in South Australia. We have also tested a number of samples of SD-affected Shiraz vines from the Yarra Valley in Victoria. The vines were all infected with GVA indicating that SD may not be limited to South Australian Shiraz vineyards.

a reliable indicator for GVB. Although the vines show splitting and swelling of canes, (the typical symptom of GVB (Figure 2B and 2C), GVA but not GVB was detected in these samples. Our observations show that the incidence of GVA-associated Shiraz Disease occurs via two routes: first, through human action by top-working established GVA-infected vines. In this option, SD usually comes with GVA and rarely with other viruses (disregarding the inherent virus GRSPaV); secondly, by such vectors as mealybugs or scale insects, where usually a third virus (GLRaV-1 or GLRaV-3) accompanies GVA. It is believed (but not proven) in order for GVA to be spread the assistance of a helper virus is needed. In the three examples given in Table 1 either GLRaV-1 or GLRaV-3 may act as a helper virus. Being sensitive to GVA, Shiraz may be at risk as the variety of choice in South Australia, unless a systematic and thorough study of the virus-vector-plant relationship is conducted. By removing infected vines and re-planting with certified, virus-tested material, the grower can greatly reduce the eventual likelihood of destroying the whole vineyard as is currently being done.

access the Riverland block, and to Josclin Waechter for vine sampling and vineyard mapping. We also thank Mark Gilbert and Oli Madgett for access to their vineyards. We thank Professor John Randles and Dr Ian Dundas for their critical reading of the manuscript.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We have observed, for the first time, the association of GVA with the CB symptoms. This has led us to conclude that CB is not

Our special thanks are due to Ian Macrae, senior viticulture officer at CCW Co-operative Limited for allowing us to

Kruger, K. and Douglas-Smit, N. (2013) Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 (GLRaV-3) transmission by three soft scale insect species (Hemiptera: Coccidae) with notes on their biology, African Entomology 21:1–8.

50

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

REFERENCES Almeida, R.P.P.; Daane, K.M.; Bell, V.A.; Blaisdell, G.K.; Cooper, M.L.; Etienne Herrbach, E. and Pietersen, G. (2013) Ecology and management of grapevine leafroll disease, Frontiers in Microbiology 4:1-13. ABS 2015. Key wine variety figures, 2014-15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. www.abs.gov.au Bonavia, M.; Digiaro, M.; Boscia, D.; Boari, A.; Bottalico, G. and Martelli, GP (1996) Studies on corky rugose wood of grapevine and on the diagnosis of grapevine virus B. Vitis 35:53-58. Corbett, M.K. and Wiid, J. (1985) Closteroviruslike particles in extracts from diseased grapevines. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 24:91-100. Goszczynski, D.E. and Jooste, A.E.C. (2003) Shiraz disease (SD) is transmitted by mealybug Planococcus ficus and associated with Grapevine virus A. In: Extended Abstracts of the 14th meeting of ICVG. Locorotondo, Italy. 219. Habili, N. and Randles, J.W. (2004) Descriptors for grapevine virus A-associated syndrome in Shiraz, Merlot and Ruby Cabernet in Australia, and its similarity to Shiraz Disease in South Africa. Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker 71:1–4. Habili, N. and Randles, J.W. (2012) Major yield loss in Shiraz vines infected with Australian Shiraz Disease associated with Grapevine virus A. In: Extended Abstracts of the 17th Meeting of the ICVG, 2012. UC Davis, USA. 164-65.

WVJ

V31N1


TRUNK DISEASES

VV II TT II CC UU LL TT UU RR EE

Preventing trunk diseases in the vineyard: choosing the best practices By Kendra Baumgartner1, Renaud Travadon1 and Jonathan Kaplan2 1 United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Davis, California USA. 2 Department of Economics, California State University, Sacramento USA.

Based on a presentation delivered at the Mildura seminar of the Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology held in July, the authors describe some practices that give growers the best chance of offsetting the negative effects of trunk diseases. INTRODUCTION Years of research on the control of grapevine trunk diseases (Figure 1) and related field trials have identified cultural and chemical practices that prevent and limit infections of pruning wounds by the spores. These practices include delayed pruning, double pruning, and applications of pruning-wound protectants (e.g. thiophanate-methyl, boric acid). No single study has compared the efficacy of all such preventative practices to all trunk pathogens. Nonetheless, because the published studies used controlled inoculations, followed by attempts to recover the pathogens from the inoculated pruning wounds, we can use these data to make general comparisons of disease-control efficacies across studies.

Field trials on delayed pruning compare pruning-wound susceptibility in early versus late winter. This is accomplished by inoculating the wounds with spores after pruning and then coming back at some later date (days,

weeks, or months later, depending on the study) to gather the inoculated pruning wounds for pathogen recovery attempts in the laboratory. Disease-control efficacy (%) can be estimated as a reduction in pathogen recovery from late-winter

WHICH PRACTICES ARE EFFECTIVE? Here we highlight disease-control efficacies estimated from several key publications on the prevention of trunk diseases. Studies on delayed and double pruning were performed mainly in the Northern Hemisphere where December is considered early winter and March is considered late winter. The efficacy of chemical protectants has been studied in both hemispheres. These three preventative practices are described in detail in Figures 2 (see page 52) and Figure 3 (see page 53). Most studies revealed year-to-year variation in disease-control efficacy and the influence of environmental factors at the vineyard level on interactions between trunk pathogens and grapevines, the success of pruning-wound infections by fungal spores, and the prevention of such infections.

V3 1N 1

Figure 1. Symptoms of trunk diseases. A common wood symptom of botryosphaeria dieback, eutypa dieback, and phomopsis dieback is a wood canker. (A) for Esca, the wood symptom appears as a concentric ring of black spots; (B) or distinct spots, in a cross-section of an infected trunk or cordon. The dieback-type diseases will eventually kill the spur (C) after infecting a pruning wound. Eutypa dieback causes the leaves to become stunted and misshapen (D). Esca causes the leaves to develop an interveinal yellowing, and the margins of the leaves dry out (E). Photos: Kendra Baumgartner. W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

51


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

TRUNK DISEASES

pruning wounds, relative to that of early-winter pruning wounds. In this way, we measure the proportion of pruning wounds that were not infected. For the eutypa dieback pathogen Eutypa lata, one year of data show disease-control efficacy of 90% when pruning in March versus December (Petzoldt et al. 1981). For the botryosphaeria dieback pathogen Neofusicoccum parvum, two years of data for two cultivars (Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay) exhibit disease-control efficacies ranging from 55-79% when pruning in March rather than in December (Urbez-Torres and Gubler 2011). Urbez-Torres and Gubler (2011) derived similar results

(59-75%) for another botryosphaeria dieback pathogen Lasiodiplodia sp. For the esca pathogen Phaeomoniella chlamydospora, two years of data display disease-control efficacies ranging from 40-58% when pruning in March as opposed to January (Larignon and Dubos 2000). In addition, this Esca study shows a broader range of efficacies, 29-88%, from one year to the next for another esca pathogen Phaeoacremonium minimum (aka Phaeoacremonium aleophilum, Togninia minima). The efficacy of double pruning has been the object of a single study in which the first pruning pass was made (pre-pruning by hand) on a monthly

basis throughout the dormant season, from October to February, followed by the final pruning pass, which was made also by hand only once in March. After the first pruning pass, the pruning wounds were inoculated with Eutypa lata spores. Recovery attempts were made in March (after the final pruning pass) from the section of the cane that remained after the first pruning pass. Disease-control efficacies derived from two years of data for two cultivars (Chardonnay, Merlot) ranged from 33-85% when making the first pruning pass in February versus December, and from 75-95% when the first pruning was made in February versus October (Weber et al. 2007).

Figure 2. The practice of delayed pruning avoids the period of early winter, when pruning wounds are most susceptible to infection by fungal spores. In California, the risk of infection tends to be greatest in early winter (December and January), which is typically characterised by more rain events and colder temperatures than in late winter (February and March). Rain induces spore production and release, and the cold temperatures are thought to be the cause of slower wound healing in early winter. Pruning in late winter, as close as possible to budbreak, has been shown to result in fewer infected pruning wounds. For large vineyards, delayed pruning is not feasible; it takes all winter to prune many hectares. Instead, the preventative practice of double pruning is used. The first pass of the vine rows (sometimes called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;pre-pruningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) is done with a mechanical-pruning machine (left). This leaves the canes at approximately 50cm (right), which is a sufficient length to minimise infection of the spurs by any spores that may infect between the time the first pruning pass is made by machine (early winter) and the second by hand (late winter). This is standard practice for pruning winegrapes in Washington state (Kaplan et al. 2014), not necessarily for the primary purpose of preventing trunk diseases, but rather due to the cold winters and a smaller supply of farm labour. Our grower surveys show that double pruning is relatively rare in California, where many vineyards are still pruned by hand. However, dwindling supplies of cheap, immigrant labour have convinced more and more growers to purchase mechanicalpruning machines. Photos: Kendra Baumgartner.

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


TRUNK DISEASES

For evaluating the efficacy of pruning-wound protectants from the published literature, we calculated disease-control efficacy as we did for delayed pruning and double pruning. The main difference for studies on pruning-wound protectants is that they were not comparing timing of application, but rather they were comparing pathogen recovery rates between treated and non-treated pruning wounds. In New Zealand, thiophanate-methyl sprayed onto Chardonnay pruning wounds provided more than 60% efficacy in reducing botryosphaeria dieback infections (Amponsah et al. 2012). In South Africa, flusilazole and benomyl were the most effective protectants, achieving approximately 90% disease-control efficacy against eutypa dieback infections (Halleen et al. 2010). In California, thiophanate-methyl has been tested against a range of trunk pathogens with varying diseasecontrol efficacies, ranging from 100% against Eutypa lata to 50% against the Esca pathogen Phaeomoniella chlamydospora (Rolshausen et al. 2010). In South Australia, though not registered, benomyl has proven highly effective against Eutypa lata infections [100% disease control (Sosnowski et al. 2008)], and carbendazim painted by hand gave 80-90% efficacy against Eutypa lata, while multi-fan sprayer application of that same product was less effective [approximately 50% (Sosnowski et al. 2013)]. Evaluation of more spray machinery and volume rates may soon identify more effective tractor-applied protectants.

Nonetheless, the more wounds that are protected each year (even if it is only 50%), the better. Because the infections by trunk pathogens are chronic, each infected pruning wound eventually results in a dead spur and, thus, fewer fruit clusters on the vine. Along this line of reasoning, it makes sense to start preventing trunk diseases in young vineyards. To gauge the potential economic gains of adopting preventative practices, we examined the cumulative net returns in an infected vineyard with each practice (delayed pruning, double pruning, thiophanate-methyl), which are adopted in three, five, or 10 years after vineyard establishment. Based

VV II TT II CC UU LL TT UU RR EE

on the range of realistic values drawn from studies detailed above, we assume three levels of disease-control efficacy: 25, 50, and 75% (i.e., a quarter, half, and three-quarters of pruning wounds are protected from infection). With the different levels of disease-control efficacy, regardless of the practice, some pruning wounds remain protected each year from infection, so that the overall trunk disease incidence in the vineyard does not increase as rapidly as in an untreated vineyard. Therefore, yields do not decline as rapidly and net returns are most likely to be higher when adopting a preventative practice, relative to leaving an infected vineyard untreated (unless the practice is costly

START PREVENTING TRUNK DISEASES WHEN THE VINES ARE YOUNG Given the variation in diseasecontrol efficacies between years within studies, among studies, and among specific pathogens, there is great uncertainty about the timing of preventative practices. Until detailed knowledge is available on the effects of environmental conditions on infection (specifically, conditions that favour spore release, transport, deposition and germination on pruning wounds), as well as the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;healingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; process of grapevine wounds, we are left to make uniform assumptions about efficacy.

V3 1N 1

Figure 3. Pruning-wound protectants have been shown to minimise infection by trunk pathogens when applied after pruning and, importantly, before rain. In California, fungicides registered for applications during the dormant season are thiophanate-methyl (Topsin M WSB; United Phosphorus, Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania USA) and myclobutanil (Rally 40 WSP; Dow Agrosciences LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana USA). Other protectants which are non-fungicidal materials are registered in California: boric acid (Tech-Gro B-Lock; Nutrient Technologies, Inc., Dinuba, California USA) (Figure 3) and Vitiseal (VitiSeal International LLC, San Diego, California). These pruning-wound protectants are applied by hand with a paintbrush or sponge to cover pruning wounds, with the exceptions of myclobutanil (registered only for spray application) and thiophanate-methyl (recently registered for spray application). This and other pruning-wound protectants are applied to all cuts made to the vine; notice the protectant is painted on the tips of each spur and on the wounds located closer to the cordon, which removed the spurs from the previous season. Photos: Rhonda Smith, University of California Cooperative Extension, Santa Rosa, California. W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

53


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

TRUNK DISEASES

Table 1. Last year that annual net returns are positive in a mature vineyard, in which a preventative practice is adopted in years three, five, or 10. Values are shown for three different levels of disease-control efficacy (assuming the practice prevents infection of 25, 50, or 75% of pruning wounds in the vineyard). Values reflect estimates for production of Cabernet Sauvignon in the Lodi region of California. Delayed pruning Disease-control efficacy Year practice adopted

Thiophanate-methyl

Double pruning

Last year that annual net returns are positive in a mature vineyard (out of 25 years total)

25% effective Year 3

19

19

18

Year 5

14

14

13

Year 10

12

12

12

Year 3

25

25

25

Year 5

19

19

18

Year 10

14

14

13

Year 3

25

25

25

Year 5

20

21

19

Year 10

14

14

14

50% effective

75% effective

and is adopted after the onset of symptoms in years 10+). With higher annual net returns come more years of profitability. Adoption of preventative practices can add years to the profitability of a vineyard. Using data for Cabernet Sauvignon production in the Lodi region of California, a vineyard generates positive annual net returns when it reaches three years old (or fourth leaf). An untreated, infected vineyard will continue to provide positive annual net returns until it is 11 years old. The effects of trunk diseases on this untreated vineyard are so severe it never recoups its establishment costs. Table 1 shows the last year of positive annual net returns for the different preventative practice scenarios. Adopting in year 10 does little to extend the profitable lifespan of the infected vineyard. Further, when efficacy is only 25% (which may occur in some years) and adoption does not begin until the vineyard is 10 years old, the vineyard does not generate enough net returns to cover establishment costs. We can see when adoption occurs in years three and five, however, the profitable lifespan increases, in many cases by nearly twice as much, providing significantly more years of positive annual net returns and positive cumulative net returns for at least some mature age range.

