Wine & Viticulture Journal - May/June 2017

MAY/JUNE 2017 · Volume 32 Number 3

Vineyard Innovations & Technology

• Real time detection of extreme weather events • Advances in smoke contamination detection systems • Influence of stems on wine quality • Consumer responses to price changes at higher price points • Tasting: Skin contact white wines

WORLD LEADER IN WINE TECHNOLOGY

27TH EDITION INTERNATIONAL ENOLOGICAL AND BOTTLING EQUIPMENT EXHIBITION

ORGANIZED BY

11th-15th September 2017 Messe München - Germany

SUPPORTED BY

www.simei.it www.drinktec.com/simei

IS YOUR RIESLING UP TO THE CHALLENGE? 18

HOTEL REALM CANBERRA AND ALBERT HALL CANBERRA

9-14 OCTOBER 2017 A COMPETITION DEDICATED TO RIESLING WINES TO SHOWCASE THE WONDERS OF THE RIESLING VARIETY

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

The Canberra International Riesling Challenge is a unique opportunity for Riesling producers to showcase their product.

The Challenge has become an internationally–recognised wine show, and is the largest event of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere.

SEMINAR ON RIESLING EXCELLENCE

The 18th Canberra International Riesling Challenge, attracts wines from Riesling producing countries around the world.

Judging is conducted on a regional basis which highlights the individual characteristics unique to the wine's location in the world.

Hotel Realm Canberra

James Service, AM Chairman Canberra International Riesling Challenge

SO IF YOU THINK IT IS, THEN ENTER. KEY DATES

HOSTED BY CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY

RIESLING MASTER CLASS Friday 13 October 2017

EXHIBITORS AND COMSUMER TASTING Saturday 14 October 2017 Albert Hall Canberra

Bookings for the Seminar and Master Class are essential as spaces are limited.

For more information, visit www.rieslingchallenge.com or email info@rieslingchallenge.com

ENTRIES OPEN 1 JUNE www.rieslingchallenge.com ENTRIES CLOSE 31 JULY | JUDGING 11 -13 OCTOBER WINNERS ANNOUNCED AT THE AWARDS PRESENTATION ON 13 OCTOBER 2016

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 Tony Battaglene Michelle Beresford Johan Bruwer Joan Miquel Canals Chris Carpenter Justin Cohen Armando Corsi Vanya Cullen Sigfredo Fuentes Anthony Finn Mariona Gil Esteban García-Romero Sergio Gómez-Alonso Elena González-Royo Dan Graham Claire Grose Brad Hickey Isidro Hermosín-Gutíerrez Tony Hoare Cathy Howard Ava Huang Dan Johnson Tony Keys S. Kaan Kurtural Richard Lee Larry Lockshin Mardi Longbottom Amber Parker Olga Pascual Benedict Pineau Victoria Raw Mark Rowley Creina Stockley Eden Tongson Mike Trought Liz Waters Runze Yu Fernando Zamora Advertising Manager: Paul Andrew Ph (03) 9370 0040 Fax (08) 8369 9529 Email: wvjsales@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 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.

Sonya Logan, Editor

T

he term ‘orange wine’ is a particularly controversial one here in Australia. Besides the polarising views of the wine style shared among wine industry folk and consumers alike – and throughout the rest of the world for that matter – place those words on a wine label and you’ll fall foul of the Wine Australia Corporation Act if the fruit used to make that wine didn’t come from the cool climate wine region 250-odd clicks to the west of Sydney.

Not to mention raise the hackles of the producers from the region. And rightly so.

As a publication, we are not bound by the Wine Australia Corporation Act. That said, we are acutely aware of the confusion and frustration the term can create. The trouble is, the alternatives are not particularly appealing: ‘skin contact white wine’ is quite a mouthful, and looks rather wordy in print, with the need of multiple mentions adding to the verbosity; ‘amber wine’ sounds like an obvious contender, but Cullen Wines now produces a skin contact white wine called Amber, and the term isn’t as instantly understood like ‘orange wine’ throughout the rest of the world. ‘Extended skin macerated whites’? ‘White wine made like red wine’? Mmmm….

When we announced our skin contact white wine tasting in our sister e-newsletter Daily Wine News back in April, we opted to use ‘orange’ in the headline and a couple of times in the article (the inverted commas and lower case ‘o’ included to avoid confusion with

wines from Orange), and referred to ‘skin contact’ and ‘extended skin contact’.

We subsequently received an email from a wine producer from Orange who incorrectly pointed out that our use of the term ‘orange’ was in breach of GI laws (refer discussion above), and asked we use ‘amber’ instead. The legal miscue aside, the producer’s affront was apparent and understood.

In putting this issue of the Journal together we were again faced with the dilemma of how to refer to this wine style in the results of our tasting (see page 69), the accompanying varietal report (page 65) and in Cathy Howard’s article in which she chats with a few its emerging Australian producers to explore their motivations and methods (page 21). In most cases, we opted for ‘skin contact white wine’ (which also serves to explain exactly what we’re talking about – after all, not all skin contact whites take on an orange hue), with any remaining references to ‘orange’ wine mostly in people’s quotes and defined by the inverted commas and lower case ‘o’.

Semantics aside for this publication at least – whether or not there is a need for the Australian wine industry to agree on an alternative to ‘orange’ to describe skin contact whites is another story.

May you enjoy our coverage of skin contact whites and the many other articles of interest in the pages that lie ahead.

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter! www.facebook.com/WineAndVitiJournal @WineVitiJournal Cover: Ben Heide REGULAR FEATURES

News 6 Wine Australia 9 WFA 10 ASVO 11 Tony Keys 12

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

AWRI Report 26 Alternative Varieties 56 Varietal Report 65 Tasting 68

WINE & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MARC H /APRIL 2017

V32N2

IN THIS ISSUE

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

9 WINE AUSTRALIA (LIZ WATERS): First steps towards understanding the influence of terroir on Australian Shiraz 10 WFA (TONY BATTAGLENE): Nutritional panels for Australian wine?

11 ASVO (MARDI LONGBOTTOM): Scholarship, membership, sensory evaluation and excellence

C O N T E N T S

V I T I C U LT U R E

31 Real time detection of extreme weather events in vineyards 36 Advances in smoke contamination detection systems for grapevine canopies and berries 40 Influence of trimming Pinot Noir on fruit development and the consequence variability in composition has on wine sensory properties

12 KEY FILES (TONY KEYS): Not so natural

WINEMAKING

16 Influence of grape seeds and stems on wine composition and astringency 21 CATHY HOWARD: Perhaps amber is the new 'orange'

46 Effects of leaf removal and applied water on flavonoid accumulation in Merlot berries 51 TONY HOARE: Reworking vineyards – why, when and how? Part 2 56 ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES: Bonvedro

26 AWRI REPORT: WineHealth 2017 – Navigating the health effects of alcohol consumption

BUSINESS & MARKETING

58 MARK ROWLEY: Supply and demand dynamics for Australian wine following vintage 2016 61 Understanding consumer response to price changes for high-priced wine brands 63 What do 'luxury', 'premium' and 'fine' wine mean in China?

WINE TASTING

69 Skin contact white wine

N E W S

S N I P S

VICTORIA LAUNCHES WINE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2017-2021

VICTORIAN

WINE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

well on the way to blowing the bad times out of the water.

“We have increasing grape prices, record exports into China and a growing number of visitors heading to cellar doors – this strategy aims to ensure the winemakers and grapegrowers can make the most of these opportunities,” he said.

The state’s wine industry currently contributes $7.6 billion to the Victorian economy and employs just under 13,000 people – most of these jobs are in regional Victoria.

“Both the strategy and the new money for the Wine Growth Fund clearly signifies the government’s recognition of the strong contribution that our industry makes to the state’s bottom line,” Sheehan said.

PLANS TO BAN LIQUOR ADVERTISING AND SPONSORSHIPS DERAILED

A wine industry development strategy designed to improve the long-term performance and sustainability of the Victorian wine industry was launched by Victorian Minister for Agriculture and Regional Development Jaala Pulford on 9 June at Yering Station in the Yarra Valley.

The launch also included a commitment from Minister Pulford of almost of $900,000 of new funding towards the second round of the Victorian Government’s Wine Growth Fund, a grants program designed to support initiatives to develop the Victorian wine industry.

The Wine Industry Development Strategy was designed in consultation with Wine Victoria, industry leaders from around the state and Victorian wine companies. It identifies a series of programs in response to the ‘critical challenges’ for the industry across four areas: best practice viticulture, visitation to wine regions, profitable and sustainable export markets, and strengthening industry structure and coordination.

Wine Victoria chair Damien Sheehan said the strategy was more than 18 months in the making and mapped the way industry and government had agreed to work together to ensure Victoria was the best wine state in Australia.

“We are delighted with the very clear partnership we now have with the Victorian Government in this strategy,” Sheehan said. “The industry has gone through some difficult times in recent years but all the signs are that we are

6

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

An amendment to South Australia’s Liquor Licensing Act that could have banned advertising, sponsorship and other practices designed to promote or publicise liquor and its consumption has been thwarted.

As explained in the latest newsletter of the South Australian Wine Industry Association (SAWIA) issued on 13 June, “With no prior warning, consultation or discussion, on 17 May the Government supported an amendment that would have had a significantly negative impact on investment decisions and employment in the South Australian wine industry.

The amendment sought to ‘…restrict or prohibit advertising, sponsorships and other practices designed to promote or publicise liquor and its consumption'.”

SAWIA says the amendments would have not only applied to advertising, but could also have restricted or prohibited the establishment or expansion of cellar doors; the promotion of alcohol at events, such as regional food events/ festivals, sports or racing events; the sponsorship of local sports clubs and facilities, particularly in regional areas, by wineries; and the sale of merchandise promoting liquor producers/products, including branded materials such as glasses, decanters and bags.

“These changes would have threatened the viability of wineries, grapegrowers and the 8700 South Australians directly employed in winemaking and grapegrowing, never mind the devastating impact on potential

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L MAY/JUNE 2017

investment in the future growth of our industry,” SAWIA said.

The organisation called on the SA Government to immediately withdraw the amendment and sought the support of the Liberal Opposition and the crossbench in the Legislative Council. On 2 June the Government announced it had abandoned its plans to further regulate alcohol advertising and promotions.

NEW INDEPENDENT BOARD FOR AUSTRALIAN VIGNERONS Australian Vignerons has announced the election of its inaugural independent board.

The board’s election was part of a suite of reforms that received unanimous endorsement from members at a special general meeting in September last year, and follows on from the changes to membership, adoption of a new constitution and a renewed focus for the organisation.

Joanna Andrew, independent chair of Australian Vignerons, said, “The new board comprises individuals who have a wide array of skills from across the wine sector, including grapegrowing, viticulture, winemaking, wine marketing, research and development, biosecurity knowledge, and general wine business.

This reflects the whole of industry focus of Australian Vignerons in working toward an improvement in profitability for its members, and the whole sector.”

The newly-elected board members include Mardi Longbottom, Ben Rose, Colin Bell and Brett Proud, who served on the interim board. New members include Jonathan Lord, Anna Hooper, Simon West and Vince O’Brien. Joanna Andrew continues in her role as independent chair.

Andrew said the new board would start work immediately on numerous issues such as the implementation of the recently announced Export and Regional Wine Support Package, research and development priorities, commercial trading, raising awareness of biosecurity issues and committing to better collaboration and alignment between existing industry bodies.

Andrew Weeks, chief executive of Australian Vignerons, said, “This wonderfully positive move follows a concerning time for the national advocacy body and, while there is more to do to in order to secure the long-term future

V32N3

N E W S

for AV, there are capable and committed people working for the benefit of those who grow and make wine.”

WINE DESCRIPTIONS ON LABELS INCREASE WINE LIKING, RESEARCH SHOWS Research by The University of Adelaide has shown that consumers are much more influenced by wine label descriptions than previously thought.

A consumer study by wine researchers at the university’s School of Agriculture, Food and Wine has shown that wine descriptions can alter consumers’ emotions, increase their liking of wine and encourage them to pay more for a bottle.

The study has been published in Food Research International.

“The importance of wine labels and label information has been widely studied and it’s been clearly shown that they represent useful information which influences consumer choice,” said Associate Professor Sue Bastian, leader of the project which was jointly funded by Wine Australia and the Australian Government. “Our study extends these findings, showing that wine descriptions also influence our whole wine consumption experience.

“Cleverly written wine and producer descriptions when coupled with unbranded wine tasting can evoke more positive emotions, increasing our positive perception of the wine, our estimation of its quality and the amount we would be willing to pay for it.”

The researchers conducted a study with Australian white wines and 126 regular white wine consumers. The consumers evaluated the same set of three commercially available white wines (Chardonnay, Riesling and Sauvignon Blanc) under three information levels: a blind tasting with no information; the provision of a basic sensory description; and provision of an elaborate/emotional description.

The presentation of more elaborate wine descriptions, which included information regarding winery history and positive wine quality statements, significantly increased the preference rating the consumers allocated to the wines.