54

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

CONCLUSION It appears that adopting practices that prevent disease establishment in early years, soon after vineyard establishment, and implementing these practices annually over a vineyard lifespan, give growers the best chance of offsetting the negative effects of trunk diseases over a 25-year vineyard lifespan. In the future, greater effort is likely needed to inform growers of the benefits of early adoption when they decide how to manage their vineyards. REFERENCES Amponsah, N.T.; Jones, E.; Ridgway, H.J. and Jaspers, M.V. (2012) Evaluation of fungicides for the management of Botryosphaeria dieback diseases of grapevines. Pest Management Science 68:676-683.

Rooney-Latham, S.; Eskalen, A.; Smith, R.J. and Gubler, W.D. (2010) Evaluation of pruning wound susceptibility and protection against fungi associated with grapevine trunk diseases. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 61:113-119. Sosnowski, M.; Creaser, M.; Wicks, T.; Lardner, R. and Scott, E. (2008) Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 14:134-142. Sosnowski, M.R.; Loschiavo, A.P.; Wicks, T.J. and Scott, E.S. (2013) Evaluating treatments and spray application for the protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata. Plant Disease 97:1599-1604. Urbez-Torres, J.R. and Gubler, W.D. (2011) Susceptibility of grapevine pruning wounds to infection by Lasiodiplodia theobromae and Neofusicoccum parvum. Plant Pathology 60:261270. Weber, E.A.; Trouillas, F.P. and Gubler, W.D. (2007) Double pruning of grapevines: a cultural practice to reduce infections by Eutypa lata. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 58:6166.

Halleen, F.; Fourie, P. and Lombard, P. (2010) Protection of grapevine pruning wounds against Eutypa lata by biological and chemical methods. South African Journal for Enology & Viticulture 31:125. Kaplan, J.; Travadon, R. and Baumgartner, K. (2014) Making a case for early adoption of double pruning to prevent trunk diseases in Washington State vineyards. Washington State University Viticulture and Enology Program, Viticulture and Enology Extension News, Fall 2014 accessed 1 October 2015, http://wine.wsu.edu/researchextension/files/2010/07/2014-Fall-VEEN-Final.pdf. Larignon, P. and Dubos, B. (2000) Preliminary studies on the biology of Phaeoacremonium. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 39:184-189. Petzoldt, C.H.; Moller, W.J. and Sall, M.A. (1981) Eutypa dieback of grapevine: Seasonal differences in infection and duration of susceptibility of pruning wounds. Phytopathology 71:540-543. Rolshausen, P.E.; Urbez-Torres, J.R.;

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

WVJ

V31N1


TONY HOARE

V V II TT II C CU U LL TT U UR RE E

The evolution of winegrapes – Part 2 Protecting the past to benefit the future By Tony Hoare Hoare Consulting, PO Box 1106, McLaren Flat 5171 South Australia Email: tony@hoareconsulting.com.au

In Part 1 of this article, published in the September-October 2015 issue of the Wine & Viticulture Journal, Tony explained how epigenetics was providing the ability to genetically identify the various traits of different winegrape clones, which has enabled the wine industry to select clones based on those traits. In this article, he explores local and international perspectives of clonal selection and how it has improved viticulture but at the potential risk of reducing germplasm diversity for the future.

T

he search for desirable character traits in winegrapes continues to be a major focus for many of the worlds’ wine research institutions. My previous article on epigenetics and its importance in winegrape evolution has prompted this article which looks at local and international perspective of how clonal selection has improved current viticulture, however at the potential risk of reducing germplasm for the future. The quest for desirable characteristics through clonal selection has benefitted wine producers in many ways. However twentieth century advancements in clonal selection have reduced diversity and led to genetic erosion in winegrape germplasm. The isolation and propagation of clones

with desirable characteristics has streamlined vineyards, however at the cost of removing varieties and clones from production. These discarded varieties and clones may hold the key viticultural traits in their genomes to benefit future generations of wine producers. In these varieties are undiscovered genetic characteristics that need to be preserved for future benefit. The evolution of wine production over thousands of years has resulted in unique relationships between winegrape varieties, countries of origin and regions of production. Some countries appreciate the value and future importance of genetic diversity and are well advanced in the preservation of their ancient winegrape varieties.

GERMPLASM – THE PROBLEM OF COLLECTION AND STORAGE Around the world, institutional germplasm conservatories have traditionally been established to collect and ‘safeguard’ winegrape germplasm. The funding and responsibility for their management has mainly been by government and industry. This model for germplasm conservation has exposed some serious flaws when the government or industry managed sites have to contend with budget cuts, natural disasters and trademark issues. As a result, private germplasm collections in many established wine-producing countries are developing germplasm collections that they then sell under licence. The cost of developing clones

Australia has the best pre-phylloxera collection of vine material in the world. The old vines are a great asset and need to be catalogued for future generations. V3 1N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

55


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

TONY HOARE

and then marketing them is significant for investors and any return on investment can take years. Therefore, these costs are reflected in the price of the vine material which are at a premium for certified, true-to-type material. The economic issues affecting government germplasm repositories also affect private germplasm collections in that they suffer when market demand for varieties has a downturn or properties change ownership. FRANCE Clonal selection began in the 1960s based on sanitary and genetic preferences which led to more than 90% of French vineyards being planted with certified clones (Vinifhor 2007). The reduction in clonal material prompted the collection from old vineyards of some 85 varieties since the 1970s which are stored in repositories in France and around the world. In 2007, France contributed to GrapeGen06 which was launched with funding for four years. The long-term objective of the project was to “increase our knowledge of European grapevine genetic germplasm and to enhance its preservation, management and promotion for future utilisations”. The project cost 1,277,961 Euros and involved 24 partner countries. It resulted in a database of varieties, accurate accessions, the removal of duplications of cultivars and testing of cryoconservation techniques to preserve genetic vine material. PORTUGAL – SETTING THE STANDARD In Portugal, a major study of inter-varietal diversity of ancient Iberian varieties begun in the 1970s and is continuing using genotypic research. Portugal has many unique ‘native’ winegrape varieties which have been in production for more than 4000 years. With the help of a 50-year land grant for 274 hectares from the Portuguese government, a centre has been established for the conservation, study and evaluation of their native grapevine varieties. It is a combined project utilising the resources of private industry, universities, technical associations and the Portuguese government: PORVID. So far, after only five years, the project has assembled 30,000 genotypes from around 210 varieties sampled from old vineyards around the country. It aims to increase this to 50,000 genotypes from 250 native varieties.

planting, infrastructure and harvest. To avoid this situation occurring again, as well as the associated costs, a regulated national germplasm management system would provide the security to avoid future problems. Australia has the best prephylloxera collection of vine material in the world. The old vines are a great asset and need to be catalogued for future generations. Whether old or new clones, yield and fruit quality certainty and diversity are both a winemaker’s best friend when it comes to winegrapes. The reliability of flavour and aroma characteristics yield in times of extreme weather, more pronounced regional microclimates, and a more discerning and competitive wine market are all factors that support the need for accurate clonal information and a more organised and informed approach to our vine germplasm. With the great interest currently among regions for clonal information, perhaps a regional approach under a national organisation could be the answer to a successful, economically-viable, management of germplasm in the future. Many Australian wine regions are forging ahead with clonal selection for regional ‘champion’ varieties. Large, medium and small wine producers are driving this market by fine tuning winestyles to truly reflect regional characteristics of climate, soils, viticulture and winemaking. The consumer market is responding and underperforming clones are now on borrowed time as new clonal material emerges for wines of a quality that demand a premium pricepoint. In Western Australia, a trickle of new international clones is now becoming a steady flow as sub-regions are aligned with specific clones. The old Houghton clonal material from the 1967 WA Department of Agriculture Cabernet Sauvignon trials has been resurrected and planted. These clones, identified by Jack Mann, Dorham Mann and Ian Cameron, are being used for some of Australia’s best Cabernet Sauvignon wines thanks to the work of Steve Partridge, Larry Cherubino, Bruce Dukes and others. It is not only the reliability of good clonal selection that is influencing wine quality. Winemakers have a much greater diversity of material to work with and viticulturists are matching them to the best sites. Australia is playing catch-up to many European wine producing nations in managing its winegrape germplasm. They have seen the importance of preserving the past and providing a system of integrity and reliability for the current and future selection of clonal material. The demand in Australia is growing for a better organised germplasm database. Let’s hope it happens soon.

AUSTRALIA REFERENCES There is a concerted push for Australia to have a more united and organised approach to the protection and management of Australia’s winegrape germplasm. In the article ‘The case for a national germplasm, published in the December 2015 of the Wine & Viticulture Journal’s sister publication the Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker, viticulturist Prue Henschke outlined the case for national germplasm management approach. Currently, Australia’s germplasm collection consists of around 900 cultivars spread across 13 collections. This is largely done in four vine improvement regions and by private vine nurseries. It is also not mandatory for DNA testing and as a result some varieties have entered the market that were not true to type. Most of these mistaken identities were only discovered after investment in vine material,

56

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

Henchke, P. (2015) The case for a national germplasm. Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker 623:32-33. Pers. conv. Steve Partridge, Agribusiness Research and Management, 13 Adelaide St, Busselton Western Australia.

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.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

WVJ

V31N1


ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

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

Graciano – bringing grace to the table By Frank van de Loo Winemaker, Mount Majura Vineyard, Canberra District

G

raciano has occupied an acre of Mount Majura Vineyard since 2002, and has not only earned its place, but is earmarked for expansion. We love it for its distinctive spicy fragrance and juicy medium-bodied style. When I last wrote about the variety1, I explained that the impetus for planting was the apparent suitability for the Canberra District climate, being similar to its home in Rioja, Spain, and the attraction of its reputation for being a distinctive and high-quality variety in Rioja. As a native variety of Rioja, Graciano is mostly and traditionally used in Tempranillo-dominant blends, but some varietal wines have appeared more recently. A champion of the region’s indigenous varieties, Juan Carlos Sancha made the first single-varietal Graciano for Viña Ijalba in 1995 (“It would have been the first in the world,” he says ruefully, “but for Brown Brothers in Australia”)2. The varietal Graciano from Bodegas Beronia, in Rioja, is available in Australia. Graciano was introduced to Australia around 1908 and has been grown at Milawa by Brown Brothers since 1920, though only made as a varietal since 1965. Graciano is now more widely grown in Australia3, but strangely enough is concentrated in maritime regions such as McLaren Vale and Margaret River, as well as Barossa and Riverland. Back in 20101, following seven hot and dry years, an important attraction of Graciano was that it stood up well to these conditions. Five years on, we’ve had some cool and/or wet years, but the climate is only getting warmer, and late ripening varieties like Graciano seem even better. Graciano is considered a low-yielding variety in Spain, but our material (SAVI01 clone) tends to overcrop considerably. The difference appears to be explained by the removal of leaf roll virus1. Two new clones (RJ117, RJ58) were recently introduced to Australia from Spain by Adelaide Hills Vine Improvement, and they are supposed to be virus free and moderate yielding, so it will be

V3 1N 1

interesting to see how they perform in our conditions. The bunches are very large, though not too tight, and the berries are small. The skins are quite thin, and it will suffer from

both sunburn and botrytis if conditions get difficult, but otherwise we’ve found it easy-going, and usefully resistant to powdery mildew compared with its ▶ neighbouring Tempranillo.

GRACIANO By Peter Dry Emeritus Fellow, The Australian Wine Research Institute BACKGROUND Graciano (grass-ee-AH-no) is an old variety of likely Spanish origin. The global area is relatively small with more than 70% found in Spain, particularly in the northern regions of Rioja and Navarra. It is very widespread around the Mediterranean with many synonyms: Bovale, Bovale Saro, Bovaleddau, Cagliunari, Caldareddhu and Calda Recio (Sardinia, Italy), Courouillade and Morastell (Languedoc, France), Minustellu (Corsica, France), Monastrell Menudo (Spain), Tintilla de Rota (Jerez, Spain) and Tinta Miuda (Alentejo, Portugal). It is only in recent times that some of the above synonyms have been shown to be the one and same variety as a result of DNA analysis. Some other varieties have also been mistaken for Graciano, including Paraletta (which itself has been mistakenly called Carignan in Australia). Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that Graciano is related to Carignan (syn. Mazuelo). Graciano was more widely planted in Spain before the advent of phylloxera but it has since declined, probably a result of its low yield. A more recent appreciation of its contribution to Rioja blends has led to a modest expansion—but it still only makes up 2% of the total vineyard area of Rioja. It was also more widely planted in the Languedoc in the past. After Spain, the largest area of Graciano is found in southern Portugal. In Australia, Graciano has been grown at Milawa, Victoria, by Brown Brothers since the 1920s. Newer clones were introduced from Spain and California in the 1960s. The total area in Australia has always been very small with little prospect of significant expansion. Nevertheless, there are currently at least 42 wine producers in Australia (in more than 18 regions), mainly McLaren Vale, Barossa Valley, Margaret River and the Riverland of SA. VITICULTURE Budburst and maturity are late. Vigour is high with an erect growth habit. Bunches are medium to large and compact with small tough-skinned berries. Yield is usually low (half that of Tempranillo) and variable. It is normally spur pruned. Graciano is tolerant of powdery mildew and is also said to be drought tolerant. WINE Graciano wines are deeply coloured and rich in tannins. Must acidity is high and this is one reason why it is found in blends with lower acidity varieties such as Tempranillo. Wines have light to medium body unless picked very ripe. Wine descriptors include minty, spicy, dried herbs and dark fruits. In Europe, Graciano is usually blended with other varieties, for example, it adds freshness and aromatics to the Rioja blend with Tempranillo and Carignan. In Sardinia and Corsica, it is usually blended with Grenache or Carignan. In Australia, Graciano is used as a single variety or in blends with Tempranillo.