“These findings have important implications for wine producers and the hospitality industry in that descriptions require more than just wine tasting notes,” said Dr Lukas Danner, post-doctoral research fellow and first author on the study. “Companies could even consider involving consumers in label description optimisation.”

WOMEN IN WINE AWARDS HEADING TO LONDON Wine Australia has teamed up with the Australian Women in Wine Awards (AWIWA) to host the 2017 awards in London — the first time that the winners will be announced outside of Australia.

The awards recognise and celebrate leading women in wine. As part of the

S N I P S

event, Wine Australia will run tastings for trade and consumers on 26 September highlighting the quality and diversity of Australian wine made by female winemakers and wineries owned by women The event will give the UK trade, press and consumers the opportunity to meet Australia’s most prominent women in wine, taste their wines and hear their stories. It will be the largest gathering of Australian women winemakers and winery principals outside Australia.

More than 50 Australian women winemakers and winery principals will be attending, including Prue Henschke (Henschke), Virginia Willcock (Vasse Felix), Louisa Rose (Yalumba), Sandra de Pury (Yeringberg), Christie Schulz (Turkey Flat), Corrina Wright (Oliver’s Taranga), Samantha Connew (Stargazer), Stephanie Toole (Mount Horrocks) and Rebekah Richardson (Irvine Wines).

Winners of the Australian Women in Wine Awards 2017 will be announced in the morning of 26 September and livestreamed to Australia. Awards will be presented in eight categories: Winemaker of the Year, Viticulturist of the Year, Owner/ Operator of the Year, Workplace Champion of Change, Cellar Door Person of the Year, Researcher of the Year, Marketer of the Year, and Woman of Inspiration.

Wine Australia will also be presenting a one-off award for Honorary Australian Woman in Wine for 2017 for a woman in the UK trade who has made a significant WVJ contribution to the Australian wine.

AUSTRALIAN MADE PRUNERS

Also manufacturers of

• S G Spur Pruners • Single Side Pruners • Vine Cane Sweepers • Hydraulic Power Packs • Double Acting Cutter Bars V3 2N 3

SG Pruner

Vineyard & Orchard Sweepers

• Full electric over hydraulic controls from your tractor seat • Totally adjustable for different cordon spacings • Spur prunes between vine cordons • Prunes single cordon in VSP trellis • SG Pruner patent app no.

AUS 780431 U.S.A 6,523,337

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

• Optional hydraulic lift, tilt and side shift cylinders.

• Ideal for cleaning up uneven terrain • Durable powdercoated finish

For further information visit Ph (03) 5021 1933 Fax (03) 5021 5233 our website at Email sales@spagnolo.com.au www.spagnolo.com.au or contact: Mildura, Victoria Australia W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

7

NEWS

E V E N T S

SA GRAPE GROWER SUMMIT TO EXPLORE SUCCESSION PLANNING Succession planning for family vineyard businesses and the future integrity of South Australia’s wine regions will be among the topics presented at the fourth annual SA Wine Grape Growers Summit to be held on 28 July in the Barossa Valley.

“Succession planning can be a difficult conversation for families,” said viticultural development officer for Barossa Grape & Wine Association (BGWA), Nicki Robins. BGWA is working with the Wine Grape Council of South Australia (WGCSA) to deliver this year's summit. Robins said both organisations were keen to ensure vineyard owners understood all the options available to them to make the right decisions for their situation, particularly when exiting the industry.

She said surveying by BGWA had revealed 30% of local growers will leave the industry in the next five to 10 years.

“If not family succession, then growers have other options including sale of their property. But have they spoken to their neighbours – or even employees? And is leasing or collaboration an option? For the Barossa, generational farming is the fabric of our region and part of our unique story. We’re hoping to explore different options through the experiences of local growers and summit presenters,” Robins said.

The summit, which is sponsored by the publisher of the Wine & Viticulture Journal Winetitles Media, will also explore the future integrity of SA’s wine regions. MC Phil Redman will facilitate a discussion between generational grapegrowers Adrian Hoffman, Fiona Habermann, Chris Canute and Ed Schild about their thoughts for the future – and what lessons can be learned from the past to ensure SA’s wine regions thrive into the future.

Held at the Barossa Arts and Convention Centre in Tanunda, the theme for 2017 summit is ‘Growers Lead the Way’ and will also include presentations on domestic and export market trends, case studies for success in China, and examples of innovative business models.

Also providing market analysis at the summit will be Tim Hunt, general manager, research food and agriculture at Rabobank; Warren Randall, general manager of Seppeltsfield

Wines; Brett McKinnon, global operations director at Pernod Ricard Winemakers; and Kirstie McCosh, global head of marketing services, insights and innovation at Treasury Wine Estates.

For further information and registrations visit www.sawggs.com.au.

COUNT DOWN TO ASVO MILDURA SEMINAR Technology and processes to make winegrowing more profitable are a feature of the program at a forthcoming seminar being organised by the Australian Society of Viticulture & Oenology and held in Mildura on 2-3 August.

“This seminar will deliver valuable, current and bankable information to our industry that can be directly translated to businesses,” Brett McClen, chair of the program committee.

The 2017 ASVO seminar will bring together industry, academia and policy influencers to present emerging technologies and solutions that can be immediately adopted by businesses.

“The wine and grape industry is fast changing, complex and highly competitive, and people want the latest information, research and analysis to stay competitive.” said Dr Mardi Longbottom, president of the ASVO. “The wine industry is good at staying ahead of the curve. This seminar will put on show concepts that some of us weren’t even aware of.”

Speakers will include Liz Riley, Vitibit Pty Ltd; Dr Maria Paz Diago, Institute of Grapevine and Wine Sciences (ICVV), Spain; Dr Mike Briers AO, University of Technology – Sydney; Dr Kathy Evans, University of Tasmania; Dr Nick Dokoozlian, Gallo (by video link); Dr Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide; Dr Simon Nordestgaard, The Australian Wine Research Institute; Dr Kerry DeGaris, Kilanoola; Dr Jo Jones, University of Tasmania; and Mark Skewes, The South Australian Research and Development Institute.

For further information visit www.asvo.com.au/events/mildura-symposium.

Letter to the editor

T

he coverage given to the counsel for Pernod Ricard (Jacobs Creek) James Omond in your March-April 2017 issue (‘What can be learned from the Yalumba v Pernod Ricard stoush over ‘Signature’?’) was in our view unfortunate and gave further oxygen to a subject and finding that Yalumba firmly believe was flawed. Many statements in the article are inaccurate.

The pomp and arrogance of this French multi-national beverage company in discourteously violating a 1992 trade mark registration points to a distinct lack of etiquette in an Australian wine fraternity we have sought to consistently respect over our 168 years of family ownership.

8

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

Yalumba The Signature is of a deeper value to our company and the many signatories whom have been recognised on the label over the years since 1962. In truth the presiding judge agreed with us and upheld two of three points on breach but crucially not the third. In finding that the two trade marks were not deceptively similar the judge acknowledged that her finding was a personal assessment.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L MAY/JUNE 2017

WVJ

Commentary in the media and the many messages of support since the judgement have volubly suggested an alternative view of similarity. Pernod Ricard (Jacobs Creek) at that time had only one label of a Shiraz it prescribed as a signature variety of the Barossa. As we suspected, the so named signature reds of its Barossa folio now boasts at least two new white varietal labels including Chardonnay. This was, I assume, always the strategy if successful.

Anyway, we have a new 2013 release of The Signature Cabernet & Shiraz on the market which continues a fine wine tradition since 1962, and it is a ripper.

Fine wine connoisseurs shall be the judges as time elapses.

Onwards and upwards.

Robert Hill-Smith Chairman/proprietor Yalumba

V32N3

WINE AUSTRALIA

First steps towards understanding the influence of terroir on Australian Shiraz Dr Liz Waters, General Manager - Research, Development and Extension, Wine Australia

E

arlier this year, Wine Australia announced the commencement of a six-year, $5.3 million investment in research and development to better understand Australia’s unique terroirs and how they influence Shiraz wine style and quality.

The investment incorporates a collaborative suite of research projects by leading wine research institutions all aiming to provide new insights to help our grapegrowers and winemakers.

The project is not about providing a recipe, mandating how a variety should be grown or advocating for a particular wine style – it’s about having more information for informed decisionmaking.

The project aims to provide new knowledge about the different techniques grapegrowers and winemakers can use to optimise the expression of terroir unique to their site.

Through the project, we want to uncover many areas of new knowledge for our grape and wine community.

We want to describe the diversity of Australia’s Shiraz; how different they are, and the compounds within the grapes that make these differences. We also want to identify how grapevines respond to environmental signals, climate, soil, and aspect; and how this translates into a physiological response that changes the composition in the berries that can be tasted in the wine.

In April, we were provided with an opportunity to assist the sensory researchers collaborating in this suite of projects through a blind tasting with some of the top sommeliers from around the world.

The 50 sommeliers who participated in the project’s blind tasting were in Melbourne on an Australian visit that coincided with The World’s 50 Best

Restaurants 2017 event program.

Sensory researchers from the Australian Wine Research Institute and the National Wine and Grape Industry Centre employed an evaluation technique that saw the sommeliers taste and assess 17 different wines against a single reference wine.

It was exciting to see the interaction at the tasting and hear the responses that the sommeliers had to the wines, all of which were tasted blind with no indication provided as to the different regions or brands behind the wines.

Australia is a vast country with many differences in all aspects of terroir at regional and site level. This session provided critical data for the sensory researchers and it was a wonderful opportunity to involve a group of key influencers in research that could help provide new knowledge for the Australian grape and wine community.

WVJ

In April, the sensory researchers collaboarting on the suite of projects investigating how Australia’s terroirs influence Shiraz wine style and quality were given the opportunity to have 17 different wines tasted and evaluated by 50 sommeliers from some of the world’s best restaurants who were visiting Australia as part of Wine Australia’s ‘Somms of the World’ program.

V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

9

W FA

Nutritional panels for Australian wine?

By Tony Battaglene, Chief Executive Officer, Winemakers’ Federation of Australia

W

FA spends a lot of time staying abreast of international and national regulatory developments to assess their probable impact on the wine sector. We try to be well aware of developments before they become regulation, so we seek to influence their final form and minimise any adverse effects. One of the less interesting, but nevertheless important developments concerns ingredient and nutritional labelling.

For many years, wine has been exempt from ingredient labelling and nutrient information panels, despite their requirement for other foods. This exemption is in place in most major markets.

However, recent international developments have suggested that this may be about to change.

The European Commission released a report on 13 March 2017 addressing whether alcoholic beverages should in future be covered, in particular, by the requirement to provide the information on the energy value, and ingredient labelling, and the reasons justifying possible exemptions. Under the current rules, unlike for other foods, the indication of the list of ingredients and the nutrition declaration is not obligatory for alcoholic beverages.

Following the release of the report, the European Commission has decided that, as a first step, current voluntary initiatives should be allowed to develop further so as to provide a list of ingredients and a nutrition

declaration. It has invited the industry to respond to consumers’ expectations and present within a year of adoption of this report a self-regulatory proposal that would cover the entire sector of alcoholic beverages. The Commission will assess the industry’s proposal.

Should the Commission consider the self-regulatory approach proposed by the industry as unsatisfactory, it would then launch an impact assessment to review further available options. This impact assessment would consider regulatory as well as non-regulatory options, including different options on the internal market, on the economic sectors concerned, on consumers’ needs and the actual use of this information, as well as on international trade.

WFA has used Australia’s membership of the International Organisation of Wine and the Vine (OIV) to become part of the European process to develop this common all-ofalcohol position. It is important that any European developments are business friendly and do not impart excessive costs on our exporters. It is also clear that developments in major markets also act as a trigger for domestic policy.

We understand that the Australian government has now also initiated action on calorie labelling for wine. The Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC) is the sub-committee of the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation. In its response to the Labelling Logic Review

SELL FAST with

of Food Labelling Law and Policy 2011, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation (now known as the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation (the Forum)) stated that it supports in principle: That the energy content be displayed on the labels of all alcoholic beverages, consistent with the requirements for other food products.

Two key pieces of work were conducted by the government, a cost benefit analysis (CBA) and a paper ‘Broader policy issues regarding energy labelling on alcoholic beverages’ (neither publically available). We understand that State and Federal Government Ministers have now agreed that FRSC progress to the next phase. This includes further targeted stakeholder consultation. We expect a consultation paper to be released shortly. WFA will be actively involved in this process and will be seeking nutritional labelling to be provided in other forms then on the label (i.e., through websites). We also have concerns about the regulatory cost this will impose on small winemakers in particular, including: • at what cost and how easy is it for a winemaker to calculate the calories/ energy value of a wine?

• does this require analytical testing?

• how accurate does the calculated result need to be?

• will there be a result accuracy range such as with the alcohol content?