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.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

57


V II TT II C CU U LL TT U UR RE E V

ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

Budburst and ripening are both late, similar to Cabernet Sauvignon, but obviously the ripening will depend on control of crop level. We apply antitranspirant pre-flowering to try to reduce set, but still need to follow up with heavy bunch thinning. Our vines are on a Smart-Dyson trellis, but we now generally don’t use the Smart-Dyson wire, as the canopy is not too dense and too much fruit exposure risks sunburn. In our case the south-side foliage wires are lifted and the north side left to sprawl. We prune to one-bud spurs but otherwise manage Graciano as for most of the vineyard. A permanent sward is cut with an undervine slasher rather than using herbicide in order to maintain and develop soil organic matter. Grass is kept short through October to minimise frost risk, but then we slash alternate rows to extend pollen production, feeding beneficials. The canopy is larger and healthier and fruit is less prone to sunburn if our boron deficiency is well managed. Graciano is notably sensitive to B deficiency, so soil and petiole tests on new sites are highly recommended. Despite the relatively thin skins, Graciano berries have a beautiful blueish colour, and this translates to excellent colour in the wine. Even when the colour is not deep, as in wine made from lessripe fruit, the hue is excellent and often remarked on. Our winemaking for Graciano is fairly standard. Fruit is destemmed and pumped to open fermenters where it has some pre-ferment maceration waiting

for wild ferments to start. Ferments are hand-plunged and the temperature is capped at 30°C. Wine is pressed after a few days post-ferment maceration, settled overnight and racked to old oak, where it completes MLF and matures typically for seven months. The name Graciano is supposed to relate to its acidity, bringing ‘grace’ to the Rioja blend, and indeed we always find it to have delicious fresh acid. The TA is generally not high (6.5-8.5g/L at harvest), but we never add acid to this variety and pH is always low, typically being 3.2 at harvest and below 3.5 postMLF. On the other hand, we need to add acid to Tempranillo, and just blending Graciano with Tempranillo wouldn’t do it - the Graciano would be in such a high proportion as to dominate the wine. Graciano doesn’t need to be superripe to make good wine. In most years we ripen only to about 12 Baume and make a wine that is spicy, fresh, vibrant and bright in a style that has become very well accepted by consumers and sommeliers. The aromatics are very distinctive to the variety: pepper, szechuan pepper, red berries, red liquorice, while the tannins are soft and fine. In 2013 we picked at 13.9 Baume at which the wine was plusher with deeper fruit and more ‘impressive’ while not necessarily being better. In warmer climates where it is easier to achieve high ripeness, winemakers might carefully assess whether earlier picking doesn’t make the more vibrant, distinctive and interesting wine, though many impressive riper wines have been made.

A view of the Mount Majura Vineyard where Graciano has occupied an acre since 2002 and is earmarked for expansion. The varietal wine is popular at cellar door and particularly with restaurants, making an interesting point of difference, and a good wine for food. We’ve often had the experience at public tasting events of word getting around and people coming up to say that their friends told them to come and try the Graciano, illustrating the thirst that exists for something medium-bodied and different. We also use Graciano in our very successful TSG blend with Tempranillo and Shiraz, and it is likewise used by many other wineries in blends, often with Tempranillo. One of the most successful, bagging several trophies, has been Rosemount’s Graciano Mataro Grenache blend. In our TSG, Graciano often contributes more of the spice and pepper than Shiraz does, and it seems that in warmer regions that do not easily make spicy Shiraz, a little Graciano could be a useful addition. Graciano in Rioja has a reputation for bringing longevity to Tempranillo blends, and we are certainly pleased with the development of our earliest vintages, the 2006 for instance still has some years ahead of it. We’re looking forward to growing more Graciano at Mount Majura Vineyard, and seeing more of it grown around the country. REFERENCES 1 van de Loo, Frank (2010) Grace under pressure: Graciano offers quality in warm and dry conditions. Wine Industry Journal 25(1):11-13. 2 Wislocki, Amy (2009) Rioja: the rise of indigenous grape varieties. Decanter. Published 9 October 2009. Accessed 6 January 2016. 3 Higgs, Darby: http://www.vinodiversity.com/ graciano.html

Graciano harvested from the Mount Majura Vineyard estate plantings. The blueish colour of the skins translates to excellent colour in the wine.

58

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

WVJ

V31N1


LUXURY BRANDS

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

The only way is up Adapting to the consumer shift to more premium wine By Armando Maria Corsi1 and Mark Rowley2 1 Senior Research Associate, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia 2 Senior Analyst, Wine Australia

F

or a long time Australia has positioned itself as a producer of consistent, reliable and good value-for-money wines. This strategy has been successful for several years, but the scenario has gradually changed with consumers demanding more premium wines. Australia has struggled to adapt to this shift, partly because of some structural changes that happened over the last few years (e.g. the appreciation of the Australian dollar, and the increase in competiveness of other wine-producing countries (Anderson 2015)), and partly because of Australia’s image. So, what can we do to change our position and what products are more suitable to support this new deal? First, we need to embrace the idea that the purchasing patterns for luxury brands are not much different from those for regular products. Luxury brands sell to more than just wealthy people. While wealthy people buy more luxury brands more often than average-income earners, the latter are greater in number, which means that middle-class people buy more luxury products in total than billionaires. This doesn’t mean luxury brands sell to everybody, but they compete in the mass market (Romaniuk and Sharp 2015). This idea is quite different from the mainstream marketing approach, as it is often said that the secret for success in the luxury field is to strive for exclusivity and rarity. Sjostrom (2013) and Romaniuk and Sharp (2015) provide support for this idea. The former analysed wine purchases in a large French supermarket chain, while the latter collected data in the US and China in 2015 for watches, champagne and luxury clothing. In summary, the studies revealed that the purchasing patterns for regular wines are similar to prestige wines, and luxury brands largely compete for mental availability (and most likely also

V3 1N 1

physical availability) just like regular brands. Therefore, penetration (i.e., having more customers) does nothing to depress demand, because even though this reduces a brand’s exclusivity, the positive effect of higher mental availability counterbalances it.

“Having luxury wines in a portfolio makes sense on two fronts. First is the potential for greater revenue and, secondly, to increase the perception of the other wines in portfolio.”

Secondly, no one brand, no one product is by default ‘cheap’, nor ‘luxury’. After a month of not drinking alcohol, an $11.99 wine can be an extraordinary product – as much as a

$700 plus wine could be considered as an everyday wine for a billionaire. Every product, every wine, constantly fluctuates on a continuum where the locus of luxury changes every time. Several factors are able to influence the position of a product along this scale and they include, but are not limited to, the consumption occasions, the purchase locations, and people consuming the product (Berthon et al. 2009). Therefore, it is important that we increase the consistency of the message we communicate to our potential customers and improve the perception of all consumption occasions and locations. We cannot afford to claim that Australian wines are premium and they should demand higher prices, if consumers can find wines too-cheap-to-be-good on supermarket shelves. We should also dignify all the occasions and locations where wines can be purchased. If every single wine-producing country tries to become the wine of choice for expensive restaurants, business dinners or engagement parties, we are all going

Export value (million AUD)

Count

500 450

12000 Value # of products

10000

# of exporters

400

# of destinations

350

8000

300 6000

250 200

4000

150 100

2000

50 0

0 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

MAT October

Figure 1. Key metrics for Australian exports above $10 per litre FOB. Source: Wine Australia W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

59


BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

LUXURY BRANDS

to fight over a small portion of the market. Conversely, if we improve the perception of buying wine in a discount store, at a drive-through bottle shop, or for a relaxed dinner at home, we are going to open the doors to a much wider market, where Australian wines can deliver the promise of being reliable and exciting at the same time. Having luxury wines in a portfolio makes sense on two fronts. First is the potential for greater revenue and, secondly, to increase the perception of the other wines in portfolio. As we’ve already stated, the definition of ‘premium’ is subjective, however, for the purposes of this analysis we have classified premium wine as any wine exported above $10 per litre free on board (FOB). From a revenue perspective, premium wine is an increasingly important and lucrative segment of the market to be in. ‘Premiumisation’ trends are well entrenched globally and Australian exporters of premium wines are capitalising on this trend. Australian wine exports above $10 per litre FOB are currently at record levels and growing rapidly – up 27% to $435 million in the year ended October 2015. Furthermore, more and more wineries have been recording sales success with their flagship wines. The number of exporters shipping these wines increased over the past year by 5% to 1117, while the number of products in this segment also increased, up 10% to 9604. Conversely, the number of destinations that received these wines has declined from a peak of 113 destinations in 2009 to 98 destinations in 2015. China (up 61% to $120 million) and Hong Kong (up 25% to $89 million) have been the primary contributors to the growth, but they are not alone. The US, which had been Australia’s major destination for premium wines, has found a base over the past four years and is tracking upwards – albeit at a moderate pace. Of the 24 top destinations, 22 recorded growth in the premium segment and 17 of those destinations recorded double digit growth. Marketing theory suggests that premium goods can create a ‘halo effect’. This is where the consumption of the premium good and a favourable experience improves the perception

60

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

Table 1. Top variety claims above $10 per litre FOB by region (year ended October 2015). Source: Wine Australia Geographical region

Export value (AUD FOB)

Value change (%)

Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon Cabernet Sauvignon/Shiraz Shiraz/Mourvedre Shiraz/Cabernet Sauvignon Chardonnay No label claim Pinot Noir Merlot Cabernet Sauvignon/Merlot

96,063,193 75,540,152 64,789,327 24,909,706 6,911,552 6,517,356 5,573,609 4,202,768 3,980,428 3,915,053

18 52 90 44 -7 1 4 12 25 -8

Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon Chardonnay Cabernet Sauvignon/Shiraz No label claim Grenache/Shiraz/Mourvedre Shiraz/Viognier Shiraz/ Cabernet Sauvignon/Merlot Grenache Pinot Noir

29,410,620 7,968,536 2,157,161 1,780,116 1,485,797 1,428,627 1,351,306 1,259,942 715,350 664,430

5 19 29 -9 -6 47 37 -24 119 8

Shiraz

17,758,321

16

Cabernet Sauvignon

3,868,352

9

Chardonnay Pinot Noir No label claim Cabernet Sauvignon/Shiraz Riesling Grenache/Shiraz/Mourvedre Grenache/Shiraz/Merlot Merlot

3,562,028 1,985,091 1,645,018 1,512,478 1,085,963 821,796 780,585 737,837

-19 10 -3 16 3 3 18 250

Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon Chardonnay No label claim Cabernet Sauvignon/Shiraz Rest of World Grenache/Shiraz/Mourvedre Sauvignon Blanc Cabernet Sauvignon/Merlot Chardonnay/ Pinot Noir

6,611,711 1,996,979 1,384,727 1,127,972 611,656 516,023 436,514 324,528 312,737

-10 144 50 13 139 152 28 DNE 67

290,831

544

Asia

North America

Europe

Top ranked varietal claims

Pinot Noir of all products by the same company or country of origin. Calculating solid figures of the potential of the ‘halo effect’ is difficult. What is evident though is that there is a clear relationship between the perception of a country’s wine and the average import price of that wine, although it does raise a possible ‘chicken or the egg’ conundrum: Is perception high because

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

French wine is typically expensive, or is French wine expensive because the consumer has a higher perceived quality of that wine? Figure 3 illustrates that as perceptions of a country’s wine increases, the average import price of that wine increases. This is a simple analysis with few data points, however, the trend suggests that if Australia‘s perception was to increase to equal that

V31N1


LUXURY BRANDS

Export value (million AUD fob) $160 $140

China, Pr

Hong Kong

Singapore

Malaysia

United States Of America

Canada

Other

$120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

MAT October

Figure 2. Australian exports above $10 per litre FOB by destination. Source: Wine Australia Average value of bottled imports (USD per litre) 12

France 10

8

Italy

Spain

6

Australia

4

Chile 2

0 7.7

7.8

7.9

8

8.1 8.2 8.3 Perception by US consumers

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

Figure 3. Perceptions vs average import price by source. Source: Global Trade Atlas & Wine Intelligence of Chile, average bottled import prices could conceivably increase by $0.73 per litre. Based on 2014 figures when the study was undertaken, this would equate to an additional $80 million in export revenue. Wine Intelligence and retail data show that US consumers view Californian wine almost as favourably as they do Italian and French wine. This is despite Californian wine having a lower average retail price due to large volumes of entry-level wine. This demonstrates that consumers look past the entry-level wines to focus on the high end when a high-profile region is present. In this case the wines from

V3 1N 1

Napa Valley and Sonoma have a much higher impact on consumer perception than the cheaper wines coming from Central Valley. So, what products or varieties are currently selling well? The results vary across the regions (see Table 1). The first insight is Shiraz is easily the leading variety in all regions, Cabernet Sauvignon is second. However, throughout Asia exports of Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet blends exceed that of Shiraz and Shiraz blends. After the various mixes of Shiraz and Cabernet, GSMs and Pinot Noir are the most popular reds. Interestingly the data also shows it’s not necessary

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

to label premium wine as a variety – however, labelling as a variety is the standard practice. White wines struggle to fetch the high prices that red wines can attract. Just 7% of export revenue above $10 per litre is from still white wines compared with 91% for still red wines. Despite the skew towards red wines, Chardonnay is a top three seller in North America and Europe and ranks sixth in Asia. Riesling also ranks in seventh position in Europe. Table 1 illustrates that Shiraz is Australia’s flagship variety. In North America, after years of decline, Shiraz has recently shown some positive trends – up 5% in the past year. The variety has also grown strongly in Asia and Europe. In Asia, Shiraz’s crown is being challenged by the rise of Cabernet Sauvignon. Although straight Shiraz is exported in greater volume than straight Cabernet Sauvignon, when the blends of each variety are included, Cabernet Sauvignon exports exceed Shiraz exports. Although Australia’s claim on Shiraz should not be ignored, if Australia can raise the profile of its Cabernet Sauvignon there is potentially high returns in large markets. For example, the market for Cabernet Sauvignon above US$15 per bottle is 26 times the size of the equivalent for Shiraz and the evidence in Asia is illustrated in Table 1. Australia has the know-how and the products to look up without fear. We have no reason to envy France, Italy or Spain in terms of quality, but we would benefit from higher customer perception. We need to believe this change is possible and we need to work in that direction to make it happen. REFERENCES Anderson, K. (2015) How to return Australia’s wine industry to growth? Lessons from previous cycles. Wine Policy Brief No. 11, Wine Economics Research Centre, University of Adelaide. Available at http:// www.adelaide.edu.au/wine-econ/papers/wine-brief11-how-to-return-to-growth-0415.pdf Berthon, P.R.; Pitt, L.F.; Parent, M. and Berthon, J-P. (2009) Aesthetics and ephemerality: observing and preserving the luxury brand. California Management Review 52(1):45-66. Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B. (2015) How Brands Grow - 2. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Sjostrom, T. (2013) Are luxury/premium brands different? Do they share attributes and purchase patterns with non-luxury/non-premium products? Master by Research, University of South Australia. WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

61


BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

BACK LABELS

Food for thought for a new year – time to reboot back labels By Cathy Howard

Two moments during 2015 prompted Cathy to reconsider what her winery puts on its back labels.

O

ver the past year, a major challenge for our winery has been promoting our brand and our wines, and finding out which communication avenues are the most effective for us and for our target wine consumers. The big challenge is how to achieve this with our fairly limited resources, and which avenues will give us the best return on our investment of time and money. We also want to position ourselves as being different from others in the marketplace and we need to be innovative in our marketing and promotional material and activities to ensure that we stand out from the crowd and achieve our goals. There have been various moments throughout 2015 that have provided much food for thought about how I could communicate better with the consumers of our wines, both our current ones and our potential future customers. There are two that really stand out for me as my ‘light bulb’ moments. The first notable moment was attending a Cabernet Sauvignon tasting with a wine tasting group in Perth. The members were very knowledgeable wine consumers and passionate wine collectors who meet on a regular basis for a tasting, followed by

dinner. One member had picked up a wine from a well-known winery in the Great Southern, along with a tasting note for that wine. The tasting note was very informative and well written from a wine description point of view, but the winemaking term of ‘rack and return’ on the tasting note had them all baffled, and they asked me for an explanation. Winemakers can be quite accomplished at writing technical tasting notes covering all aspects of how we made the wine (seasonal weather conditions, timing of harvest through various fermentation and maturation procedures, additives used along the way, and the date we bottled the wine). We can also wax lyrical about the various aromas and flavours we see in a wine, along with texture, structure, balance and length. We often slip into using our ‘wine speak’ language and terms that as professionals we all understand and are familiar with, but most others in the general population do not understand and quite possibly are also really not that interested in knowing about. I have seen eyes glaze over when I mention acidity, barrel fermentation, or extended yeast lees contact in cellar door. I have

Back label statements are an important tool that many consumers use in their purchase decision making process. Back labels are also an inexpensive and efficient means for any winery to interact with their consumers at a critical point in the wine purchasing process.

62

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


BACK LABELS

to remind myself that the experiences and practices that I use as a winemaker, and what I consider to be the key points to talk about to differentiate one of our wines from many others that a consumer may taste, haven’t been experienced first hand by my customer and are rarely fully understood. Wine tasting should be an engaging and fun experience, and we need to find better ways of communicating that to our consumers and engaging them in the wonder and fascination of a flavour filled, textured liquid substance that is a pleasure to drink that started out life as a bunch of grapes in a vineyard. The second notable moment was reading a Wine Communicators of Australia post by Jen Barwick in February 2015, covering the speech by International Wine Judge Jane Parkinson, at the Sydney Royal Wine Show. What caught my attention was the following statement by Parkinson: “As you know, back in the day Australia was known for its revolutionary approach to making wines straightforward for people, and much of that was to do with the packaging and the front label. So perhaps Australia should now take ownership of revolutionising back labels too, because in most cases they are treated like an afterthought and do not engage at all, even though they are used on a constant basis. My experience of filming in supermarkets over the last year or so has meant I’ve spent a lot of time hanging around in wine aisles between takes, and during that time I have seen just how many people pay attention to what’s written on the back label. But they’re mostly such a wasted opportunity, there’s no ingenuity with design, they’re often very text heavy and/or the food matching approach is a turn-off - either so specific you feel like this is the only dish in the world that will match with the wine or so generic the consumer feels as though it is being cheated; ‘we’ll say it matches everything to make you choose this bottle’. Back label statements are an important tool that many consumers use in their purchase decision making process. Back labels are also an inexpensive and efficient means for any winery to interact with their consumers at a critical point in the wine purchasing process. In this article, I will be focusing on back labels, but much of what is discussed could also be adopted when writing tasting notes for websites and consumer tastings. As winemakers and wine marketers, we have to be very conscious of why we are writing our back labels and tasting notes, and who we are writing them for – our fellow winemakers and marketers, or our customers, the wine consumers.

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

In order to maximise purchase potential for bottles of wine based on back label information alone, the study suggested using the following strategies: • for lower priced wine ($13.99), back label information should include food pairings, elaborate taste descriptors, environment production information, and winery history information. • for medium and higher priced wines ($19.99 to $25.99), back label information should include food pairings, elaborate taste descriptors, and winery history information. Interestingly, it appears from this study that winery history information was always a positive influence on wine purchase choice and should, therefore, always be included on the back label regardless of price point. In a similar study by Wolf and Thompson in 2010 in the USA, consumers were asked to indicate which of 11 factors influenced them when they chose a new wine from a bottle store shelf. They were further asked which of these factors was the primary influence. The variety was the primary factor that influenced the purchase of a new wine for more than a third of the consumers, with a quarter indicating price was the primary factor. Brand and word of mouth influenced approximately two thirds of consumers. The front label influenced almost a half of consumers while the back label influenced slightly more than a quarter of wine consumers. 
Further, a quarter of the wine consumers indicated the information on the back label is extremely or very important to them when they make a purchase decision. A similar percentage indicated that the back label influences their ▶ purchase.

Graphic Language DESIGN

Brand strategy for strong shelf appeal In today’s market, the visual communication of your brand story 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

FROM A TECHNICAL VIEWPOINT – WHAT RESEARCH TELLS US SHOULD BE ON A BACK LABEL The few studies conducted on back label information and their impact on the purchasing decisions of consumers have shown that more than 50% of consumers read back labels and find them important in their selection. In saying that though, price was the main driver for more than 50% of the survey participants. The results of the study by Lockshin et al. undertaken in 2008 and published in 2010 seemed to indicate that there is no easy answer to the question of what exactly to put on the back label in order to maximise the purchase potential of a bottle of wine. What is clear from this study is that there are several different groups of individuals who within each group share very similar preference characteristics for back label attributes, and thus different back labels could be created for each group. 

V3 1N 1

communicate. collaborate. create. www.gldesign.com.au

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

63


BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

BACK LABELS

Writing an engaging and useful back label is a challenge, and it’s not an easy task to use words in such a way that communicates useful information about the subtle and complex flavours encountered in a wine that will make sense to a consumer and positively influence their purchasing behaviour. Photo: Antonio Diaz, 123rf.com In regards to the type of information on the back label, consumers indicated that a description of the flavours and aromas of the wine was the most important information. They want to know what to expect from the wine. The information about the winery, food pairings, history of the winery, or history of the wine was rated as somewhat to very desirable to consumers. From these two studies, one thing to note is that when designing and writing your back label the best information to include will differ from one market segment to the next, and what works well in Australia, may not work as well in an international market. KEY POINTS WHEN WRITING ABOUT WINE Bianca Bosker, in her blog article ‘Is There a Better Way to Talk About Wine?’, states that, “extravagant tasting notes have become de rigueur in the marketing world, they’ve also arguably lost their practical function as consumer guides.” Bosker continues, “Read any wine review or bottle label today and you will likely empathise with their confusion. Swallowing a substance that tastes of ‘strawberry bubble gum with tar’ sounds like punishment, yet somehow Suckling extols this Montalcino as ‘delicious’; a drink with flavours of ‘graphite’ mixed with ‘pâte de fruit, hoisin sauce, warm ganache, and well-roasted applewood’ calls to mind a dinner party gone wrong, not a Wine Spectator Pick of the Year.” Bosker states, “a recent Wine Spectator review for a Châteauneuf-du-Pape mentioned ‘baker’s chocolate, espresso, bay, licorice root, black currant preserves, and steeped fig’. It seems possible that what we ‘taste’ in a fine wine isn’t so much its flavour as the qualities of good taste that we hope it will impart to us. Bosker also quotes Matt Kramer, a Wine Spectator columnist

64

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

and the author of True Taste. “Kramer seeks to recapture the critical experience of drinking wine. In his view, only six words are necessary to evaluate a bottle’s essential attributes: ‘harmony’, ‘texture’, ‘layers’, ‘finesse’, ‘surprise’, and ‘nuance’.” I am wondering how we have reached a situation, especially when writing about how a wine tastes, that descriptions have become so over the top with their use of flowery, extravagant descriptors that are irrelevant and don’t make sense to many readers and wine consumers. We seem to have lost our way a little, and forgotten that wine back labels and tasting notes are a valuable tool for telling our story – setting us apart from the thousands of others and encouraging a wine consumer to try our wine. It is well worth keeping in mind that writing about the flavours, aromas, textures and nuances in a wine in a way that someone reading your wine description can readily imagine what that wine will taste like for them, is a difficult thing to do. It is a much easier to describe a visual experience, such as a vineyard scene. People reading the description of the vineyard will be more likely to be able to picture themselves standing in the vineyard and seeing the vines, grass in the midrows, trellis posts and wires, and the bunches of grapes hanging on the vines just as you have described it to them. So how do you write an engaging and useful back label (or tasting note) for your customer? Many articles on this topic suggest that you create in your mind your typical customer, the type of person who will be reading your back label or tasting note. Imagine what their likes and dislikes are, what their experiences may be, and how they would understand or not understand the descriptors and terms that you are using. We could draw on the opinions and experiences of others such as wine writer Andrew Jefford. Jefford states, “Writing notes about wine that carry practical relevance and literary value is a ▶ tricky business.” He suggests:

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


With Wine File... • • • • •

Winery records are easy to create and maintain Winery records are completely auditable Additives can be tracked to the material batch level Augments HACCP/Standard Operating Procedures Your NZ WSMP record keeping needs are met

These are just some of the reasons why Wine File is the winemakers choice for winery record keeping in Australia, New Zealand and the USA.

Maximizing MYOB Retail Manager in Wineries RM Wine provides... • Shopfront management for stock and inventory transfer • Consolidated reporting across shopfronts • Sales & inventory reporting • Wine club management • Enables allocation of stock to markets and variations in pricing and tax rates

Warehousing made simple WITS provides...