WVJ

BUY • SELL • NEW • USED

$ave with www.winetitlesclassifieds.com.au Basic listings are 100% FREE

Created and managed by

10

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

To view classifieds or post an ad visit www.winetitlesclassifieds.com.au

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

A S V O

Scholarship, membership, sensory evaluation and excellence

By Mardi Longbottom, President, Australian Society of Viticulture & Oenology APPLICATIONS OPEN FOR THE ASVO ADVANCED WINE ASSESSMENT COURSE SCHOLARSHIP The Advanced Wine Assessment Course (AWAC) Scholarship is an initiative of the ASVO with support from the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI). The scholarship is designed to support ASVO members to develop the sensory analysis capabilities and the vocabulary of Australian wine industry personnel at an elite level.

Last year’s ASVO AWAC Scholarship recipient Stewart Byrne, from Josef Chromy, in Tasmania, said “This course is both unique and without equal. I feel incredibly fortunate to have attended the 41st AWAC, and I will carry the skills and knowledge that I have gained from this course throughout my career in the wine industry.”

The Advanced Wine Assessment Course is an intensive fourday course designed for participants with considerable formal wine tasting experience. This includes approximately 40 hours of activities over the four days, and 12 leading wine show judges, journalists and winemakers who assist in the presentation of the course.

ASVO AWAC Scholarship application forms can be downloaded from the ASVO website www.asvo.com.au. Entries close on 23 June 2017.

Places will be strictly limited for this unique event to be held on Wednesday 15 November 2017, at the Waite campus of The University of Adelaide.

ASVO AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE The 2017 ASVO Awards for Excellence nomination process has commenced ahead of the final announcement in Adelaide on Tuesday 14 November. The Viticulturist of the Year and Winemaker of the Year are bestowed upon outstanding wine industry professionals who demonstrate a significant contribution to the Australian wine industry in areas including leadership in regional, state and national wine organisations, the development of innovative practices, technologies or standards, or outstanding business management. The awards promote excellence through recognition and reward and represent a level of expertise for wine industry professionals to aspire to and achieve. Award recipients value the ASVO Awards because they represent recognition by distinguished ASVO members who themselves have demonstrated exceptional leadership ability and vision. Make sure to highlight this date in your diaries, and more information will come in the near future!

WVJ

MEMBERSHIP RENEWALS As you read this many of you will have already renewed your membership for the year and noticed that ASVO membership fees have not increased in 2017. The Society has streamlined and improved our process so that we deliver better value to our members each year. We continue to work hard on your behalf to promote the knowledge and skills of wine industry professionals through viticulture and oenology seminars and conferences, including the Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference, recognition of outstanding industry leaders and the highly esteemed Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. ASVO members include students, viticulturists, winemakers, researchers and other professionals, so that when we come together this diversity creates abundant opportunity for discussion, growth, research, learning, advocacy, camaraderie, and cohesion. The ASVO has been providing the wine industry with these opportunities for more than 35 years and we are focussed on ensuring the sustainability of the Society. If you’ve changed jobs or you have let your membership lapse for whatever reason, get in touch with us. We look forward to welcoming a new wave of ASVO members, and thank you for your support in building a healthy and active professional society.

DO YOU TASTE WHAT I TASTE? How much do you know about the science of sensory evaluation? In 2017, the ASVO oenology seminar will explore this critically important but arguably poorly understood and practised topic. The seminar will challenge the established methods of sensory evaluation by taking the theory and putting it into practice with several tasting sessions led by international and local experts.

V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

11

K E Y

F I L E S

Not so natural

By Tony Keys

Tony delves into the realities of consumer drinking patterns and the misuse of the word ‘natural’ in reference to wine.

B

alanced article or rant? On a personal note, I would like to start with, “Natural wine, natural wine be damned!” But that might be taken as the ranting of an out-of-the-loop, stuck-inthe-mud gentleman.

Leaving the rant aside, what is ‘natural wine’? For this I turned to the great god, Google, and chose this from the Organic Wine website (http://www.organicwine. com.au/what-is-natural-wine): “Natural wine's overarching philosophy is non-intervention. From vineyard to cellar the wine is made using quality fruit grown by organic and biodynamic practices and experimental and free-form methods of viticulture. They are cultivated in tune with the ‘nature’ evident in both the grapes and the territory in which they grow.”

The blurb goes on to say new generations of winemakers are making a full U-turn towards making wine ‘naturally’.

Such piffle! No, they are not, they are making wine in a fashion or, if preferred, a method they believe in. That is fine and understandable but the use of the word natural is misleading and self-indulgent if

used by the maker and pure nonsense if used by anyone else. As many have said, it implies others are making unnatural wines or, ‘surly natural wine is vinegar’.

The arguments back and forth will continue, open debate being the life blood of democracy. In my opinion, based on my limited experience in tasting this style of winemaking, so-called ‘natural’ wines are, in the main, overpriced and not an enjoyable liquid to drink.

Staying with the enjoyable aspect, if there are some consumers who get their pleasure from proper and acceptable minimal intervention wine, I have no wish to dictate what style of wine they drink.

Thus far, I have not enjoyed the majority of wines I have tasted made in this way. I do not apologise for drinking for enjoyment.

I do not drink to satisfy somebody else’s deep held philosophy or follow a fashion sheep-like.

The academic argument I put forward is that wine is not a natural product in any shape, sense or form. Fruit producing alcohol is natural and best explained in ‘The Drunken Monkey: Why We Drink and Abuse Alcohol’ by Robert Dudley, who traces the link between the fruit-eating

behaviour of arboreal primates and the evolution of the sensory skills required to identify ripe and fermented fruits that contain sugar and low levels of alcohol.

The vine is a forest plant running long tendrils up tree trunks and through branches. Man has taken this plant out of its natural environment and planted it in regimented rows. Fortunately for man, not necessarily the plant, it survived; better still it survived on land often unsuitable for other crops. Man then severely prunes the plant forcing it to grow its fruit larger than it would have done back in the forest.

The above is well known, or should be, as are the practices of organic and biodynamic growing that generations of farmers/gardeners have used in one form or another for centuries. In practise, it’s a lot older than Rudolf Steiner’s lectures in the early 1920s, Steiner being the one who marshalled old established practices to increase soil fertility without the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Being good to the land is admirable and those who practise it are to be admired and respected. But no person or group should hold any bragging rights; it’s something that is done and example shown.

…wine is not a natural product in any shape, sense or form…The vine is a forest plant running long tendrils up tree trunks and through branches. Man has taken this plant out of its natural environment and planted it in regimented rows…Man then severely prunes the plant forcing it to grow its fruit larger than it would have done back in the forest.

12

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

K E Y

Various archaeological digs have placed men fermenting grapes into alcohol back to the Neolithic period (ca 5400-5000BC). This has been dubbed winemaking. What those wines tasted like we will never know. What we do know from the earliest times is that various additives were used to preserve wine.

“The jar in question was manufactured at some time between about 7400 and 7000 years ago, and additionally bore traces of resin from the terebinth tree. It is plausible to conjecture this resin was added to preserve the wine.” (A Natural History of Wine, by Ian Tattersall and Rob Desalle, Yale University Press, 2015) It’s at this point - the point when human beings stopped seeking ripe fruit that had started to ferment, producing alcohol that provided a buzz - that the manipulation of fruit occurred to release alcohol so the buzz remained on tap.

This was the point in time that ‘natural’ disappeared from the lexicon of wine.

What isn’t recorded is when and how grapes became the preferred fruit. Having worked out grapes are good for the production of alcohol, the drawback is they only appear in the right ripe state once a year. Furthermore, the alcoholic juice they produce, what we call wine, remains drinkable for a short period of time.

If humankind stuck to nature’s natural rhythm, indulgence (often over indulgence or drunkenness), would be available for around six weeks after the completion of fermentation before the wine became undrinkable due to oxidation. But humankind being greedy and prone to

V3 2N 3

F I L E S

It’s at this point - the point when human beings stopped seeking ripe fruit that had started to ferment, producing alcohol that provided a buzz - that the manipulation of fruit occurred to release alcohol so the buzz remained on tap. This was the point in time that ‘natural’ disappeared from the lexicon of wine. indulgence wanted what pleasure wine afforded all year round.

Attempts to preserve wine from one vintage to another have involved the addition of numerous substances: salt, water, honey, ash, lead, various herbs and spices. The list is extensive.

Which brings this article back to the modern day, to the so-called natural wine movement. It’s far from natural; it’s just as stated - a winemaker’s right to make wine in any style he or she wishes, including wines the majority of consumers enjoy drinking. This often means commercial brands - wines produced in huge factorylike premises by the millions of bottles, often cases, and drunk by millions of people around the world. For these wines the debate opens up to include the way the vineyards are managed, what chemical inputs are used and what longterm damage is being done to the land.

It’s an ongoing debate and will continue.

This is not an article on the pros and cons of chemical-free grapegrowing or winemaking. It’s about the reality and patterns of consumer consumption and the misuse of the word natural when applied to wine.

In the 1980s, when Australian wine gained traction in the UK, it had several points in its favour, the main one being flavour - bags of it, rich ripe and eminently enjoyable. Another favourable aspect, as far as those involved in the trade at the time were concerned, was an easy upwards path for consumers to follow.

Put another way, a consumer could start drinking Penfolds Bin 2 Mourvèdre Shiraz for example, priced under £4 (prices from Webster’s Wine Guide 1990), then move onto: £4-5 Penfolds Koonunga Hill Cabernet Shiraz £5-6 Penfolds Kalimna Shiraz £6-8 Penfolds Bin 389 Cabernet Shiraz £10-12 Penfolds St Henri Cabernet Shiraz £16-20 Penfolds Bin 707 £24-30 Penfolds Grange Hermitage.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

It was simple. Unlike France, Australia was at that time perceived as a whole, not as a collection of wine-producing regions such as Bordeaux, Burgundy, Alsace, etc. Consumers had no need to burden themselves with wine knowledge.

It was OK to order a bottle or glass of Chardonnay, which at the time meant Australian Chardonnay.

Regionality could be taught later; the Australian brands on offer were the first step on the ladder. Unfortunately it didn’t work. Wine wise it was logical, but as far as consumers were concerned price was far more important.

Varietal naming had been a huge boon in advancing UK wine drinking; Chardonnay or Shiraz is easier to grasp than regional names. But, over time a drawback came to light.

As the ‘80s moved onto the ‘90s some UK consumers were saying they were becoming bored with Australian Chardonnay. They had moved from (in no order) Jacobs Creek to Oxford Landing to Lindeman’s Bin 65 to Rosemount and so on, all the wines very much the same in both taste and price.

Ironically, if they moved from drinking, say, a Macon Blanc to one from the Rully region of France, they weren’t always aware both were made from Chardonnay.

In fact, they weren’t always aware Macon, Chablis, Rully, Pouilly-Fuisse, Montrachet, etc. are all regions where the Chardonnay grape dominates white wine production.

It was a case of different region, different wine, perception being greater than fact.

Sydney-based Chris Anstee, chief executive of Wine & Vine, was working in the UK during the ’80s and ‘90s and says of the ladder effect: “It was always a fine and comforting theory, and strongly espoused by, among others, the then influential Mike Paul as well as individual marketing managers.”

In the ‘80s Mike Paul was managing director of Percy Fox which represented Lindeman’s. In 1990, he went on to become European director for Southcorp,

www.winetitles. com . au

13

K E Y

F I L E S

responsible for the development of its business in Europe. In a blog he wrote in 2013, Paul said: “In the late ‘90s, Penfolds launched Yattarna, the ‘white Grange’, which was a Chardonnay positioned at over £30 a bottle. I was running Southcorp’s European operation at the time and decided to send samples to key buyers for their feedback.

“One such buyer set up a comparative tasting and sent me the results. Yattarna had performed acceptably, but I was intrigued by his view of its competitive set, and asked him why it was comprised only of New World Chardonnays. He said that consumers saw white Burgundies as a separate proposition, with many not realising they were Chardonnays at all.”

Anstee has conducted research in Australia on consumer awareness involving Tyrrell’s wines, starting with the Long Flat brand (sold in 2003), through to Old Winery, Vat 47, Vat 9, etc. He says: “What the ladder theory ignored is that the overwhelming majority of average consumers have a ‘price ceiling’ below which they habitually buy. Because they very rarely buy above their chosen price point, they are little interested in the brands which populate the rarefied higher price territory.”

Anstee admits higher priced or exclusive wines occupying the higher rungs of the ladder do provide some reassurance and credibility but it’s a different consumer who actually buys the higher priced wines at each level.

“At each price level these consumers need different cues and impetus to make the purchase decision,” Anstee explains. “If the brand ladder becomes too heavily populated with the variants and extensions of the same brand, then woe betide.”

Woe betide, indeed. In the early part of this century Pernod Ricard decided to take Jacobs Creek, its strongest brand at the time, and extend it in all directions.

It believed the strength of the name/ brand would carry across all price points, hence the wines that were in the heritage collection, including Steingarten Barossa Riesling, Centenary Hill Barossa Valley Shiraz, St Hugo Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon, Reeves Point Chardonnay and Johann Shiraz Cabernet, would all be known as part of the Jacobs Creek brand and promoted as such.