• Easy to use, accurate inventory recording • User defined locations, transactions and product groups • Full history of every inventory change and movement • Transactions can be immediate or planned • Planned transactions can provide paperwork for staff to work with • Interfaces with MYOB

Use them individually. Use them together. Contact us today to find out how. www.winefile.com.au sales@winefile.com.au Tel: +61 2 9807 6077


BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

BACK LABELS

• No fruit salad - descriptors are useful if used in moderation. Limit yourself to half a dozen at most, ideally those with some sensual kinship with one another. • Remember the structure - A wine’s structure, shape and texture are just as interesting as its aroma and flavour. • Balance is all - Balance and harmony are highly valued by drinkers, and a hallmark of all great wines. • Be comprehensive - If you have time, give the wine a little context. Tell us its past and future. Mention other wines from somewhere else it might be useful to compare it with. • What else? - Go on, surprise us. That’s what poetry does. Jefford also states that, “Academic attempts to give rigour to wine writing, for example, by using Ann Noble’s Aroma Wheel to come up with an objective language for wine, always ends in boredom for the reader. Conservative, restrained wine descriptions are tedious, repetitive and soporific, and utterly fail to evoke the excitement of smelling and tasting wine. “The writing of descriptive (as opposed to academic) wine notes is a specialised form of wine entertainment. The tongue is always somewhere in the writer’s cheek (or should be). They are drafted with a smile, in a spirit of levity (or should be). That’s how the genre works”. Reading this comment by Jefford makes Plonk, the wine mockumentary, spring immediately to mind! Jefford continues, “That said, there are three sorts of skills which can be buried in wine descriptions, and this is what readers are hunting for. The first is tasting skill: you can pick the right wines to go purple about. Parker has this for the majority of his readers, that is one of the secrets of his success.  They bought the bottles and, damn it, the guy was right. The second is the ability to

communicate enthusiasm. You read the note, you want to try the wine. The third is a genuine literary skill, of the sort possessed by Hugh Johnson.” Thinking outside the box, what else could be included on your back label, along with a wine description, a little winery history and perhaps some food pairings? Communicating what is unique about your wines and your brand in the form of a few core messages on your back label could work well. Try to limit yourself to two or three such as: • My husband and I quit our jobs 10 years ago to start a vineyard winery from scratch in order to live and breathe our passion. • A wine that you will enjoy sharing with your family and friends. • The end result of a combined 45 years of experiences, with its highs and lows, of growing grapes and making wine. Make a list of words or phrases that come to mind when thinking about your brand or the particular wine that you’re working on the back label for and work at weaving these words into your back label writing. Don’t let yourself think too hard about it. Your list might look like this: smooth, surprising, birthday dinner with friends, refreshing, after dinner mint, ripe, relaxed, a conversation starter, a rich burgundy colour, affordable luxury. CONCLUSIONS Back labels offer one of the few opportunities for producers to communicate directly with the public when they are not present personally to do the talking about their wine and what makes it special and unique from the others on the shelf, and most importantly, why it is worth trying. Writing an engaging and useful back label (or tasting note) is a challenge, and it’s not an easy task to use words in such a way that communicates useful information about the subtle and complex flavours encountered in a wine that will make sense to a consumer and positively influence their purchasing behaviour.  The challenge, if we choose to take it, is best summed up by Parkinson: “I think it’s time to reboot how back labels are approached and I feel that Australia has both the experience and credentials to be able to lead the charge in this respect.” In Australia our industry mantra, which we reflect in our writing about our wines on back labels and in tasting notes, could be, ‘Make serious wine, but don’t make wine too serious’. After all. we have embraced the mockumentry Plonk as an industry, in the spirit in which it is meant and in the spirit which is also very uniquely Australian in character. REFERENCES Mueller, S.; Lockshin, L.; Saltman, Y. and Blanford, J. (2010) Message on a bottle: The relative influence of wine back label information on wine choice. Food Quality and Preference 21: 22-32. Bosker, B. (2015) Is there a better way to talk about wine? The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/is-there-a-better-way-to-talkabout-wine. Published 29 July 2015. Accessed 7 January 2016. McGarry Wolf, M. and, Thompson, M. (2010) The Importance of the information on the back label of a wine bottle on the purchase decision. https://www.adelaide. edu.au/wine-econ/events/2030workshop/pubs/Wolf_Labels_WC0210.pdf. Accessed 7 January 2016.

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

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


SOCIAL MEDIA

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

Are Facebook fans really ‘engaging’ with our wine brands? A case study of Australian wine brand Facebook pages By Rebecca Dolan PhD Candidate, Business School, The University of Adelaide, South Australia. Email: rebecca.m.dolan@adelaide.edu.au

What are you including in your Facebook posts and are they engaging your potential consumers? Based on her recent Wine Communicators of Australia webinar titled ‘Making connections: Building engagement with social media’, Rebecca reports on the findings of her study that aimed to determine the relationships between social media content design and delivery, and the engagement behaviour of Facebook fans. The next stage of her study will explore the links between this engagement and the behaviour of consumers such as the likelihood of these fans visiting cellar doors and making in-store and online wine purchases.

T

his research empirically tests the social media engagement behaviour of Facebook users in order to provide a richer understanding of the nature of engagement behaviour in the online, social context. In doing so, we are able to predict how social media engagement behaviours, such as commenting, liking and sharing posts, are facilitated or mitigated as a result of the presence of informational, entertaining, remunerative, and relational content. This study uses data extracted from Facebook to provide insights into the actual behaviours of consumers using social media. Social media data was collected from a range of active branded Facebook pages, yielding a total of 2236 social media posts. The research team then used quantitative content analysis, binary logistic regression, and process moderation to analyse the set of data and establish relationships between social media content and social media engagement behaviour. A total of 12 wine brands participated in the study from various regions across Australia. The study involved analysing 12 months worth of data. Of the posts published, 687 (30.7%) were status updates, 1500 (67.1%) included a photo and 49 posts (2.2%) included a video. In order to identify, capture and measure customer engagement behaviours, we used a number of metrics derived from two tools, Facebook Insights and NCapture. Facebook Insights data was derived from individual brand pages and collated with NCapture data. NCapture is a software analysis program that allows large dynamic screen shots to be taken of Facebook pages and Twitter streams, then stored as data files rather than pictures. In the study, the aim was to identify how customer engagement actions, both positive (e.g., writing a positive comment) and negative (e.g., un-liking the page) were influenced by the type of post made. For example, what aspects of a post cause a fan to unlike your page? What aspects of a post are most likely to result in the post being shared? We also investigated interesting topics including average engagement rates and the effects of post scheduling across the time of day and day of the week.

V3 1N 1

ENGAGEMENT RATES The first interesting finding that arose from the study relates to the issue of organic reach and engagement rate. In the study the average organic reach of a post was 19.5%. The average engagement rate was 10%. To illustrate the implication of this finding, we would expect that for a brand with 5000 fans, the average organic reach would be 19.5%. This means the post would reach 975 people (19.5% of fans). 10% of these reached fans, on average, would engage with the post. This means just 97 users would be expected to engage with a post. This means that on average, just 1.94% of total fans are expected to engage with the post. THE ISSUE OF TIMING The distribution of posts by time of the day (across 24 hours) was also included in the study. The lowest level of activity in terms of number of posts shared by the wine brands occurred at 10am (.0%, one occurrence). The highest number of posts were shared between 5pm and 7pm. More than 60% of posts were made between 5pm and 10pm as demonstrated in Figure 1. A comparison of engagement actions across the day provided an interesting insight for wine brands, particularly with regard to post scheduling in order to enhance

Figure 1. Post distribution by hour.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

67


BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

SOCIAL MEDIA

engagement. Figure 2 shows a sharp increase in the average number of engagement actions between 7am and 11am. Interestingly, Figure 1 shows that the wine brands rarely delivered Facebook posts at this time of the day. We also investigated post timing with respect to the day of the week in which a post is made. It can be seen that the lowest level (4.8%) of activity in terms of number of posts delivered by the wine brands over a seven-day period occurred on Saturdays with 107 occurrences. The greatest amount of posts were published on Thursdays with 476 occurrences (21.1%) as shown in Figure 3. A comparison of engagement actions across each day of the week provided an interesting insight for wine brands, as shown in Figure 4. The average number of comments made on a post remained relatively stable across each day of the week. Similarly, the average number of likes made on a post was relatively consistent across each day of the week, with a slight peak on Wednesday (average = 26 likes). The average number of shares made on a post was significantly higher on Fridays (49). Interestingly, only 7.2% of the total posts were made on a Friday. The average number of times a photo was viewed was higher on a Monday (average of 15 times) and consistently low for the remainder of the week. Similarly, the average number of times a link was clicked on was consistently low regardless of the day of the week. The average number of ‘other clicks’ on a post were slightly higher on Wednesdays compared with other days of the week.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETING STRATEGIES For managers and developers of social media content, the most notable findings from the study relate to the importance of the strategic design and delivery of social media content. In the study we looked specifically at informational, entertaining, remunerative and relational types of social media posts, and the effect each type had on how fans engage.

Through analysis of the data set of Facebook posts and engagement behaviours, the study also derived a set of benchmarking scores for customer engagement. The average number of likes a post received was 22. The maximum number of likes on a post was 629. The average number of times a post was shared was twice, with the highest number of shares being 105. Posts receive on average just two comments, with the highest number of comments a single post achieved being 121. Users only clicked to play a video on average 0.1 times, with 36 times being the most times a video was played. The average number of link clicks was two, with a maximum of 76 being achieved. The average number of photo views was 17. The post with the highest number of photo views received 473 views.

Informational posts Informational posts include content aimed at specifically delivering category, brand and product related information to community members. The results showed that the provision of informational content within a post can significantly increase the odds of users engaging in commenting, liking, sharing and clicking on social media content. By placing informational content within a social media post, fans are most likely to consume content, which involves users reading posts, clicking on photos and viewing videos. The findings confirm the importance of careful selection of the amount of informational content provided to users. Developers of social media content are advised that if informational content is delivered, the amount of information should be limited to seven or fewer elements in order to inhibit users’ experiencing information overload. The following fictitious post has three specific informational elements: "A sneak peek at our new label, Plonk de Blancs, dedicated to our loyal mailing list customers who helped pick this fruit and make this wine. Our 2014 sparkling gives me goosebumps every time I think about the atmosphere in the winery that day. Thank you to all involved for making this wine so special. Watch this space for a release date!" The first informational element is the vintage date, the second is the name of the product (Plonk de Blancs), and the third is the details of the release date/ availability. If managers seek to increase the number of likes on a post, they are advised to provide specifically five elements of information within the post, which would increase the odds of users liking the post by more than 22 times. Managers should avoid posting too much informational content within a post. For example, when the amount of informational content within a post reaches eight elements, users are more than

Figure 2. Average number of engagement actions by hour.

Figure 3. Post distribution by day of week.

POST ENGAGEMENT BENCHMARKING

68

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


SOCIAL MEDIA

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

seven times more likely to detach from the content. This means that a consumer is more likely to hide the post, hide all future posts, click the ‘x’ button, or choose to ‘unlike’ the page on a permanent basis. Entertaining posts Entertaining posts include content that may not focus on the brand or specific product. Examples of this include lighthearted or humorous content and images, details about the weather, events, interesting and fun facts, food and produce details or images of animals. Entertaining content was also found to significantly predict the occurrence of comments, likes and shares. There was no evidence to suggest that if managers provide entertaining social media content, users consuming behaviour will change. This finding means that entertaining content does impact on the user’s decision to click on posts and photos, view videos or read the post. Providing entertaining content, however, can encourage users to create content through the provision of comments. The provision of entertaining content also increases the likelihood that users will like and share the content. The findings also demonstrated the importance of entertaining content and the frequency of when it should be delivered. The amount of entertaining content provided within a post should be carefully considered with respect to the type of engagement desired. No more than four elements of entertaining content should be included when managers wish to facilitate the occurrence of comments. No more than three elements of entertaining content should be provided when managers wish to increase the likelihood that the post will be shared. Posts with specifically two elements of entertaining content are more likely to be liked. The level of entertaining content within a post can also assist managers to mitigate the occurrence of inactive engagement behaviour in the form of dormant behaviour. Providing one or two elements of entertaining content within a post significantly decreases the likelihood that users will remain dormant. Relational posts Relational content within posts appeals to the fans’ needs for social interaction by asking the audience questions, providing fun quizzes and questions and posting photos of customers or staff members. The provision of relational content returned some of the strongest effects on predicting comments, likes and shares. It is advised that in order to increase the likelihood of users consuming content, including reading posts, clicking on photos and viewing videos, relational content should be included. This effect is conditional to the level of content, and hence managers should carefully engineer relational content to avoid information overload that diminishes the positive effects. No more than two elements of relational content should be included in a post in order to facilitate consuming behaviour. If managers wish to increase the number of times users comment on a post, it is advised that they include five elements of relational content. If managers wish to increase the likelihood that a post will be shared through the use of relational content, the content should be limited to a maximum of three relational elements.

V3 1N 1

Figure 4. Average number of engagement actions by day. Remunerative posts The final type of social media content was remunerative content, which includes the provision of details about sales, promotions, prices and exclusive deals to social media users. The findings show a positive relationship between providing this type of content and active engagement behaviours of creating and contributing. Managers should be aware that the provision of this type of content does not influence users to consume the content through actually reading the post, viewing the photo, viewing a video or clicking on the post. Users are likely to comment, like or share a post for the ‘chance to win’, however, there is no evidence that they are actually consuming or processing the content. Never the less, it is likely that remunerative content will be shared and liked amongst users. The amount of remunerative content provided should be carefully considered by social media content developers. When two elements of remunerative content are provided, users are over twice as likely to detach from the content. However, when one element of remunerative content is provided, users are likely to comment on and share the post. This finding means that while users do respond positively to remunerative content containing deals, discounts, prices and promotions, if this content increases from just one to two elements, users will have a negative response and actively detach from the content. This means that they will unlike the page, hide the post, hide all future posts or click on the ‘x’ button. CONCLUSION The main focus of this study was to determine key relationships between social media content design and delivery, and the engagement behaviour of Facebook fans. As discussed in this article, there are many important implications for content developers to consider in order to enhance engagement behaviour amongst their fans. The next stages of the study will involve quantitatively exploring the relationships between engagement behaviour and key outcomes for Australian wine brands such as cellar door visits, and in-store and online wine purchasing behaviours of WVJ consumers.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

69


VA R I E TA L R E P O R T

Rising to the Riesling challenge in Tasmania Held just before Christmas, our latest tasting pitted 13 Tasmanian Rieslings against the top wines from our recent Eden and Clare Valley Riesling tasting (September-October 2015 Wine & Viticulture Journal). We asked the producers of the top three Tasmanian Rieslings to share how they are going about crafting the variety in their state. Jen Doyle, Viticulturist Winemaker, Louisa Rose Parish Vineyard (Hill Smith Family Vineyards) Coal River Valley, Tasmania Wine: Parish Vineyard 2015 Riesling (RRP$30.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE The Parish Vineyard is situated in Tasmania’s Coal River Valley, nestled on the eastern slopes of the Pontos Hills with glimpses over Pitt Water. Our Riesling block has an easterly aspect with a moderate (6.5°) slope, dropping from 110m down to 90m above sea level. The parent rock is Jurassic igneous dolerite, giving way to black, self-mulching clay loam topsoil interspersed with calcite calcretions. At a latitude of almost 43° south we are practising cool climate viticulture. The mean maximum temperature during the growing season (October-April) is 20.1°C while the mean minimum is 10.2°C. As the block is on a mid-slope and the valley has good air drainage, we haven’t experienced issues with frost during the growing season. However, our predominant northerly wind does maintain a devigorating effect, coupled with our low annual rainfall, which averages 450mm – a consequence of being in the rain shadow of Mt Wellington which moderates the torrential rains of the west coast reaching the Coal River Valley. The vines are own-rooted and were planted from 2000 of which equal thirds are 15, 13 and 11 years old. The trellis system is a simple VSP with a planting density of 3200 vines per hectare from vine spacings of 2.5m x 1.25m. The vines are cane pruned by hand to 14 buds per vine and we use three pairs of foliage wires – a necessity due to the site’s propensity for wind. We have no need for shoot or bunch thinning – the vines tend to crop in balance each year yielding an average of around seven tonnes per hectare. Our Riesling block is drip irrigated and in an average year we’d apply about 1.8ML/ha, or around 560L/vine over the growing season. This would be applied mostly from December through to April at approximately 26L/vine per week, delivered in two separate waterings during peak requirement. However, this is determined on need via the use of capacitance probes and digging a hole or two, rather than ‘recipe’ applications. As we have no significant natural water course running through our property, and run-off from the surrounding catchment is minimal, we need to source our irrigation water off-site and store it in our 65ML dam. The South East Irrigation Scheme 3 delivers water to our property from the Derwent River. A permanent sward of strawberry clover, sub clover and medics has been planted with ryegrass in every second row, whilst every other row has been allowed to proliferate naturally from historic pasture species or voluntary native herbs and

70

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

grasses. In most years we allow the sward to mature to facilitate self-seeding and then mow it for the comfort of our vineyard hands working in the vine rows! Compost is used undervine with applications occurring every three to four years at a rate of 20m3/ha.