Nowadays, Johann, Centenary Hill

14

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

and Steingarten, although recognised as part of the Jacobs Creek brand, have been given space to be themselves. St Hugo has been given further distance with its own website, an extended range and minimal reference to Jacobs Creek. Reeves Point Chardonnay has been taken off the market.

Consumers paying more is the aim of all producers but at times a brand can become anchored in a price sector and despite the efforts of the producer remains stuck.

What Pernod Ricard discovered is those consumers who do climb the ladder of wine prefer to pull it up behind them.

A consumer who starts drinking Jacobs Creek and works up to St Hugo wants to be recognised as a St Hugo drinker not a Jacobs Creek drinker.

Penfolds head winemaker Peter Gago has been monitoring the rise along with the changes in the marketing of Penfolds wines since the end of the 1980s. He says, “Maybe not from a UK industry point of view, but from a myopic Penfolds perspective I think things did work for us, and Penfolds still benefits from those early wins.”

The point of contention in Gago’s opinion was the proliferate increase of buyers own brands (BOB) in that period reducing the power of established brands.

Just as consumers rarely breached a selfimposed price point, they often lacked brand loyalty. Regarding Penfolds, Gago says BOB was, “of great appeal to the supermarkets, yet certainly not offering a great deal to help build this brand.”

Penfolds did toy with the bottom up approach in the UK with a price-sensitive Penfolds Bin 35 Shiraz Cabernet which morphed into Penfolds Rawsons Retreat, adding other varieties and blends as sales expanded. The Rawsons Retreat brand is still in the Treasury Wine Estates portfolio but it is no longer made by or carries the name Penfolds.

According to Gago, the Penfolds winemaking philosophy for the past 70 years has been “top down”. He says it’s

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

easier to start at the top than the bottom and others agree, but Penfolds was one of the producers to recognise this early. On bottom up he says, “Many other factors surely come into play in terms of trading up. Cyclic global over-production of wine often invokes the oft-referred race to the bottom, making it then more difficult to later persuade people to pay more.”

Consumers paying more is the aim of all producers but at times a brand can become anchored in a price sector and despite the efforts of the producer remains stuck. It’s my opinion this has happened to Casella Yellow Tail, especially in the USA, its strongest market. Nor has upward brand extension appeared to have worked for the brand; Yellow Tail is just that, Yellow Tail. It can add varieties extending sideways but is trapped in price.

Putting this scenario to Libby Nutt, global marketing and export sales manager at Casella Wines, and suggesting the reason the company bought Peter Lehmann, Morris and Brands Laira was to access consumers prepared to pay higher prices for their wine, she said: “The acquisition of Peter Lehmann, Brand’s Laira and Morris weren’t just a play at higher price points where [yellow tail] wasn’t able to venture but to have a portfolio of brands that express/reflect the style and flavour of their respective regions that can be enjoyed across different consumer occasions.”

Currently the USA market is showing a decline in the market for wine below US$10 with above US$10 on the increase.

Penfolds is well established in the US luxury sector so appears to have little opposition to benefiting from the growth.

Penfolds is also established in the luxury sector in Asia, especially in China.

As with any ladder one can descend the rungs as well as ascend. The Chinese market throws up some examples.

Owning and gifting wine often involves wines that are identified by high reputation or even bling (hand blown crystal decanter, polished rosewood box with gold hinges, etc). Wine for drinking can be a different proposition but, again, is split between showing wealth to others at a formal dinner or drinking at home watching soap operas.

Gago says the Chinese market has involved lots of hard work and lots of luck, for example, “Initial gifting appeal transitioning to awareness; improvement of distribution allowing enhanced visibility.

V32N3

K E Y

With targeted and sensitive positioning creating aspiration.”

He continues, “The halo-effect of Grange, Bin 707 and St Henri certainly helps, but in China muscular flexing from the midriff has impacted as profoundly.

Bins 389 and 407 volume and quality intimidate any global competitor.”

Both Gago and Nutt admit to the strength of brand in China with Gago pointing out long-term brand relationship is the key, not filling a short-term beverage gap and moving a container or two. He says Penfolds has offered choice across tiers, styles and pricing. Tastings and workshops have also facilitated “education about Australian wine’s proven longevity and ability to cellar”, he says Gago also quotes a Chinese colleague of his who recently told him, “The China market is really expansive, and most winemakers have just barely touched the surface. Chinese consumers are motivated by strong heritage, halo effect of flagship wines, prestige, but also by consumer trends, celebrity endorsements, price, etc. The consumer motivation is much more fast-moving and dynamic in a developing market such as China like no other. Thus, whether or not strategies

V3 2N 3

worked, or could work in other markets, is not as applicable to China”.

Where Yellow Tail has become shackled to a price sector in the USA, according to Nutt, China is a different story: “Chinese consumers are without question massive followers of internationally recognised brands and use the power of a ‘brand’ to equate with quality and reliability.

However, due to how young China is as a wine-drinking nation, the Chinese do not seem to be constrained by the idea of brand; a certain price point equates to a level of quality but understand what the brand delivers for them personally.

“Offering a [yellow tail] Reserve range into China has been a much more obvious and favourable move as it opens the brand up to those consumers who are wanting to enjoy brands they know and trust at a wider range of occasions – gifting, on premise, etc.”

In the USA and China it’s the top-end Penfolds wines that have attracted the wine knowledgeable who in the main are not average consumers. It is, as Gago says, the top rungs of the ladder that are working downwards, not the bottom upwards. But the penultimate words must go to Nutt:

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

F I L E S

“As we know high end Australian wines will always be of more interest to the wine connoisseur rather than the everyday consumer. It is great to see the increased interest of some of Australia’s great wines by a global audience. However there is an arguably larger audience that is simply after an easy drinking, consumer friendly wine that they can enjoy at everyday occasions. That’s the great thing about Australian wine, it’s not constrained by accessibility. There is always an Australian wine that can be enjoyed for its own unique attributes.”

To close the article where it started with so-called natural wines, they are but a style of wine that certain people prefer to make and others prefer to drink. But if we look at the natural order of wine buying and popular consumption, the story is somewhat more complex.

Wine industry commentator Tony Keys has spent more than 30 years in the wine industry including the retail sector in the UK and roles with the Australian Export Council and the Australian Wine Bureau in London. He is author of The Key Report, a weekly report containing news, views, analysis and opinions on the wine industry: WVJ www.thekeyreport.com.au

www.winetitles. com . au

15

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

GRAPE & JUICE HANDLING

Influence of grape seeds and stems on wine composition and astringency

By Olga Pascual1, Elena González-Royo1, Mariona Gil1, Sergio Gómez-Alonso2,4, Esteban García-Romero3, Joan Miquel Canals1, Isidro Hermosín-Gutíerrez2 and Fernando Zamora1 »

While several scientific studies have highlighted the influence of seeds on wine colour and composition, few have explored the influence of stems on wine colour, composition and quality. A team of Spanish researchers have investigated how seeds and stems contribute to the colour, astringency and phenolic composition of a Cabernet Sauvignon wine.

T

he quality of red wines is highly determined by the composition of phenolic compounds. Some of their sensory attributes, such as colour, body and astringency, are associated with the composition of anthocyanins and proanthocyanidins (Ribéreau-Gayon et al.

2006). Anthocyanins are only present in grape skins whereas tannins, also called proanthocyanidins, are present in skins, seeds and stems (Zamora 2003). Seed tannins are polymers made up of (+)-catechin, (-)-epicatechin, and (-)-epicatechin3-gallate (Prieur et al. 1994), while skin tannins also contain (-)-epigallocatechin and a much lower concentration of (-)-epicatechin-3-gallate (Souquet et al. 1996). Consequently, skin tannins include procyanidins and prodelphinidins whereas seed tannins consist only of procyanidins. Little is known about stem proanthocyanidins, but it is thought that they are made up of the four monomers: (+)-catechin, (-)-epicatechin, (-)-epicatechin-3-gallate, and (-)-epigallocatechin (Souquet et al. 2000, del Llaudy et al. 2008). Skin proathocyanidins have a higher mean degree of polymerisation (mDP) than seed proanthocyanidins but the polymerisation degree of stem proanthocyanidins is the subject of controversy (Pascual et al. 2016a, Pascual et al. 2016a). It has also been reported that molecular sizes, and especially the monomeric composition of proanthocyanidins, have a considerable influence on the perception of astringency. Contrary to what is often said in the oenological world, a greater degree of polymerisation causes a greater perception of astringency (Vidal et al. 2004).

In addition, a higher level of galloylation (high percentage of (-)-epicatechin-3-gallate) also increases astringency.

It is well known that seeds significantly contribute to the tannicity of a wine, especially when they are not completely ripe (Kennedy 2003, Canals et al. 2005). For this reason, immature grapes may produce more astringent wines as their seeds can release a higher amount of galloylated proanthocyanidins (Gil et al. 2012) It has also been shown that stems can release highly astringent and bitter proanthocyanidins. Moreover, the presence of stems causes

»

1

significant colour loss and contributes to a stemmy flavour in the wine (Hashizume et al. 1998). For this reason destemming grapes is a common procedure in red winemaking in order to avoid this negative attribute. Other arguments for removing stems include the belief that their presence reduces ethanol content and titratable acidity and increases pH and even that they take up valuable space in the tank (Sun and Spranger 2005).

Contrastingly, some winemakers argue stems may occasionally have positive effects (Peynaud 1981, Sun and Spranger 2005). These views claim that retaining stems produces wines with a higher concentration of proanthocyanidins, which help to stabilise colour and improve mouthfeel. Moreover, the presence of stems makes the cap less compact which favours colour extraction. Traditionally, stems have been employed in red winemaking in some traditional regions such as Châteauneuf-du-Pape (Côtes du Rhône) in France because their presence increases the polyphenolic content of wines, improving the ability of a wine to age. Moreover, some winemakers in France’s Medoc (Bordeaux) region used to include a proportion of stems when grey rot was present with the aim of inhibiting laccase and protecting wine colour. Partial or complete employment of stems is occasionally utilised for low-tannin varieties such as Pinot Noir in traditional regions (Peynaud 1981, Blouin 2000).

Nowadays, winemaking with whole clusters is especially common in biodynamic/natural wine production probably because the extra tannin contribution of stems can protect wine against oxidation, allowing reduced sulfur dioxide doses.

There are various scientific articles on the influence of seeds on wine colour and composition (Kovac et al. 1995, Canals et al. 2008), but to our knowledge very little information exists on how the presence of stems during winemaking influences wine colour, composition and quality (Goode and Harrop 2011). Hence, the aim of this study was to explore exactly how seeds and stems contribute to the colour, astringency and phenolic composition of wine.

Departament de Bioquímica i Biotecnologia, Facultat d’Enologia de Tarragona, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, C/Marcel.li Domingo s/n, 43007 Tarragona, Spain Instituto Regional de Investigación Científica Aplicada, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario s/n, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain

2

3

Instituto de la Vid y el Vino de Castilla-La Mancha, Ctra. Toledo-Albacete s/n, 13700 Tomelloso, Ciudad Real, Spain 4

16

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

Fundación Parque Científico y Tecnológico de Albacete, Paseo de la Innovación 1, 02006 Albacete, Spain.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

GRAPE & JUICE HANDLING

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

Figure 1. Experimental design Control

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the experimental design. Around 2000kg of Cabernet Sauvignon grapes (around 13.5% potential ethanol content and 6.5g tartaric acid/L of titratable acidity) were destemmed, crushed, sulfited and pumped to a self-emptying, 2500L-capacity stainless steel tank. Around 5kg of stems were kept at 4ºC. Immediately after the tank was filled, 150L of grape juice was bled off and pumped to a refrigerated tank (4ºC) and immediately settled with charcoal (1g/L) and bentonite (0.5g/L) in order to eliminate all phenolic compounds. The aim of this discoloration was to be completely sure that all polyphenols present in the obtained wines were specifically released by only polyphenols (seeds or stems). The clean must was racked to another tank and kept for four days at a low temperature (4ºC) to prevent fermentation.

Meanwhile, the 2500L-capacity tank was inoculated with selected yeasts (EC1118, Lallemand Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada). Once alcoholic fermentation began, one délestage per day was carried out in order to extract enough seeds for the experiment. The recovered seeds were immediately washed with cold water, dried with a hot-air dryer and stored at 4ºC. The grape juice bled off at the beginning (medium A) was distributed among 12 small tanks (8L). Three tanks were designated ‘control’, another three tanks were given the original proportion of seeds in the bunch (100% seeds), another three were given three times this value (300% seeds)

Charcoal (1 g/L) Bentonite (0.5 g/L) Immediately bleed (200 L)

Medium A

+ 100% Seeds + 300% Seeds + 100% Stems

Destemming and Crushing

Seeds

Control

2000 Kg Stems

Délestages; Maceration 4 days

Bleed (200 L) Medium B

+ 100% Seeds + 300% Seeds + 100% Stems

Figure 1. Experimental design.

and, finally, the last three were given the original proportion of stems (100% stems). All tanks were immediately inoculated with 200mg/kg of selected yeast (EC1118, Lallemand Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada).

On day 4 of fermentation, the self-emptying stainless steel tank was bled again (200L) and the liquid (medium B) distributed among 12 small tanks (8 L), following the same experimental approach described above.

EFFECT ON WINE GENERAL PARAMETERS Table 1 (see page 18) shows the general parameters of the wines obtained with the addition or not of seeds and stems in both media. The final concentration of glucose+fructose

... We go further to service your vintage needs PANTONE 202CVC

PANTONE 377C

Industry Park 5 Edison Drive, Golden Grove, SA 5125 Australia

+61 8 8251 5055 +61 8 8251 5099 sales@wineindustryservices.com.au

www.wineindustryservices.com.au V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

17

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

GRAPE & JUICE HANDLING

Figure 2. Tannins and related parameters

B. Macerated for 4 days

+ 100 % of Stems

TA

5.48 ± 0.18 B

5.40 ± 0.11 B

5.38 ± 0.05 B

4.65 ± 0.11 A

pH

3.23 ± 0.02 A

3.36 ± 0.02 B

3.38 ± 0.01 B

3.47 ± 0.02 C

Ethanol (% v/v)

12.93 ± 0.04 C

12.61 ± 0.03 B

12.00 ± 0.01 A

12.61 ± 0.05 B

TA

5.55 ± 0.11 C

5.21 ± 0.16 B

5.06 ± 0.05 B

4.84 ± 0.16 A

pH

3.44 ± 0.01 A

3.49 ± 0.02 B

3.52 ± 0.01 B

3.59 ± 0.01 C

Ethanol (% v/v)

12.68 ± 0.03 C

12.36 ± 0.06 B

11.76 ± 0.01 A

12.34 ± 0.05 B

Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation of three replicates. Different letters indicate a statistical difference (p < 0.05) between samples.

was lower than 0.5g/L in all samples, confirming that all alcoholic fermentations were completed. As expected, titratable acidities of the wines made with the presence of stems were significantly lower and the pH significantly higher than in the control. This result is only natural because it has been reported that stems can release potassium that causes the precipitation of a fraction of tartaric acid in the form of potassium hydrogen tartrate (Hashizume et al. 1998). This trend was also observed when seeds were present suggesting seeds might also release potassium or other cations that can neutralise the acids.

The ethanol content of the wines produced in the presence of stems were significantly lower than in the controls. This result may be easily explained by the fact that it has been reported that stems can absorb ethanol and release water (Hashizume et al. 1998). Indeed, the moisture content of stems is reported to be around 65% (González-Centeno et al. 2010). More surprisingly was the ethanol content of the wines produced with the addition of seeds which was also significantly lower than in the control. This result was unexpected but reasonable bearing in mind that seeds also contain water. It has been reported that the moisture of seeds is around 35% (Pekic et al. 1998). In addition, all the wines obtained from the liquid bled off after four days of maceration had an ethanol content significantly lower (an average of 0.25 ± 0.01%) than those obtained from the grape juice that was bled off immediately. Taking into account the aforementioned moisture content of seeds and the fact that skins also contain water (around 54%) (Sadovoy et al. 2011), we can hypothesise that this decrease was due to the water content from the solid parts of the bunch. It is generally considered that the lower yield in ethanol content in red compared with white winemaking is due to the higher fermentation temperature while the aeration induced by racking encourages ethanol evaporation. In view of these results it seems that moisture from the solid parts of bunches plays a non-negligible role that must be taken into account.

EFFECT ON WINE TANNINS AND RELATED PARAMETERS Figure 2 shows the tannin concentration and related parameters of the different wines. The tannin concentrations of the control wine obtained with medium A was very low.

These data are logical given medium A was not macerated and was decolourised with charcoal and bentonite. In contrast, the tannin concentration of the control of medium B contained a

18

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

A

C

D

B 0

500

1000

n.d.

0

1500

A A 2

4

6

8

20

30

n.d.

B

2

4

6

8

10

Gallocatechin

A

C

D

B 0

40

C

A

0

10

B 10

100

A

C

200

300

Control

400

100% Seeds

D

B

0

500

1000

1500

A

A

B

n.d.

A A 0

2000

Tannins (mg/L)

+ 300 % of Seeds

Medium B. Macerated for 4 days

mDP

+ 100 % of Seeds

Tannins (mg/L)

Control

mDP

A. Immediately Bleed-off

PARAMETER

Flavan-3-ols monomers (mg/L) Galloylation (%) Prodelphinidins (%)

CONDITION

Medium A. Immediately Bleed-off

Flavan-3-ols monomers (mg/L) Galloylation (%) Prodelphinidins (%)

Table 1. General parameters.

Table 1. General parameters

0

2

4

0

0

0

C

A

B

30

40

8

10

C

4

6

Gallocatechin

A

C

B 100

300% Seeds

10

D

20

A

8

B

10

2

B 6

A

2000

B

200

300

D 400

100% Stems

Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation of three replicates. Different letters indicate a statistical difference (p < 0.05) between samples.

Figure 2. Tannins and related parameters. relatively high concentration of tannins because this wine was macerated with skins and seeds for four days.

The presence of seeds significantly increased tannin concentration in both media, confirming seeds are a good source of proanthocyanidins. As expected, the percentage of prodelphinidins was non detectable in the control of medium A and very high in medium B wines. The supplementation with seeds in medium B clearly decreased the mean degree of polymerisation (mDP) and the percentage of prodelphinidins in medium B. In contrast, the percentage of galloylation was significantly increased by the presence of seeds. Since seed proanthocyanidins are only procyanidins with a low mDP and high percentage of galloylation (Prieur et al. 1994), these results are quite logical. The supplementation with seeds also increased significantly the concentration of flavan-3-ol monomers. These monomers cannot be considered as tannins but it has been reported that they can contribute to wine bitterness (Robichaud and Noble 1990).

The presence of stems also significantly increased the tannin concentration in both media but to a lesser degree than seeds. The mDP and percentage of prodelphinidins observed were significantly higher and the percentage of galloylation significantly lower than in the case of the seed wines. These data strongly suggest that stem proanthocyanidins have a greater mDP and a lower galloylation percentage than seed proanthocyanidins, and importantly contain a noticeable percentage of prodelphinidins. These results also suggest that the proanthocyanidins released by stems are more similar to those from skins than those from seeds. Stems also release flavan-3-ol monomers but to a lesser extent than seeds.

However, the proportion of (+)-gallocatechin was much higher than in seeds.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

GRAPE & JUICE HANDLING

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

Figure 3. Color intensity, anthocyanins and related parameters B

C

A 0

5 10 Color Intensity A

D

A

C B

0

C

0 50 100 150 200 Combined Anthocyanins (mg/L) 100% Seeds

B

D

20 40 60 80 100 Ionization Index (%) B

C

C

100 200 300 400 500 Anthocyanins (mg/L)

A

20 40 60 80 100 PVPP Index (%)

Control

0

B

C B

0

A

D 15

B

C

A

D

0 50 100 150 200 Colored Anthocyanins (mg/L) 300% Seeds

100% Stems

Results are expressed as mean Âą standard deviation of three replicates.

Different letters indicate a statistical difference (p < 0.05) between samples.

Figure 3. Colour intensity, anthocyanins and related parameters.

EFFECT ON ANTHOCYANINS, COLOUR AND RELATED PARAMETERS Figure 3 shows the colour intensity and the anthocyanin concentration of the wines obtained from medium B. These parameters are not shown for the wines obtained from medium A because this media were treated with charcoal and bentonite in order to completely eliminate these pigments and colour. The supplementation with seeds increased significantly the wine colour intensity. In contrast, the anthocyanin concentration was significantly lower when seeds were present in the media.

A possible explanation for this phenomenon could be related to the higher values of the PVPP Index which indicate a higher presence of new pigments produced by the combination of anthocyanins and tannins. Since these new pigments contribute more to wine colour than free anthocyanins, the percentage of coloured anthocyanins is higher (ionisation index) and the colour is deeper. It seems, therefore, that the presence of seeds favour the formation of combined anthocyanins and, consequently, improves the wine colour because they release significant amounts of tannins. However, the presence of stems decreases colour intensity although they also release tannins and produce an increase in the PVPP Index. In that case the explanation is due to the supplementation with stems significantly increasing the pH, making the proportion of anthocyanins that contribute to wine colour (ionisation index) decrease to a higher extent.

EFFECT ON WINE ASTRINGENCY AND BITTERNESS Figure 4 (See page 20) shows the sensory appreciation of the astringency and bitterness of the different wines.

Astringency and bitterness scored significantly higher in the samples supplemented with seeds in both media than in their corresponding controls. Moreover, the score for both sensory attributes tended to be higher when 300% rather than

V3 2N 3

For further information, please contact Kauri AUS Tel: 1800 127 611 Email: info@kauriwine.com

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

NZ Tel: 0800 KAURIWINE Website: www.kauriwine.com

www.winetitles. com . au

19

GRAPE & JUICE HANDLING

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

Figure 4. Sensory appreciation of astringency and bitterness A. Astringency

B. Bitterness

+ 100% of Stems

B

b b B

+ 300% of Seeds

b B

+ 100% of Seeds Control

A 0

1

2

ab B

+ 100% of Stems

b B

+ 300% of Seeds

b B

+ 100% of Seeds

a

Control

3

4

5

Medium A

A 0

1

2

a

REFERENCES 3

4

5

Medium B

Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation of eight tasters. Different letters indicate a statistical difference (p < 0.05) between samples; Capital letters for medium A and lowercase letters for medium B.

Figure 4. Sensory appreciation of astringency and bitterness.

100% seeds were added, although in this case no significant differences were observed. The lack of significance may be because the perception of astringency and bitterness varies among individuals and, since it is an accumulative sense, its objective assessment is very complicated. In any case, these results are in accordance with those reported by Cliff et al. where a model red wine was enriched with grape seed tannins.

The presence of stems also significantly increased astringency in both media in a similar proportion to 100% added seeds. Bitterness tended to increase in the presence of stems, but in this case the difference was not significant.

In summary, seeds and stems are major sources of phenolic compounds that determine the final composition of wine.

Specifically, seeds release significant amounts of tannins with a relatively low mDP and a high percentage of galloylation. The presence of seeds also significantly increases the colour of red wine because it boosts the formation of polymerised pigments through the combination of tannins and anthocyanidins.

Seeds also increase astringency and bitterness and generate a slight but significant decrease in ethanol content, probably through the release of potassium and water. Stems also release significant amounts of tannins, but their composition was quite different to those from seeds. Specifically, stems released tannins with a higher mDP than those from seeds and a high percentage of prodelphinidins. Stems also significantly increased pH and decreased titratable acidity and ethanol content, probably through the solubilisation of potassium and water. In contrast with what happened with seeds, the presence of stems diminished the colour of the red wine, probably because they increased the wine’s pH. Finally, the presence of stems also increased the wine’s bitterness and astringency.

Consequently, the natural presence of seeds produces wines with a higher colour intensity and tannin concentration, which can be appropriate for red wines intended for long ageing. Seed extraction is naturally influenced by other factors, such as temperature, ethanol content, ripeness and maceration length.

However, the elimination of seeds could be recommended in some cases to avoid an excess of astringency and bitterness in wines for early consumption. In contrast, stems have no

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

Blouin, J. (2000) La vinificación bordelesa de las uvas tintas. In: Madrid AMV (ed) Enología: fundamentos científicos tecnológicos. Coordinator C. Flanzy, pp.465-467.

Canals, R.; Del Llaudy, M.C.; Canals, J.M. and Zamora, F. (2008) Influence of the elimination and addition of seeds on the colour, phenolic composition and astringency of red wine. European Food Research and Technology 226:1183-1190.

Canals, R.; Del Llaudy, M.C.; Valls, J.; Canals, J.M. and Zamora, F. (2005) Influence of ethanol concentration on the extraction of color and phenolic compounds from the skin and seeds of Tempranillo grapes at different stages of ripening. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53:4019-4025.

Del Llaudy, M.C.; Canals, R.; Canals, J.M. and Zamora, F. (2008) Influence of ripening stage and maceration length on the contribution of grape skins, seeds and stems to phenolic composition and astringency in wine-simulated macerations.

European Food Research and Technology 226:337-344.

Gil, M.; Kontoudakis, N.; González, E.; Esteruelas, M.; Fort, F.; Canals, J.M. and Zamora, F. (2012) Influence of grape maturity and maceration length on color, polyphenolic composition, and polysaccharide content of Cabernet Sauvignon and Tempranillo wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 60:7988-8001.

González-Centeno, M.R.; Rosselló, C.; Simal, S.; Garau, M.C.; López, F. and Femenia, A. (2010) Physico-chemical properties of cell wall materials obtained from ten grape varieties and their byproducts: grape pomaces and stems. Food Science and Technology 43:1580-1586.