WINEMAKING The Riesling grapes typically achieve ripeness in the second week of April. Ripeness is indicated by a combination of flavours of lemon/grapefruit citrus, feijoa and roses and, just as importantly, when the natural acidity has dropped to workable levels. It is not unusual for the total acidity of the grapes at harvest to be 10-11g/L. When ready to pick the grapes turn a beautiful golden colour and become almost translucent compared with the lime green appearance that they have most of the season. The grapes are hand harvested into 500kg bins. At the winery, the grapes are destemmed and crushed directly to a tank press, draining while filling. For the 2015 vintage 50% was made with some SO2 protection, cold settled and racked to ferment with QA23 yeast. The other 50% had no additions and was fermented spontaneously without any clarification or inoculation with the wild yeast from the vineyard. A pressings cut is made by taste at approximately 600L/t and the pressing juice allowed to react with the air to oxidise the more aggressive phenolics. Fermentation is in stainless steel tanks with the temperature maintained to control the rate to approximately 1% increase in alcohol per day, typically in the range 36-160°C. After fermentation the pressings wine is blended back with the free-run portions. SO2 and ascorbic acid are added. After blending the wine is heat stabilised with bentonite – the wine typically only requires 0.2-0.3g/L - and cold stabilised before being filtered via crossflow filter. There are no protein-based fining agents used and acid additions are not required. In 2016 this wine will be made with no inoculated yeast at all as we believe that the yeasts present in the vineyard are an important part of the expression of terroir in the final wine. Jeremy Dineen Chief Winemaker Josef Chromy Wines Relbia, Tasmania Wine: Josef Chromy 2015 Riesling (RRP$28.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE The fruit for this wine is sourced from our estate-grown, single-vineyard site located at Relbia, 14km south-west of Launceston, Tasmania. The site has a mean January temperature of 16.7°C and receives 650mm of annual rainfall. The grapes for this wine come

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


VA R I E TA L R E P O R T

from a single north-east facing block which has an elevation of approximately 80-150m above sea level. The moderately sloping block has soils comprising duplex bleached brown chromosol with moderate gravel content, to a black vertosol with a selfmulching A-horizon on the lower slope. The average vine age is 16 years, planted to a vine density of 2415 per hectare on their own roots. The vines are the McWilliams clone and are cane pruned and trained to a mixture of Scott-Henry and VSP trellising. The vines are crown thinned every year with shoot and/or bunch thinning carried out depending on the season. The greatest risk of disease comes from botrytis. Therefore significant levels of training and manipulation of the canopy is undertaken to obtain optimum sunlight incidence and airflow. Frost is not an issue due to site characteristics. Picking decisions are predominantly based on the flavour profile in conjunction with laboratory analysis. High natural acidity is in abundance, so it is more a case of closely watching the flavour development, which is easy to monitor as the block is a two-minute walk from the crush pad. The harvest statistics for our 2015 Riesling were: Baume 12.2 pH 3.02 TA 10.17 g/L

WINEMAKING The fruit was processed in two batches within 24 hours of each other. The first was hand-picked and whole bunch pressed, while the second portion was machine harvested and pressed. Both batches had a press cut at approximately 500L/t, with only this free run retained for this product. The hand-picked batch was then cold settled and racked, while the machine-harvested batch was clarified using a small Juclas flotation unit, and subsequently reverse racked. Blending trials between the two juices were then undertaken, and the free run juices were then put together ready for fermentation. The juice was inoculated with the yeast QA23, with moderate additions of organic nutrients made if required, and fermented

An aerial view of the Josef Chromy Wines estate vineyards at Relbia, 14km south-west of Launceston, Tasmania. at 14°C in stainless steel. The typical timeframe of fermentation is 14-16 days at which time the tank is chilled to 0°C and SO2 applied. Typically the wine is fermented dry (<2g/L). The wine was racked relatively early, and cold and heat stabilised prior to crossflow filtration. Little or no fining is undertaken to retain some subtle phenolic texture. The more recent Rieslings from Josef Chromy possess significantly less pressings proportion and subsequently less phenolics than in the past, with the focus moving more towards delicate flavours and texture. The option of the flotation unit allows us to take the juice off gross lees very quickly if we are unhappy with the presence of any disease in the fruit.

MARKETING The Riesling sits in our Josef Chromy range which essentially showcases the varietal expression of our vineyard site. These are high quality wines that will reward cellaring. The wine is available nationally, predominantly in on-premise outlets and independent retailers through Fine Wine Partners. The wine is also distributed internationally with markets including Canada, Sweden, Czech Republic, Hong Kong and Japan. Claudio Radenti Winemaker Freycinet Vineyard East Coast, Tasmania Wine: Freycinet 2015 Riesling (RRP$31.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE

Josef Chromy Wines chief winemaker Jeremy Dineen. V3 1N 1

We are a small (15ha) family-owned vineyard and winery, established in 1979. There are five blocks of Riesling on our property covering 2.3ha The vineyard and winery is situated on Tasmania’s beautiful east coast, adjacent to the Freycinet Peninsula. The elevation of the vineyard is 100m above sea level and we are 20km away ▶ from the coast.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

71


VA R I E TA L R E P O R T

The vineyards are mostly on gentle north-facing slopes. The soils are brown dermosol on top of Jurassic dolerite (stony, friable and free-draining with clay loam texture). Our vineyard is frost free through the critical spring period. The temperatures and rainfall through the 2015 growing season were as follows: • October mean max. 18°C, mean min. 9.4°C, rainfall 46mm • November mean max. 19.1°C, mean min. 10.8°C, rainfall 22.7mm • December mean max. 20.3°C, mean min. 12.4°C, rainfall 64.1mm • January mean max. 22°C, mean min. 13.7°C, rainfall 98mm • February mean max. 21.2°C, mean min. 14°C, rainfall 37.2mm • March mean max. 20.4°C, mean min. 11.1°C, rainfall 93.4mm • April mean max. 17.7°C, mean min. 10°C, rainfall 45.7mm The age of the Riesling ranges from 20-30 years old and all vines are on their own roots. The main clone is F8V13 and there is a smaller amount of D2V3. The vines are grown on a split Lyre trellis or modified Lyre. There is one metre between vines in the row and 2.4m between each row. Our aim is to grow a moderate yield of fully ripe, healthy fruit. Considerable manual work is carried out to achieve this. Vines are hand pruned and picked. There is lots of manual shoot positioning and leaf plucking. The root systems of the vines are well established through the soil so some seasons do not require much irrigation. In drier seasons we use drip irrigation with water sourced from our own dam. We like to control weeds underneath the vines and the grass between the rows is mowed. During pruning, two canes of approximately 13 buds are laid down with 2 x 2 bud spurs for the following season's pruning wood. The total buds per vine is approximately 30. The main diseases we encounter in the Riesling are powdery mildew and to a lesser extent downy mildew. Botrytis can be a problem in wetter seasons. Picking decisions are based on optimum flavour, along with the sugar and acid balance in the fruit. There is always abundant natural acidity.

Freycinet winemaker Claudio Radenti says the aim at Freycinet is to grow a moderate yield of fully ripe, healthy Riesling fruit which takes a considerable amount of manual work to achieve, including lots of manual shoot positioning and leaf plucking. The average yield of the Riesling in 2015 was 9.5t/ha which was harvested between 27 and 30 March with the following analysis: Baume 13 pH 3.1 TA 8.0g/L

WINEMAKING The winemaking approach is a protective one. Our aim is to capture maximum varietal fruit aromas and flavours. Within minutes of hand harvesting the fruit is lightly crushed/ destemmed (Demoisy crusher) and pressed (Willmes UP 5000 press). Usually extraction is around 600L/t of prime juice, and the pressings are left out. The juice is cold settled for approximately five days. Bright clear juice is then racked and fermented. Usually we use the Champagne Institute IOC 182007 yeast. Crucially important is a slow, clean and cool ferment, say, around 13°C. Post ferment, tanks are kept full (no ullage). Wines are bentonite fined along with a light casein fining. The wine is bottled, say, within three months of harvest to capture and retain the freshness and purity of the fruit. We do not like to fiddle with new adventurous Riesling techniques as we feel the more we do the less consumers will have in their glass. We do not want to lose the beautiful, delicate, floral perfume and the crisp, lively lemon/lime flavours that we can achieve here in Tasmania. Tasmania is an incredibly exciting place for many things, especially great Rieslings.

MARKETING

A view of the Freycinet 15ha vineyard and winery on Tasmania’s east coast.

72

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

Our marketing has been low key. The policy has been to just keep making good wine and to let it sell itself. The wine is sold nationally through Negociants Australia and through David Johnstone & Associates in Tasmania. Because we do not produce a lot of wine our distributors mainly target fine dining and various selected bottleshops. Exports are minimal at this stage.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

WVJ

V31N1


RIESLING

WINE TASTING

Tasmanian Rieslings take on the best from the Clare and Eden Valleys By Sonya Logan

When news of our recent Clare and Eden Valley Riesling tasting got out in the Twittersphere, Tasmanian winemaker Paul Smart, latterly of Pressing Matters near Hobart and currently a self-described “freelance wino” and “gun for hire” while completintg a Masters in Wine Business - known to many in social media circles as Vineyard Paul - tweeted that his home state would be happy to “take on the winners”. We thought that sounded like a sterling idea and so arranged it.

J

ust under 8% of the total volume of winegrapes harvested from Tasmanian vineyards is Riesling1, compared with 31% and 36% respectively from Australia’s classic Riesling regions of the Clare and Eden Valleys2. Yet, the results of our recent tasting show the Tassie offerings are giving these South Australian Riesling powerhouses a run for their money. We invited the producers of the top wines in our recent Clare and Eden Valley Riesling tasting (September-October 2015 Wine & Viticulture Journal) – that is, those that were of silver or gold quality standard after the judges’ scores were averaged – to resubmit their wines to this issue's tasting. All but a couple accepted our invitation, with their wines bolstered by some entries from Yalumba which missed out on the previous tasting. We then invited Tasmanian Riesling produces to add their wines to the line-up for the blind tasting, resulting in 36 wines altogether, comprising 17 from Eden Valley, 13 from across Bass Strait and six from Clare. Having made up the tasting panel for our Eden and Clare Valleys Riesling tasting, we invited back Don Young, white wine maker for Pernod Ricard Winemakers; Andrew Wigan, wine ambassador for Peter Lehmann Wines; and John Hughes, proprietor and winemaker for Rieslingfreak. They were joined by Yalumba winemaker Sam Wigan and Winemaking Tasmania’s senior winemaker Greer Carland, whose presence on the panel was particularly fitting given it was her husband Paul Smart who proposed the tasting in the first place. Again, while the Wine & Viticulture Journal is not in the habit of publishing wine scores, on this occasion we decided to have a play with the scores awarded by the tasting panel by averaging them as we did in the previous Riesling tasting to produce the following regional observations (bearing in mind the Tassie Rieslings took on the best from our Clare and Eden Valleys tasting): • every wine but two was either of silver or bronze medal quality; none were of gold medal quality; in other words, 94% of the Eden Valley wines medalled, 83% from Clare and 92% from Tasmania • 17 wines were of silver medal quality of which 12 were from Eden Valley (representing 71% of the wines from that region), two were from Clare (representing 33% of the entries from the region) and three were from Tasmania (representing 23% from that region) • 16 wines were deemed to be of bronze medal quality of which nine were from Tasmania (representing 69% of the Tassie entries), four were from Eden Valley (24% of those from the region) and three from Clare (3% of entries from the region). 1 2015 Tasmanian Vintage Report. http://winetasmania.com.au/resources/ downloads/2015_vintage_report.pdf 2 2015 South Australia Winegrape Crush Survey. http://www.vinehealth.com.au/ resources/sa-winegrape-crush-survey/

V3 1N 1

Our tasting panellists (from left) Greer Carland, senior winemaker, Winemaking Tasmania; Andrew Wigan, wine ambassador, Peter Lehmann Wines; Sam Wigan, winemaker, Yalumba; John Hughes, proprietor and winemaker, Rieslingfreak’ and Don Young, white wine maker, Pernod Ricard Winemakers. So, as was the case with our Eden and Clare Valleys tasting, the overall standard of the wines was quite high, with Eden Valley just coming out on top, with Clare and Tasmania not far behind. “There were some outstanding wines; it was a pleasure to taste (them),” said Don Young. “The 2015s in particular were pretty outstanding. There’s definitely a Tassie Riesling style recognisable by botrytis and herbaceous characters. The focus seems to be on making Germanic styles. However, there were a couple of dry ones in there too that did very well.” Andrew Wigan said a Turkish Delight and some tropical characters also seemed to be a hallmark of a Tasmanian Riesling. “We don’t tend to see those tropical characters in Riesling on the mainland. Wherever Riesling is grown in different parts of the world, the region in which it is grown will always show different characters. We’ve seen this demonstrated in this tasting today,” Andrew said. Sam thought rosewater, lychee, and white flesh nectarine were also characteristics of Tassie Riesling stating that those represented in the tasting tended to be reminiscent of styles from Alsace in France. “There’s some Kabinett styles in there too that showed some good balance of sugar and acidity,” he said. All the panellists agreed the wines from the 2014 vintage were showing some premature ageing. The panel agreed the following three wines were the best of the Tasmanian entries: Parish Hill 2015 Riesling, Josef Chromy 2015 Riesling and Freycinet 2015 Riesling.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

73


T TASTING A S T I N G NOTES NOTES

RIESLING

JOSEF CHROMY 2015 RIESLING

FREYCINET 2015 RIESLING

Tasmania 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$28.00/bottle

Tasmania 13.5%v/v - screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle

Best of the Tasmanians: Very pale green colour. White nectarines, quince, apple blossom and a hint of pith, rosewater and ozone on the nose. Very taut palate with intense minerality and a delicate fruit profile featuring lemon drop, grapefruit, lime characters and hints of loganberry. High acid. One taster thought the acid was “on the eyewatering end”. “Truly Trocken,” said another, “with years in front of it.”