Goode, J. and Harrop, S. (2011) Authentic wine: toward natural and sustainable winemaking. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Hashizume, K.; Kida, S. and Samuta, T. (1998). Effect of steam treatment of grape cluster stems on the methoxypyrazine, phenolic, acid and mineral content of red wines fermented with stems. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 46:4382-4386.

Kennedy, J.A. and Taylor, A.W. (2003). Analysis of proanthocyanidins by highperformance gel permeation chromatography. Journal of Chromatogry A 995:99107.

CONCLUSIONS

20

positive effects on wine colour and provide astringency and bitterness, and these are reasons why destemming should be systematically applied in red winemaking. However, further studies are needed to better understand how the ripeness of seeds and stems influence red wine colour and composition, and also to verify how these parameters evolve during ageing.

Kovac, V.; Alonso, E. and Revilla, E. (1995) The effect of adding supplementary quantities of seeds during fermentation on the phenolic composition of wines.

American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 46:363-367.

Pascual, O.; González-Royo E.; Gil, M.; Gómez-Alonso, S.; García-Romero, E.; Canals, J.M.; Hermosín-Gutíerrez, I. and Zamora, F. (2016a) Influence of grape seeds and stems on wine composition and astringency. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 64:6555-6566.

Pascual, O.; Ortiz, J.; Roel, M.; Kontoudakis, N.; Gil, M.; Gómez-Alonso, S.; García-Romero, E.; Canals, J.M.; Hermosín-Gutíerrez, I. and Zamora, F. (2016b) Influence of grape maturity and prefermentative cluster treatment of the Grenache cultivar on wine composition and quality. Oeno One 50:169-181.

Pekic, B.; Kovac, V.; Alonso, E. and Revilla, E. (1998) Study of the extraction of proanthocyanidins from grape seeds. Food Chemistry 61:201-206.

Peynaud, E. (1981) Connaissance et travail du vin. Bordas, Paris.

Prieur C.; Rigaud J.; Cheynier V. and Moutounet M. (1994) Oligomeric and polymeric procyanidins from grape seeds. Phytochemistry 36:781-784.

Ribéreau-Gayon, P.; Glories, Y.; Maujean, A. and Dubordieu, D. (2006) Phenolic compounds. Ribéreau-Gayon, P.; Glories, Y.; Maujean, A. and Dubordieu, D., eds.

Handbook of Enology. The Chemistry of Wine Stabilisation and Treatments (John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, England) pp.141-203.

Robichaud, J.L. and Noble, A.C. (1990) Astringency and bitterness of selected phenolics in wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53: 343-353.

Sadovoy, V.; Silantyev, A.; Selimov, M. and Shchedrina, T. (2011) An examination of chemical composition and molecular properties of grape berry skin flavonoids.

Food Nutrition Science 2:1121-1127.

Souquet, J.M.; Cheynier, V.; Brossaud, F. and Moutounet, M. (1996) Polimeric proanthocyanidins from grape skins. Phytochemistry 43:509-512.

Souquet, J.M.; Cheynier, V. and Moutounet, M. (2000) Les proanthocyanidines du raisin (pépin, pellicule, rafle). Bulletin de l’O.I.V 73:601-609.

Sun, B. and Spranger, M.I. (2005) Changes in phenolic composition of Tinta Miúda red wines after two years of ageing in bottle: effect of winemaking technologies. European Food Research and Technology 221:305-312.

Vidal, S.; Francis, L.; Noble, A.; Kwiatkowski, M.; Cheynier, V. and Waters, E. (2004) Taste and mouthfeel properties of different types of tannin-like polyphenolic compounds and anthocyanins in wine. Analytica Chimica Acta 513:57-65.

Zamora, F. (2003) Elaboración y crianza del vino tinto: Aspectos científicos y prácticos. Ed.; AMV, Madrid, AMV ediciones.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

WVJ

V32N3

SKIN CONTACT WHITES

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

Perhaps amber is the new 'orange'

By Cathy Howard

To complement the Wine & Viticulture Journal’s inaugural tasting of skin contact white wines, the results of which can be found from page 69, we asked Cathy to speak with some of Australia’s emerging producers of this style to explore their motivations and methods.

T

he term ‘orange’ when referring to a wine style is a white wine that has been made by macerating a white variety on its skins, with or without the stalks, for a period of time varying from a few days to a few months. Basically, it is a white wine made as if it’s a red.

'Orange' is a term used here in Australia, and overseas, for this white winemaking practice, and one that has its origins dating back thousands of years. Countries like Georgia, Slovenia and Italy all have a long history of white wines being made in this way. The end result differs not only in colour, but is also markedly more intense on the nose and palate, and sometimes with significant levels of tannins.

The term ‘orange wine’ stirs up polarising views. As Woolf (2015) states, “Orange wines are the most characterful, thrilling and food-friendly styles on our shelves today, with their deep hues, intense aromas and complex flavours. So say the converts.

The counter charge is robust: orange is the emperor’s new clothes, beloved only of trendy sommeliers and hipsters who forgive their oxidised, faulty nature. The wines are unpalatable curiosities that no right-thinking wine consumer would ever choose to drink for pleasure.”

'Orange' wines are not necessarily all made under the ‘natural wines’ banner. It’s true that many producers of 'orange' wines are keen on minimal intervention and low sulfur, but this isn’t a prerequisite for the style. There are also a number of producers utilising the technique for a portion of a white wine blend.

‘Orange’ is a term that has been appearing as a new category on many wine lists around the country, and the number of wines grouped under this section on many of the wine lists I have seen when visiting Perth wine bars and restaurants over the past few years are growing. Just recently, I have noticed 'orange' wines starting to appear on local wine lists in the southwest of Western Australia.

Preston (2015) quoted Sydney-based sommelier Matt Sweiboda as saying, “'Orange' wines can taste drastically different depending on the grape variety used and the winemaker’s stylistic intentions. If one had to generalise, it could be said 'orange' wines tend to be more savoury with many expressing a strong ‘umami’ flavour. The texture is perhaps the uniting factor – many of these wines have a mouthfeel closer to red wine than white. People now understand that 'orange' wine is a legitimate style, and not just some fad. One day people will come to expect 'orange' wine on their local restaurant’s wine list just like they expect to see rosé now.”

Using the term ‘orange’ to describe this style of wine is controversial within our local wine industry, and for very valid reasons if you are a winery and winemaker in the Orange GI in New South Wales. There also still seems to be some confusion among wine consumers as to what an ‘orange’ wine actually is, and what they should taste like.

V3 2N 3

Makers of skin contact white wines, Brave New Wine’s husband and wife winemaking team Yoko Luscher-Mostert and Andries Mostert.

There has also been some talk about changing the language and conversation around this style with suggestions it should be referred to as ‘amber’ wine or a wine with ‘amber-hues’, rather than ‘orange’.

So where did this relatively recent reincarnation of a centuries old winemaking practice come from? Woolf (2015) explains the rebirth occurred in the mid-1990s when established wine producers Stanislao Radikon and Josko Gravner, from Oslavia, on the Italian-Slovenian border, went searching for more ‘back-to-basics’ winemaking methods to enhance their wines. “Radikon felt that his Ribolla Gialla, a thick skinned but not very aromatic white variety, had more to

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

21

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

SKIN CONTACT WHITES

ANDRIES MOSTERT, WINEMAKER & PARTNER, BRAVE NEW WINE, DENMARK, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Although a number of different vessels are used for fermentation on skins at Brave New Wine the best results are from ceramic eggs. give. The revelation came in 1995 – lengthy skin contact, just like Stanko’s grandfather had used, was the way to unlock its power,” Woolf notes. Gravner, on the other hand, looked to Georgia for inspiration, where winemakers have been making wine in conical-shaped clay amphorae (known as qvevris), buried in the ground, for thousands of years. Woolf writes, “Typically, qvevri whites spend six months on their skins, a long tradition largely unknown in the west while the Iron Curtain prevailed. Gravner visited in 2000, and was so inspired with this ‘womb for wine’ that he switched entirely to qvevris in 2001.”

Kevin McCarthy is credited with making Australia’s first 'orange' wine, the 2008 T’Gallant Claudius, after visiting Gravner in 2007. As explained by Rory Kent (2015), despite McCarthy’s best efforts, “the 2008 Claudius was not a sales success…But a groundswell has been building in the wake of such trailblazing.” Kent says Stuart Knox began listing 'orange' wines at his Sydney wine bar Fix St James in 2010, stocking Shobbrook’s Didi ‘Giallo’ along with a handful of Italian producers. “The Rootstock Sydney 2014 event also flew the flag for' orange' wines, featuring Pheasants Tears from Georgia as well as a number of Italian producers, such as Radikon,” Kent notes.

There are a number of winemakers around Australia now employing this practice in their white winemaking.

Some are minimal intervention, ‘unconventional’ or ‘natural’ winemakers, while other winemakers are using the practice on a portion of fruit in a blend to add complexity, texture and fruit intensity.

22

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

Andries Mostert currently makes two white wines using extended skin maceration, the Klusterphunk Chardonnay and Doppleganger Riesling. The Chardonnay is a 100% whole bunch natural ferment, with six months under flor yeast then topped up for another 12 months in barrel on full lees. The Riesling is fermented on skins in a ceramic egg and in new French oak barrels. The wine spends eight months on skins and is then pressed back to the egg for four months under a flor yeast, followed by an extra nine months in barrel.

“Several things, I suppose, led us to produce our white wines using extended skin contact,” explains Mostert.

“Brave New Wine was started as a project of experimental winemaking to see what we could do when we operate outside of the rules I was taught at winemaking school. I had always been interested in texture in white wines; the style lends itself to minimal winemaking (i.e., no refrigeration and low sulfur) and we were inspired to try after trying some magical skin contact white wines from Italy and Georgia.

“I have been playing around with Riesling the longest because, first, it made sense being in the Great Southern to use our hero variety, and I also believe that there is a lot of flavour in Riesling skins which is often under-utilised.

More recently, we have also made skin contact wines from Chardonnay, Pinot Gris, Gewurztraminer and Sauvignon Blanc.”

Mostert says how long each white stays on skins has been “a bit of trial and error”. “But it’s become clear that time on skins needs to be managed depending on other structural elements of the juice or wine, such as acidity, fruit intensity, palate weight, and viscosity. For instance, we find with the Riesling wines that the tannins can be really brutal at the end of fermentation, which is accentuated by the natural high acidity of the variety, so you need to use methods and allow enough time for the tannins to resolve. Eventually the tannins soften and even become sweet. We have used methods including extended maceration (up to eight months on skins), ageing under flor, and extended barrel and bottle ageing.

Other varieties, like Chardonnay, which generally have more fruit weight or a viscous palate, carry the tannins better and the wines need less time, so we press them off before or at dryness (between six to 16 days).”

Mostert describes his management of extended skin maceration of whites “similar to reds really, but with more gentle extraction”. “We don’t work the skins as hard or as often as would happen with our reds. We have also had really good results in ceramic vessels in which the skins would hardly be worked at all. It is also really interesting following the evolution of flavour with longer skin contact time. Riesling, for example, we find will evolve from classic lemon and lime flavours to mandarin and orange rind, and eventually spicy aromas and flavours develop reminiscent of lemongrass, ginger, and cardamom, and finally tea leaf type flavours develop which influences our decisions as to when to press.”

Mostert utilises a number of open-topped vessels including plastic open-top fermenters, oak barrels with the heads removed and ceramic vessels. “Plastic for convenience and ceramic because of the long traditional and historical

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

SKIN CONTACT WHITES

association between ceramic and clay vessels and extended skin contact wines,” he says. “We have found the best results by far from wines fermented in ceramic. The ferments stay cooler (an advantage for us as we don’t use any refrigeration).

Temperatures normally peak at 21°C helping to retain aromatics, and the tannins seem to us to be more integrated.

We use unlined ceramic egg-shaped vessels which are only 12mm thick which definitely affects temperature during fermentation and the resulting texture in the wines. We also discovered early on when we drained some juice off at the bottom valve that the egg would conveniently spit out the majority of the seeds, which resulted in us avoiding extracting some of the bitter seed tannins during the extended skin maceration period.”

Mostert does not usually use additives during fermentation and maturation. He finds, “If the fruit is in good condition then we don’t use any additives. If there is some concern about bacterial infection, then we might use a small amount of SO2 pre-fermentation. All the wines have been indigenous ferments. We are not concerned about juice oxidation and may even encourage it.”

During maturation and in preparation for bottling, Mostert uses minimal SO2. “We find that the inherent tannins act as preservatives and due to oxidative handling both before and during fermentation, combined with no fining and no filtration, the wines have enough vitality to last without high SO2 levels.

Ideally, we would like to work with no added SO2 but so far we have been routinely adding between 20 and 40ppm prebottling.”

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

Mostert is currently only making relatively small batches of extended skin contact whites, but doesn’t see a need to limit the size of batches, except to perhaps avoid high ferment temperature issues similar to those experienced in large-scale red ferments.

Mostert says so far he has not had any major quality issues.

“I suppose that it is imperative to work with really clean fruit in order to avoid VA problems. If there is any doubt then you need to add small amounts of SO2 or encourage fermentation as soon as possible.”

His advice to other winemakers? “This is a really amazingly interesting and intriguing side of winemaking. Don’t make the mistake of sticking it in the ‘natural’ or ‘hipster’ pile. These can be really complex, fine, exciting wines. Be brave!”

TREVOR KENT, PRODUCTION MANAGER, CULLEN WINES, MARGARET RIVER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA Cullen Wines released its first amber wine in 2015, called Amber, and it is a Semillon Sauvignon Blanc blend from the 2014 vintage. As Trevor Kent explains, “making an extended skin contact white was a logical step in our progression in natural winemaking. These wines have complexity, they are age worthy and they are great food wines.”

Following handpicking, the bunches were hand sorted prior to being destemmed. Multiple fermentations were then carried out in various vessels, including open fermenters, a closed tank, barrels, concrete egg and amphora (trials are continuing at the winery as to which type of vessel best suits

THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE WEA

WINEENG2017 PRODUCTION + APPLIED TECHNOLOGY

COME VISIT US! REGISTER ONLI WWW.WEA.ORG

V3 2N 3

NE

.AU

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

SEPTEMBER 6-7, 2017 THE VINE INN BAROSSA VALLEY, SA

www.winetitles. com . au

23

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

SKIN CONTACT WHITES

this winemaking technique). The grapes were left on skins and partially fermented with each ferment treated like a red wine. The length of time left on skins was determined through regular tastings, and varied between two days and one month.

Following basket pressing, around 80% of the wine was aged in new Bordelaise and Louis Latour oak barrels for four months.

Minimal levels of SO2 were maintained during maturation and at bottling of less than 40ppm. The wine received a light bentonite fining at 0.5g/L and was then cold stabilised prior to a light filtration at bottling.

Kent added that Cullen’s had also used extended skin maceration on its Chardonnay, and some of its other Sauvignon Blanc and Semillon parcels.

His piece of advice to other winemakers is to “use wellripened, healthy fruit”.

MATTHEW HOLMES, WINEMAKER, BANNOCKBURN VINEYARDS, VICTORIA Bannockburn Vineyards makes a Sauvignon Blanc which contains a portion of Sauvignon Blanc grapes fermented with their skins. Winemaker Matthew Holmes “splits the fruit three ways.

"One third is destemmed and lightly crushed before fermentation on skins for one week, then pressed off to finish in older puncheons. Another third is whole bunch pressed to puncheons, and the remainder is whole bunch pressed to tank.” Holmes says the skin-fermented portion has “a strong

cinnamon note during ferment, which remained in the finished wine. Some spice, and varietal marker green peas complete the nose. Full bodied with breadth from the skins, texture from the lees contact and retaining refreshing acid on the palate.”

Holmes first tried the extended skin contact practice on Viognier. “I didn’t like the simple apricot flavours I was getting, and ended up with a more complex wine and more complex apricot flavours via skin contact.”

Holmes continued the practice with Sauvignon Blanc. “I manage the white on skins similar to managing red ferments.

We utilise picking bins or small temperature controlled tanks if they’re available. About half of the total blend ferments without temperature control in puncheons, so I like the idea of keeping some ferments to about 16°C. We don’t use many ferment additives, but this is one ferment where I do use packet yeast. The wine gets normal white wine sulfur additions, but the skins and juice did not get any.” Holmes adds that so far he has not experienced any problems during ferment or maturation, “although I couldn’t say whether the wines are maturing differently to a non-skin contact Sauvignon Blanc.”

When asked about batch sizes, Holmes said, “As long as I feel the cap is not going to dry out I’m happy with the size of the batch.”

Holmes’ advice to other winemakers considering the practice? “Perhaps treat it like whole bunch. Use lower amounts in blends initially, then increase the extent as you see fit.”

CHRIS CARPENTER, DIRECTOR & WINEMAKER, LARK HILL WINERY, CANBERRA DISTRICT

Sauvignon Blanc grapes being tipped into a barrel for ferment on skins at Bannockburn Vineyards in Victoria.

24

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

Chris Carpenter makes a blended white, Mr V, with up to half the blend made using extended skin contact. Mr V is a blend of Marsanne, Roussanne and Viognier, and it’s the Marsanne portion that is fermented on skins for around 30 days, with the Roussanne and Viognier wild yeast fermented in older French barrels. The Marsanne is pressed off skins and matured for six months in oak.

The 2014 Mr V has a higher percentage of skin fermented Marsanne than the previous vintage of 2013, giving the wine a deeper orange colour, savoury texture and crisp palate.

Aromatically, this wine is a complex blend of vibrant Roussanne (white flowers and stone fruit), lifted Viognier (apricot and ginger) and a base note of candied orange and macadamias from the Marsannne.

“I am used to making white wines from high-acidity varieties like Riesling, and so I wanted to build in freshness and length to the palate without having to add acid to these varieties (which are much lower in acidity at flavour ripeness),” Chris Carpenter explains. “The Marsanne was the least aromatic, and had the lowest acidity. Viognier has more overt fruit and Roussanne has more acidity and fresh fruit character, so the Marsanne seemed the ideal candidate to turn into the ‘structural’ component of the blend, without losing the prettiness of the other two varieties.”

Carpenter manages the Marsanne ferments on skins “in a similar way to our red ferments, however a little cooler, with ferment temperatures of around 20-25°C, and two daily pumpovers. We use a stainless steel static drainer.”

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

SKIN CONTACT WHITES

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

the ageing potential of the wines that I make. The idea of using a portion in a blend is intriguing and will be on my shortlist for trialling next vintage.

I do strongly believe that an industry-wide conversation needs to be had in relation to using the term ‘orange’ to describe this white winemaking style and the practices associated with it.

Those wineries in the Orange GI do have a valid grievance and their concerns about their regional brand needs to be addressed somehow, so perhaps using the term ‘amber’ would be a workable compromise. Food for thought anyway.

REFERENCES Hooke, H. (2015) Skin-contact whites. The Real Review, 5 February, accessed 30 May 2017 <https://www.therealreview.com/2015/02/05/new-tasting-notes-skincontact-whites/> Kent, R. (2015) Have orange wines reached the tipping point? Young Gun of Wine, 25 August, accessed 30 May 2017 <http://younggunofwine.com/have-orange-winesreached-the-tipping-point/> Preston, S. (2015) A curious colour: orange wine explained, Broadsheet Sydney, 16 July, accessed 30 May 2017 <https://www.broadsheet.com.au/sydney/nightlife/ article/orange-wine-explained> Woolf, S. (2015) Orange wines: it’s time to get in touch. Decanter, 12 May, accessed 30 May 2017, <http://www.decanter.com/features/orange-wines-it-s-timeto-get-in-touch-245524/>

Skin-fermented Marsanne drains from a fermenter at Lark Hill Winery in the Canberra District.

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

WVJ

Carpenter doesn’t use additives at all during the fermentation and maturation process as “Lark Hill is certified biodynamic so the intention is to get it ‘right’ in the vineyard and keep winemaking inputs to a bare minimum. The wine is adjusted to attain a free SO2 of 20ppm prior to filtration and bottling.”

He added: “In 2013 we tried this blend but picked the components much riper (due partly also to a very hot season) and the final blend ended up around 14% which threw the balance of the wine off. The 2014 was harvested earlier and the blend is more like 12.5%, which gives it more vibrancy and freshness.”

Carpenter’s tip for fellow winemakers is to “be prepared to cellar them prior to release. Each vintage we have made of this wine has seemed very awkward as a young wine (and caused us to question our decisions!) but with one to two years cellaring time after bottling, the components integrate and the wines reach a better balance point.”

CONCLUSIONS As a ‘conventional, Roseworthy-trained winemaking graduate’, I for one had placed ‘orange’ wines in the ‘natural’ wines basket, which after researching this article is definitely not the case. I have been open minded and tasted many ‘orange’ wines and have been disappointed by several, and interested by others mainly due to what I was seeing on the palate. The application of using extended skin maceration as a white winemaking tool is one that appeals strongly to my personal philosophy of making wines with complexity, texture and a phenolic structure that enhances both food and wine pairing and

V3 2N 3

For further information, please contact Kauri AUS Tel: 1800 127 611 Email: info@kauriwine.com

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

NZ Tel: 0800 KAURIWINE Website: www.kauriwine.com

www.winetitles. com . au

25

A W R I

WineHealth 2017 – Navigating the health effects of alcohol consumption

By Creina Stockley and Dan Johnson, The Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064

Managing director Dan Johnson

In February, the WineHealth 2017 international wine and health conference was held in Spain, the eighth in a series held since 1996. Approximately 200 delegates debated and discussed the latest data presented on the health effects of alcohol consumption, and considered future research directions. This article provides a summary of the trends discussed at that conference.

EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION ON NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES Non-communicable diseases (NCD) such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancers, diabetes and dementia are major causes of death and disability across the world. The World Health Organisation (WHO) suggests CVD currently accounts for the most NCD deaths, or 17.7 million people annually, followed by cancers (8.8 million), respiratory diseases (3.9 million), and diabetes (1.6 million). As such there is considerable interest in understanding the risk factors for these diseases and any potential preventative measures that can be taken to reduce their incidence and severity. Modifiable behaviours, such as tobacco use, physical

inactivity, unhealthy diet and the harmful use of alcohol, all increase the risk of NCDs. Numerous population-based studies have investigated the effects of consuming alcoholic beverages on the risk of these NCDs. Heavy alcohol consumption has been consistently shown to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, cancers, diabetes and dementia, while the health effects of light to moderate alcohol consumption (approximately 10 to 20g alcohol/day) on the risk of NCDs continue to be considered by public health authorities. In Australia, one standard drink is approximately 10g alcohol (Food Standards Australia New Zealand 2017).

Although the majority of population-level

Figure 1. Relative risk of total mortality (95 percent confidence interval) and alcohol consumption extracted from 56 studies using fixed- and random-effects models (Di Castelnuovo et al. 2006).

26

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

studies have not differentiated between wine, beer and spirit consumption, studies at the individual level have focussed on the different beverages.

Clinical studies are also being conducted to examine the effects of consuming light to moderate amounts of alcohol, and test tube and animal studies are exploring plausible potential biological mechanisms of actions for the effects observed.

Cardiovascular disease Cardiovascular disease includes high blood pressure, heart attacks, coronary heart disease, heart failure and stroke, and is currently the leading cause of death (33 percent of all deaths) in Australia. Of the 200 populationbased studies conducted over the past 40 years, most have concluded the relationship between the consumption of alcoholic beverages and the risk of CVD is J-shaped for both men and women. Light to moderate alcohol consumers have approximately a 30 percent lower risk of CVD compared with non-drinkers and heavier consumers (Di Castelnuovo et al.

2006, Rehm et al. 2010).

While the inclusion of ex-drinkers in the non-drinking reference groups in many of these early studies may have increased the risk of disease for ‘current abstainers’ (Stockwell et al. 2016), a J-shaped curve has almost always been seen in more recent studies when only lifetime abstainers comprised the nondrinking category (Klatsky and Udaltsova 2007, Midlov et al. 2016, Ronksley et al. 2011). As of 2017, the vast majority of population-based studies show a J-shaped curve for the relationship between alcohol consumption and CVD and mortality. Protection against CVD and

V32N3

A W R I

AT A GLANCE • Consumers of light to moderate amounts of alcoholic beverages have lower risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and all-cause mortality than nondrinkers or heavy drinkers.

• The relationship between alcohol consumption and the risk of cancer is more complex. For some cancers, any alcohol consumption increases the risk. For other cancers, heavy drinking increases the risk and for some cancers there is a reduced risk or no association with alcohol consumption.

• Polyphenolic compounds present in wine, fruits and vegetables have many positive effects in the human body and may act in synergy with other dietary components, including alcohol.

• Consuming alcohol as part of a Mediterraneanstyle diet combined with other healthy behaviours (non-smoking, healthy weight, regular exercise) provides the greatest protection against the major noncommunicable diseases.

• The next WineHealth conference will be held in 2019 at UC Davis, California.

mortality is not seen for drinking levels beyond 30 to 40g alcohol/day or for binge drinking patterns.

Dose effects vary for the different cardiovascular outcomes, with the lowest risk of mortality from coronary heart disease and heart attacks occurring with 10 to 20g alcohol/day, but the lowest risk of mortality from ischaemic stroke occurring with less than 10g alcohol/day (Ronksley et al. 2011). When alcoholic beverages are broken down by type, no statistically significant association is found between spirits consumption and CVD risk. However, both wine and beer show a similar J-shaped curve to that for alcohol overall. This may be reasonably explained by a combined effect of the alcohol present in both and of the different but similarly beneficial phenolic compounds in the two beverages (Costanzo et al. 2010).

In addition to the established biomarkers for CVD risk such as cholesterol concentration, blood flow and blood pressure, low grade inflammation was recently recognised as another risk factor for CVD as well as for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Winederived phenolic compounds can act to reduce low grade inflammation (Bonaccio et al. 2017, Gresele et al. 2011) as well as positively influence the other key biomarkers for CVD risk.