Best of the Tasmanians: Lovely pale straw colour. Characters of tea rose, wild ferment, ozone, herbs, green lime, lemon and flint on the nose. A silky entry into the mouth; vibrant palate with herbaceous characters as well as lemon cordial, apple and cinnamon spice; nice balance of residual sugar and acid with fine talc-like phenolics.

HILL SMITH FAMILY VINEYARDS PARISH VINEYARD 2015 RIESLING Tasmania 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle Best of the Tasmanians: Lovely green/gold colour. Some ‘kerosene’ notes evident on the nose as well as lemon cordial, zesty lemon peel, flint, tea rose, lychee and a slight vegetative note. Rich and generous palate with some interesting textural elements, good flavours of lemon peel and citrus and good length; textural phenolics; almost savoury with a dry finish. Lovely flavour and good acidity.

ORLANDO 2015 ST HELGA RIESLING

ST HALLETT 2015 EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

EDEN HALL 2015 RESERVE EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

Eden Valley, South Australia 11.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$19.99/bottle

Barossa Valley, New South Wales 12.2%v/v - screwcap RRP$19.00/bottle

Eden Valley, South Australia 11.1%v/v – screwcap RRP$35.00/bottle

Best of the others: Clear, light straw colour. Very fragrant nose of rose, musk, some citrus blossom and lemon and lime zest. Pretty musk and rose flavours on the palate which has a good line of fresh, lemony acid. Generously flavoured palate has a pulpy texture, and is very even with great length. A touch broad on the finish.

Best of the others: Pale green in colour. Tropical fruit and ‘shaded canopy’ characters on the nose as well as candied lemon peel, Pink Lady apple peel, lemon rind, spearmint, tarragon and a hint of musk. Fine and delicate palate with lovely citrus flavours. Zesty, attractive acid line. “Mouthwatering acid at the higher end but balanced,” said one taster.

Best of the others: This wine has excellent clarity with delicate green gold tinges. Restrained nose of lemon peel, lemon and orange blossom, lemon rind and musk. “Palate has a lovely purity”, noted one taster, which has notes of lemons, limes and sherbet, a good steely texture and a slatey, mineral, long finish. “A very classic Riesling,” said one taster. “Stylish,” said another.

GRAYSWINE, YOUR ONLINE SALES PARTNER To turn your liquid asset into cash, contact Simon to find out how. E. simon.west@grays.com.au M. 0412 913 120

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


GRAYSWINE, YOUR ONLINE SALES PARTNER

GraysOnline, Australia’s leading online wine auctioneer and retailer now has a new address www.grayswine.com.au We bring together talented Aussie & NZ wine growers with our wine lovers and collectors. Why you should sell through us: • We attract 1.3M monthly unique visitors • Offer fast payment to vendors • Provide warehousing & logistics • Marketing value-add to lift your brand • We’re the 3rd largest online wine destination in Australia

Contact us to discuss how we can help grow your business. Simon West, General Manager simon.west@grays.com.au | 0412 913 120


TASTING NOTES

HILL SMITH FAMILY VINEYARDS 2010 PEWSEY VALE THE CONTOURS Eden Valley, South Australia 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$34.00/bottle Best of the others: Lovely golden green in colour. Some nice aged notes of melted lemon butter, toast, vanilla bean, sweet biscuit, lime marmalade, spice and a slight waft of kerosene on the nose. Silky, chalky, long, developed yet vibrant and flavoursome palate of limes, grapefruit pith. Wouldn’t wait much longer to drink this wine.

RIESLING

BAY OF FIRES 2015 RIESLING

EDDYSTONE 2015 POINT RIESLING

Tasmania 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$35.00/bottle

Tasmania 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle

Pale straw in colour with green hues. Bright and vibrant nose featuring herbaceous characters as well as green beans, grapefruit, apple, underlying vegetal notes and a hint of white nectarines and lychees. Puckering acid in the mouth where herbaceous notes are again evident along with green lemons and limes. One taster thought the wine had a grainy phenolic edge. Another thought it lacked a bit of definition in its acid line.

Pale straw colour with green hues. Slightly funky nose, one taster noted, with aromas of lemongrass, tropical fruits, sea spray, tea rose and slight vegetal and herbaceous notes. Palate has fresh lemony acid with a hint of pithy chalkiness; residual sugar cuts the palate a bit short but finishes with good flavour and acidity.

FROGMORE CREEK 2015 RIESLING

FROGMORE CREEK FGR 2015 RIESLING

Tasmania 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$26.00/bottle

Tasmania 9.8%v/v – screwcap RRP$26.00/bottle

Medium straw in colour. Tropical fruits, lime essence, Golden Delicious apple, feijoa and quince on the nose as well as some flowery notes with a hint of cold tea development and botrytis. Suggestion of botrytis also on the big palate which is soft and textural; sweet passionfruit and lime characters evident. Touch of residual sugar is balanced with subtle minerality, “Stylistically Tassie,” said one taster.

Light, bright straw colour with green hues. Lemon sherbet and meringue on the very pretty nose as well as white flowers. Delicate and moreish palate in a Kabinett style with sherbet, citrus, apple and juicy acid. “Carrying a decent amount of residual sugar but the wine holds it nicely,” said one taster.

BREAM CREEK 2014 RIESLING Tasmania 12.3%v/v – screwcap RRP$26.00/bottle Vibrant mid-straw in colour. Flowery and inviting nose with passionfruit, poached pear, mint, ripe citrus, lychee, tea rose, Turkish Delight, quince and botrytis on the nose. “A Germanic style,” suggested one taster. Palate is complex and attractive – one taster thought it was slightly broad - featuring brown citrus and lemon pith; pronounced acid line; one taster thought the wine was a little sweet and sour. Hard and slightly bitter and coarse finish but a good balance of residual sugar and minerality. “Lovely example of a Tassie Riesling,” said one taster.

WE BRING TOGETHER TA

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


RIESLING

CHARTLEY ESTATE 2014 RIESLING

PRESSING MATTERS 2014 R9 RIESLING

STEFANO LUBIANA 2014 RIESLING

Tasmania 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$50.00/bottle

Tasmania 10.9%v/v – screwcap RRP$33.00/bottle

Tasmania 12.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle

Light straw in colour with tinges of gold. Brown limes, mineral fresh lemons and toasty notes on the generous and slightly developed nose. Intense citrus fruit on the nose with sweet limes, citrus cordial, apple, pink grapefruit, a light toastyness and some citrus crème texture notes. Powerful but elegant and long palate. A sherbet-like finish.

Mid gold straw in colour. Boiled lollies, Turkish Delight, lychee, quince and lemon pith on the nose; Alsatian-like. Palate is soft and a bit simple and lacks fresh fruit and vibrancy; some sweetness present but balanced by zippy clean acid. Nice phenolics. Soft finish.

Medium to deep straw in colour, showing some development. Brown apple, preserved lemon rind, hint of wet hay and full solids characters of liquorice and hair oil on the nose. Savoury, dry and tight palate with lemon drop flavours and steely acid that is a bit coarse. Quite textural with some nuttiness. Harsh finish. “Very complex, leftof-field style showing evidence of high solids fermentation,” said one taster. “Very interesting.”

THIRD CHILD VINEYARD 2014 ELLA MAE RIESLING

STEFANO LUBIANA 2013 BLUE LABEL RIESLING

Tasmania 11.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$22.0/bottle

Tasmania 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$28.00/bottle

Mid straw in colour. Slightly forward and developed nose of lemon, lime, apple, blossom, barley sugar, and spice. Soft, fine, persistent and slightly forward palate featuring apples and crisp acidity; some phenolics present. Soft and chalky quartz-like finish.

Pale straw in colour showing development. Strong citrus aromas with some kerosene, burnt butter, green apple skin and quince. Loud palate where all the components seem to be shouting at each other; flavours of lime cordial, grapefruit, liquorice and toast; phenolics present. Hard and texturally drying finish. “A food wine,” said one taster, “but love the fact that someone has done something a bit leftfield.”

TASTING NOTES

GROSSET HILL SMITH 2015 MESH Eden Valley, South Australia 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle Lovely delicate green/ gold colour. Very generous nose of bright lemons and limes, tea rose, florals and a touch of earthiness. Palate is also generous with flavours that persist including grapefruit and lemon; good acidity (although a couple of tasters thought the acid with a touch on the malic side) and length.

ALENTED AUSSIE & NZ WINE GROWERS WITH OUR WINE LOVERS.

V3 1N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

77


TASTING NOTES

RIESLING

HILL SMITH FAMILY VINEYARDS 2015 PEWSEY VALE RIESLING

HILL SMITH FAMILY VINEYARDS 2015 HEGGIES VINEYARD

HILL SMITH FAMILY VINEYARDS 2015 PEWSEY VALE PRIMA

Eden Valley, South Australia 12.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$24.00/bottle

Eden Valley, South Australia 12.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$26.00/bottle

Eden Valley, South Australia 9.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$26.00/bottle

Pale straw green colour. Lime flesh, white peach, grapefruit and white flowers on the fruit-opulent nose. Palate is long and pure with limes and a pithy grapefruit finish; lacks balance and definition. Coarse finish.

Pale straw colour with green hues. Dull nose that is slightly ‘skinsy’ and ‘matchy’; tropical and flint notes. One taster noted a ‘grandma’s handbag’ aroma. Light citrus flavours on the palate which is ‘skinsy’ and shows some botrytis characteristics; an overripe style; quite short. Coarse finish.

Very pale green colour. Violets, roses, white florals and spice on the nose with a hint of white stonefruit. Made in an off-dry style, the palate has attractive flavours and a sweet entry; balanced residual sugar and high acidity. Mineral, chalky finish.

PETER LEHMANN 2015 HILLS & VALLEY RIESLING

PAULETTS 2015 POLISH HILL RIVER RIESLING

RIESLINGFREAK 2015 NO.3 CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

Barossa Valley, South Australia 11.0%v/v - screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle

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

Pale colour with green hues. Pretty and perfumed nose with tropical lime fruit, citrus zest, lemon and orange blossom and talc. Juicy citrus on the palate which has a long acid line; lacks some fruit intensity and definition. Slightly broad finish. “Crisp and snappy,” said one taster.

Pale straw in colour with green hues. Restrained and stoney nose with lemon sherbet, Granny Smith apples, rose, ginger and apple blossom characters. Lots of fresh citrus flavours on the zingy palate; long mineral and slighty hard acid finish. Very good ageing potential.

Vibrant green colour. Tropical fruits, lemon, grapefruit, lime zest and white flowers on the nose which has a slight vegetal character. Intense palate of tropical fruits and citrus notes including grapefruit and lemon and some crunchy apple; slightly salty and phenolic. Vegetative and slightly bitter finish.

WE BRING TOGETHER TA

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


RICHMOND GROVE 2015 WATERVALE RIESLING

PETER LEHMANN 2014 WIGAN EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

Barossa Valley, South Australia 12.6%v/v - screwcap RRP$22.99/bottle

Barossa Valley, South Australia 11.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$32.00/bottle

Pale mid-straw colour. Hint of white peach and ripe citrus on the generous nose with some white florals. Delicate palate that is long, light, and chalky with a crème texture; flavours of apples, lemon and brown limes; mineral acid that rolls along the palate; soft low phenolics. “Deliciously mouthwatering and classy,” said one taster.

Pale straw green colour. Notes of tea rose, loganberries, pretty white flowers, including jasmine, and a hint of rose and red apple skin. Delicate and mouthfilling palate with a powerful fruit presence including lemon and hint of tropical and stonefruit; nice minerality gives it a softness; salivating and tight acidity. Great flavour length.

TASTING NOTES

B Sa ott m le pl e

B Sa ott m le pl e

RIESLING

JACOB’S CREEK 2015 STEINGARTEN EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

JACOB’S CREEK 2014 STEINGARTEN EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

11.0%v/v - screwcap RRP$42.99/bottle

10.7%v/v - screwcap RRP$42.99/bottle

Very pale green in colour. Estery nose with some florals, tropical lime fruits, apples and lemon and grapefruit pith. Pure citrus flavours on the palate which has an almost steely acid line; good balance and length; chalky finish. “Lacks a bit of ‘pow’ but quite attractive,” noted one taster. “Pristine and stylish,” said another.

Delicate colour of pale straw. A fresh, clean and fragrant nose with bright aromas of sweet limes, mineral lemon, sherbet, apple and a hint of florals and crushed leaf. Zesty, mouthfilling, austere and restrained palate featuring green apple, green lemon juice and pineapple notes; great acid and length. Sherbet-like finish. “Tight and stylish,” said one taster. “Great ageing potential,” said another.

PAULETTS 2014 POLISH HILL RIVER RIESLING Clare Valley, South Australia 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle Medium straw colour. Slightly earthy nose of brown lime cordial, mandarin rind and a slight hint of toast – almost botrytis like. Soft, rounded and generous palate with lemon, apple, cumquat and grapefruit notes but lacks definition; zesty and zingy. Fine talc and slightly broad finish. “Technically a wine with a nice shape, line and balance but lacks personality,” said one taster.

JIM BARRY 2014 THE FLORITA CLARE VALLEY RIESLING Clare Valley, South Australia 11.9%v/v – screwcap RRP$45.00/bottle Great colour of straw with bright green hues. Classic Riesling aromas of lime, lemon, lemon zest, grapefruit and some florals; slightly slatey. Zesty citrus flavours on the juicy, delicious and mineral palate including limes, lemons and grapefruit; pulpy grapefruit texture. Great balance and racy acidity. Quartz-like finish. “Vibrant, fresh, long, clean, pure and mouthwatering,” said one taster.

ALENTED AUSSIE & NZ WINE GROWERS WITH OUR WINE LOVERS.

V3 1N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

79


T TASTING A S T I N G NOTES NOTES

VICKERY 2015 EDEN VALLEY RIESLING Eden Valley, South Australia 12.50% v/v – cork RRP$23.00/bottle Clear straw colour. White flowers, fennel, citrus, lemon peel, candied citrus peel and a hint of almond on the nose. Lemon curd, grapefruit and a hint of toastiness in the mouth; soft acid; good palate length; lacks some fruit vibrancy and structure.

RIESLING

GRANT BURGE 2015 THORN EDEN VALLEY RIESLING Barossa Valley, South Australia 12.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle Attractive green/gold colour. Restrained and fruit-generous nose with stoney, mineral, lemon barley cordial, zested lime rind, spice, almond meal and green apple notes. Tight, fine, even and lemony palate with a very chalky structure, a tight finish and racy acidity. Great persistence. “Good fruit intensity with mouthwatering intensity,” said one taster.

THE COLLECTIVE WINE COMPANY ‘ARTISTE’ 2014 SOUTH FACE EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

JEANNERET 2014 WATERVALE SINGLE VINEYARD CLARE VALLEY RIESLING

HANDPICKED 2013 REGIONAL SELECTIONS EDEN VALLEY RIESLING

12.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$22.95/bottle

Clare Valley, South Australia 12/0% v/v – screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle

11.3% v/v – screwcap RRP$33.99/bottle

Golden straw in colour. Complex and developed nose with notes of ripe lemon, lemon pith, lime essence, brown lime cordial, toast, hessian, botrytis and a hint of kerosene. “A very Germanic style,” noted one taster. Stony, textural and slightly clumsy palate which is full of flavour and has a sweet entry. Toast characters supported by lemon marmalade. High acidity balanced by high residual sugar. “Quite full and developed for a 2014,” noted one taster, adding “big and firm”.

Developed colour of medium green. Heavy fruit nose of toast, lemon, lemon marmalade, lime cordial and barley sugar; showing some developed notes. Short, phenolic, drying palate; long acid line with very persistent lime flavours and some green apple. Finishes short. Probably past its prime.

Lovely colour for a 2013 vintage – pale straw with green hues. Vibrant and appealing nose of toasted brioche, butter and marmalade. Starting to develop some nice mid-palate texture from bottle ageing; honey sweet fruit with lime flavours tending more towards lime marmalade. Long and persistent. “Wellmade, fuller-flavoured style,” noted one taster. “Lovely drinking wine,” said another.

ST JOHNS ROAD 2014 PEACE OF EDEN RIESLING Eden Valley, South Australia 12.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle

Deep straw in colour. Aged notes apparent on the waxy and slightly earthy nose joined by feijoa, apple, blossom and tinned pear. Full palate with good citrus notes, lemon cordial, sweet apples and nice apple and lemon flavours but not intense enough for the combination of residual sugar and acid; savoury edge. Good length.

GRAYSWINE, YOUR ONLINE SALES PARTNER To turn your liquid asset into cash, contact Simon to find out how. E. simon.west@grays.com.au M. 0412 913 120

80

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 JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


PRODUCTS & VA R I E TA L R E P O R T SERVICES

AB Mauri leader in wine yeast innovation

A

B Mauri is a leader in yeast and speciality ingredients and operates globally with 52 plants across 26 countries. Delivering yeast technology is the core responsibility of the company’s research and development centre in Sydney. Its experts uniquely select and develop yeast cultures for the global alcoholic beverage industry as well as provide specialist technical support to the industry. AB Mauri manufactures wine yeasts locally in Toowoomba, Queensland. Its two most popular brands that many winemakers would be familiar with is maurivin™ active dried wine yeast and mauriferm™ fermentation aids. Through AB Mauri’s partnerships, it has become a leading provider of innovative and novel wine yeasts. By collaborating with the globally-renowned Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI), AB Mauri has developed the ‘Next Generation’ range

which includes non-GMO yeasts that produce no detectable hydrogen sulphide, as well as a hybrid yeast that can increase complexity and mouthfeel. The ‘Classic’ range includes yeasts that offer robust, reliable fermentations and, in the case of AWRI 796 and Maurivin B, there is an added bonus of lower ethanol production. Partnering with the University of Auckland, a high thiol producer named UOA Maxithiol was also developed. The maurivin™ range of wine yeasts are renowned for their high quality, purity and performance and are preferred by winemakers across the globe for the production of high quality wines. Applying innovation and technology to enhance manufacturing processes that meet both customer and market needs that’s what makes AB Mauri different. For further information visit www. maurivin.com or email tina.tran@abmauri. com.au

AB Mauri’s research and development centre in Sydney (top) and the pilotscale fermentation laboratory housed within it.

Managing wine spoilage leads to savings

B

rettanomyces bruxellensis (Brett) is a naturally-occurring yeast that can spoil product via the production of volatile phenols such as 4EP. These phenols produce off-flavours and give rise to descriptive characteristics such as ‘barnyardy’ and ‘pharmaceutical’, which are hardly desirable in a wine. Most winemakers are aware of this problem and many screen for the presence of 4EP as an indication of the presence

Formerly known as Veriflow, vinoBRETT is an on-site, PCR-based test for analyzing levels of Brettanomyces bruxellensis. V3 1N 1

of Brett. However, this is akin to shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. The damage to the product has already been done. Once 4EP has been produced, it cannot be effectively filtered out and the common solutions are to either blend it out or throw it out. Of course, writing down or writing off your wine is very expensive. Did you know that it’s possible to have Brett in your wine without 4EP? It takes the presence of Brett and the right growing conditions in order for the organism to reach adequate numbers and start producing 4EP in significant amounts. Once 4EP reaches a concentration of as little as 200µg/L, depending on the wine variety and possible presence of other phenols, it may start to cross the sensory threshold. Once 4EP can be detected by smell and taste, spoilage has occurred. If the presence of Brett can be detected early, it is possible to intervene and manage the Brett before it goes on to spoil the product. Even better, when detected early, the intervention methods are easier and cheaper than when it’s detected later. Early intervention includes

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

adjustments to pH, temperature and sulfur. Later intervention generally means sterile filtration. Recently, a top 30 wine producer in the US began a proactive screening process for Brett in its winery using an on-site, PCRbased test called vinoBRETT (previously known as Veriflow). Over a period of 18 months the producer conducted around 2000 tests and was able to demonstrate that by finding Brett early and taking appropriate intervention steps that it was also able to reduce the incidences of 4EP production by 80%, and incidences of high level 4EP by 90%. With 174 Brett detections, and the majority of these caught early enough to prevent spoilage, the winery has been able to reduce its losses considerably. A copy of the case study can be downloaded from: http://amsl.com.au/ media/documents/Scientific/Veriflow/ VinoBrett_Case_Study_v1.pdf For further information about vinoBRETT contact AMSL, phone: (02) 9882 3666, email amsl@amsl.com.au or visit www.amsl.com.au.

www.winetitles. com . au

81


PRODUCTS & VA R I E TA L R E P O R T SERVICES

Winery stock throughput cover

W

hat exactly is stock throughput coverage? Simply put, it’s a single policy that covers your raw materials, goods and/or merchandise (grapes, bulk wine, bottled wine) from the time you have an insurable interest in that stock until such time that interest ceases from cradle to grave. This type of insurance coverage is ideal for managing the agricultural and production risks of wine producers. It is a valuable tool, complements a property policy and, among other things, eases administration, provides coverage while in transit anywhere in the world, as well as coverage at any third party processor’s or storage faciliy.  Coverage for a winery might look this: • coverage starts when grapes are harvested • while grapes are in transit for processing • while grapes are being processed (at any location) • while wine is being stored • while wine is being shipped (by any

method, anywhere in the world), and is in transit hubs and distribution centres up until the time the product is received by the buyer. You can rest assured knowing your product is covered at all times, whether or not the carriers, third party processors or storage providors have adequate coverage.  Additionally, the finished product, whether it’s at your location or at any location, is covered, If you’re in the business of making wine, you have an exposure. If your business is growing and you are not addressing this exposure, one loss could significantly affect your business and your ability to keep your product on shelves. MGA Insurance Brokers are located in most grapegrowing districts throughout Australia, with a focus on primary industries and related businesses. For a quote or to discuss this and coverage for your winery or vineyard, look up your nearest MGA office or visit www.mga.com. 

Stock throughput insurance provides coverage for grapes and wine while in transit anywhere in the world as well as at a third party processor’s or storage facility.

One-stop shop for labelling and more

S

OS is a small, South Australian company owned and managed by husband and wife team Bel and Mark Harper. SOS began as a mobile labelling service in 2001 and has grown to include two static lines at its warehouse in Adelaide. “Whatever the customers’ needs, we can arrange a team on or off-site,” said Bel. “We also offer storage and distribution with an emphasis on providing a premium and personalised service. “We utilise only the best logistics companies to ensure prompt and safe cartage of your goods. Customers may grumble sometimes but we insist on only sending wine when weather permits. There is no point delivering the wine only to realise it is damaged by excessive heat. These policies are accepted by the majority and the storage side of the business is full with a handful of companies on a waiting list.” Bel said his company’s services also extended to capping, tissue wrapping, waxing, re-packing and, at the SOS warehouse only, small run de-labelling. “We will look at quoting any job a producer or designer can dream up and have extremely good relationships with manufactures of labels and other dry goods. We can help make your product come to fruition without hiccups. “With each job our aim is to make it as easy for the customer as we can by providing prompt assistance with bookings, paperwork, logistics and production all the way through to completion. One label producer states, ‘if SOS can’t label it, it can’t be done’. That’s not altogether accurate but it’s a lovely compliment that we strive to accomplish,” Bel said.

82

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

For further information contact SOS on phone 0418 808 886 or 08 8244 0255, email info@soslabels.com.au or visit www. soslabels.com.au

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2016

V31N1


Congratulations, Ben Blows 2015 ASVO VITICULTURIST OF THE YEAR

BEN

B L OW S

– 2015 – WINNER

The entire Bayer viticulture team would like to congratulate Ben Blows on winning this year’s award for his innovative grapevine cordon sprayer. The very strong 2015 shortlist shows just how inventive and adaptable our viticulturists are – and how hard it is to win. We’re proud to promote recognition of innovation in all its forms by sponsoring the award, and we encourage all you other innovators out there to submit an entry in 2016. Proudly supported by Bayer

bayercropscience.com.au Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd, ABN 87 000 226 022, 391– 393 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East, Victoria 3123. Technical Enquiries 1800 804 479. BCH0825


Melbourne

Adelaide

WA

New Zealand

EXCITING

NEW TECHNOLOGY

FROM

SMART LEES SMART LEES is a tangential cross flow unit utilising spinning ceramic discs for the filtration of Lees from Juice and wine. It is suitable for the filtration of products with a high suspended solids including those with Bentonite. The action of the filter ensures a high quality permeate and allows for a recovery of up to 97%.

MMR PLUS – DEGASSING The Juclas MMR Plus enables the control of gases including the reduction and impregnation treatment of gases in wine… the reduction of oxygen and carbon dioxide in young wines, deoxygenation of wines prior to bottling or addition of carbon dioxide to refresh whites or roses when bottling. The MMR Plus can also be used for dealcoholisation.

For further details, contact us on: Melbourne 59 Banbury Rd, Reservoir Ph. 1300 882 850 Adelaide 12 Hamilton Tce, Newton Ph. 08 8365 0044 Western Australia 5/1 Ostler Dve, Vasse Ph. 08 9755 4433 New Zealand 3M Henry Rose Place, Albany, Auckland Ph. 0800 699 599 E. sales@winequip.com.au www.winequip.com.au www.winequip.co.nz

WINE & VITICULTURE JOURNAL | January-February 2016  

Welcome to Australia's specialist wine industry publication, dedicated to covering all aspects of winemaking and technology, viticulture, wi...