V3 2N 3

Diabetes Diabetes mellitus is a set of related diseases in which the body cannot regulate the amount of glucose in the blood.

Diabetics either do not produce any or enough insulin to regulate their blood glucose level (type 1 diabetes) or their body is less sensitive to the effects of insulin and increasingly ineffective at regulating their blood glucose levels (type 2 diabetes).

Type 2 diabetes accounts for more than 85 percent of all incidences of diabetes and is currently the fifth highest cause of death in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016). High blood glucose levels promote the development of atherosclerosis (buildup of lipid deposits inside the arteries), high blood pressure and high blood lipid levels, which increase the risk of a heart attack or stroke.

Similar to that for CVD, a J-shaped curve is seen for the relationship between the consumption of alcoholic beverages and risk of type 2 diabetes (Koppes et al.

2005, Tresserra-Rimbau et al. 2016). A 30 percent reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes occurs with light to moderate alcohol consumption, as well as for the risk of heart attacks among type 2 diabetics.

Reduced risk is also associated with a high intake of phenolic compounds, which are found in wine as well as in fruits and vegetables (Chiva-Blanch et al. 2013, Tresserra-Rimbau et al. 2013).

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

The primary protective effect of alcoholic beverages on the development of type 2 diabetes has been attributed to increasing insulin sensitivity, and reducing the spike in blood glucose (glycaemic response) that occurs after eating (Beulens et al. 2008, Joosten et al. 2008). Wine produces the greatest effect on blood glucose compared with beer and spirits, reflecting the fact that wine contains compounds other than alcohol that are physiologically relevant (Brand-Miller et al. 2007).

Light to moderate alcohol consumers, and particularly wine consumers, also appear to have a lower risk of developing metabolic syndrome which includes abdominal obesity, insulin resistance, low concentration of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and high blood pressure (Tresserra-Rimbau et al. 2015). Metabolic syndrome is associated with an increased risk of developing both diabetes and CVD. Cancers The relationship between the consumption of alcoholic beverages and cancer is complex (Breslow et al. 2011, Cao and Giovannucci 2016). For example, the consumption of alcoholic beverages appears to linearly increase the risk of cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract (UADT; mouth, pharynx, larynx and oesophagus), colorectum and female breasts, particularly when more than 25

www.winetitles. com . au

27

N AE WW R SI

to 30g alcohol/day is consumed (Bagnardi et al. 2013, Bagnardi et al. 2015, Klarich et al. 2015). These cancers are specifically referred to as alcohol-related cancers.

Food consumption at the time of drinking may lessen the risk (Dal Maso et al. 2002).

There appears to be a threshold (>50g/ day) above which alcohol consumption increases the risk of cancers of the stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreas and lung. The consumption of wine (but not other alcoholic beverages) appears to be inversely associated with a risk of kidney cancer, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

While the alcohol component of wine is carcinogenic, a Western Australian study suggests that a diet high in flavonoids sourced from tea, chocolate, fruit, vegetables and red wine may be associated with a reduced risk of cancer, as well as that of CVD and overall mortality (Bo et al. 2016, Ivey et al. 2015). Wine-derived resveratrol as well as catechin, gallic acid and quercetin all appear to have potentially preventative effects, especially for colon cancer, which is the second most common cancer in Australia. With a grant from Cancer Australia, the AWRI is working in partnership with The Royal Melbourne Hospital to investigate the impact of daily consumption of resveratrol-enhanced wine on the risk of colorectal cancer.

Potential mechanisms of action for this apparent anti-carcinogenic effect include protection of cells and DNA from damage leading to cancer, preventing damaged DNA replication and damaged cell growth, as well as initiating the death of damaged cells.

Of all lifestyle factors related to cancer, the attributable risk for tobacco use is 20.1 percent, physical inactivity 5.6 percent, body mass 3.9 percent, and alcohol consumption 3.1 percent (Begg et al.

2007, Begg et al. 2008). Synergies are also observed between alcohol consumption and other lifestyle choices. Recent studies on alcohol consumption and the risk of cancers of the UADT suggest tobacco use is the most important factor in the risk of these cancers, and that the risk is enhanced among those who also consume two or more alcoholic drinks per day.

Alcohol consumption alone among nonsmokers had little effect on the risk, except for oesophageal cancer (Anantharaman et al. 2011, Dal Maso et al. 2016, Hashibe et al. 2009, Szymanska et al. 2011).

For the relationship between alcohol

28

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

consumption and breast cancer, consumption patterns may modify risk, with consumption of four to five drinks per session increasing risk by 50 percent compared with only one drink per session.

Broadly speaking, increased risk of cancers appears most related to alcohol consumption above low to moderate levels.

of studies (Neafsey and Collins 2011, Xu et al. 2017). There are also multiple plausible biological mechanisms for winederived phenolic compounds to act on the accumulations of protein in the brain which are present in Alzheimer’s disease (Pasinetti 2012).

MORTALITY FROM ALL CAUSES

Dementias The collective scientific word for the mental processes of thinking, remembering, reasoning, judging and learning is ‘cognitive function’. Dementia is a form of cognitive change or impairment (dys-function) where a person loses the ability to think, remember and reason due to physical changes in the brain.

Cognitive decline and dementias such as Alzheimer’s disease appear to be triggered by a range of factors including depletion of antioxidants and inflammation. Risk factors for vascular dementia also include high blood pressure and coronary heart disease.

In the later stages of dementia, the associated cognitive impairment creates total dependency, such that dementias are the single greatest cause of disability in Australians aged 65 years or older, and the third leading cause of disability burden overall. Dementias are also currently the second highest cause of death in Australia.

As there is no cure, identification of factors associated with the preservation of cognitive function could lead to substantial improvements in the quality of life in older Australians.

A J-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and the risk of cognitive decline and development of dementias has been consistently observed (Ilomaki et al. 2015). Light to moderate alcohol consumption appears to reduce the risk of cognitive impairment, although heavy consumption is toxic.

This relationship is observed for younger, middle-aged and older consumers.

There is also a relationship between the effects of alcoholic beverages on the cardiovascular and neurological systems, given that reducing the risk of hardening and narrowing of the arteries and coronary heart disease also lowers the risk of cognitive impairment.

The amount of alcohol generally associated with protection against dementias appears to be up to 30g alcohol daily, where wine may have a greater effect than beer or spirits, although this finding is based on a relatively small number

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

The J-shaped relationship with the consumption of alcoholic beverages also applies to the risk of death from all causes, with an approximate 20 percent lower risk of death for light to moderate alcohol consumers compared with non-drinkers (Corrao et al. 2004, Costanzo et al. 2011).

Risk increases, however, with consumption over approximately 40-60g alcohol/day (Figure 1). This relationship is evident after controlling for known socio-demographic factors, genetic factors, lifestyle factors such as smoking, diet, and exercise, and diseases such as diabetes and previous coronary heart disease. That is, the observed effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption cannot be attributed to any of these other factors (Behrens et al. 2011, Dai et al. 2015, Midlov et al. 2016).

WINE AS PART OF DAILY DIET AND LIFESTYLE A series of large longitudinal studies looking at nutrition and healthy ageing in Australia (Dubbo Study of the Elderly), Italy (Moli-Sani) and Spain (PrediMed) have all shown that the inclusion of moderate alcohol consumption as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle reduces the risk of NCDs. Alcohol and phenolic compounds present in wine and beer may act in synergy with each other and with other dietary components, meaning that total diet may be more important than a single dietary component (Buil-Cosiales et al. 2016, Estruch et al.

2013).

Subjects in large population studies who are non-smokers, are not obese, eat a Mediterranean-style diet, and get regular exercise have much lower risk of NCDs and total mortality, whether or not they consume alcoholic beverages.

Mukamal et al. (2006) observed, however, that regardless of other ‘healthy’ lifestyle factors, moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages provided a greater reduction in the risk of these diseases than was seen for the other factors in isolation (Mukamal et al. 2006).

V32N3

N AE WW R SI

A MAJOR NEW CLINICAL STUDY

drinkers. The relationship for alcoholrelated cancers is different, with alcohol consumption linearly increasing risk.

When all-cause mortality is considered, the J-shaped curve is seen again, with light to moderate alcohol consumers having reduced risk of death from all causes (Chiva-Blanch et al. 2013, Ferrari et al. 2014, Howie et al. 2011). This association is dependent, however, on both the amount and pattern of consumption, and may be modified by patterns such as binge drinking (Bobak et al. 2016, GraffIversen et al. 2013).

In addition to this population-based data, the accumulating experimental evidence continues to support an apparent role for light to moderate alcohol consumption in preventing many NCDs.

The definitive experiment to determine any clinical association is a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical study. No longterm experimental study of the effects of alcohol consumption on the risk of any chronic disease has been performed. In September 2016, the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism received funding to conduct a large, international, randomised but unblinded clinical trial of the effects of alcoholic beverages on cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Its aim is to better determine the strengths of relationships observed to date in population studies, the results of which will undoubtedly influence subsequent alcohol drinking guidelines (Mukamal et al. 2016).

Australia is striving to participate in this study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE

This work is supported by Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grapegrowers and winemakers through their investment body Wine Australia and matching funds from the Australian Government. The AWRI is a member of the Wine Innovation Cluster in Adelaide.

The authors would like to thank Professor

The relationships between alcohol consumption and risk of CVD, dementias and diabetes are all J-shaped, with lower risk for low to moderate alcohol consumers than either abstainers or heavy

R. Curtis Ellison, MD, Professor of Medicine and Public Health, Boston University School of Medicine, for his comments on this paper. Ella Robinson is thanked for editorial assistance and Anne Lord is thanked for assistance with the references.

REFERENCES Anantharaman, D.; Marron, M.; Lagiou, P.; Samoli, E.; Ahrens, W.; Pohlabeln, H.; Slamova, A.; Schejbalova, M.; Merletti, F.; Richiardi, L.; Kjaerheim, K.; Castellsague, X.; Agudo, A.; Talamini, R.; Barzan, L.; Macfarlane, T.V.; Tickle, M.; Simonato, L.; Canova, C.; Conway, D.I.; McKinney, P.A.; Thomson, P.; Znaor, A.; Healy, C.M.; McCartan, B.E.; Hashibe, M.; Brennan, P. and Macfarlane, G.J. (2011) Population attributable risk of tobacco and alcohol for upper aerodigestive tract cancer. Oral Oncol. 47(8):725-731.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016) 3303.0 - Causes of Death, Australia, 2014. http://www. abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20 Subject/3303.0~2014~Main%20Features~Key%20 Characteristics~10054 Begg, S.; Vos, T.; Barker, B.; Stevenson, C.; Stanley, L. and Lopez, A.D. (2007) The burden of disease and injury in Australia 2003. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra, ACT. Begg, S.J.; Vos, T.; Barker, B.; Stanley, L. and Lopez, A.D. (2008) Burden of disease and injury in Australia in the new millennium: measuring health loss from diseases, injuries and risk factors. Med. J. Aust. 188(1):36-40.

Behrens, G.; Leitzmann, M.F.; Sandin, S.; Lof, M.; Heid, I.M.; Adami, H.O. and Weiderpass, E. (2011)

THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE WEA

WINEENG2017 PRODUCTION + APPLIED TECHNOLOGY

COME VISIT US! REGISTER ONLI WWW.WEA.ORG

V3 2N 3

NE

.AU

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

SEPTEMBER 6-7, 2017 THE VINE INN BAROSSA VALLEY, SA

www.winetitles. com . au

29

N AE WW R SI

The association between alcohol consumption and mortality: the Swedish women’s lifestyle and health study. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 26(2): 81-90.

Beulens, J.W.; Rimm, E.B.; Hu, F.B.; Hendriks, H.F. and Mukamal, K.J. (2008) Alcohol consumption, mediating biomarkers, and risk of type 2 diabetes among middle-aged women. Diabetes Care 31(10):2050-2055.

Bo, Y.; Sun, J.; Wang, M.; Ding, J.; Lu, Q. and Yuan, L. (2016) Dietary flavonoid intake and the risk of digestive tract cancers: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Sci. Rep. 6:24836.

Bobak, M.; Malyutina, S.; Horvat, P.; Pajak, A.; Tamosiunas, A.; Kubinova, R.; Simonova, G.; ToporMadry, R.; Peasey, A. and Pikhart, H. and Marmot, M.G. (2016) Alcohol, drinking pattern and all-cause, cardiovascular and alcohol-related mortality in Eastern Europe. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 31(1):21-30.

Bonaccio, M.; Pounis, G.; Cerletti, C.; Donati, M.B.; Iacoviello, L. and de Gaetano, G. (2017) Mediterranean diet, dietary polyphenols and low grade inflammation: results from the MOLI-SANI study. Brit. J. Clin.

Pharmacol. 83(1):107-113.

Brand-Miller, J.C.; Fatema, K.; Middlemiss, C.; Bare, M.; Liu, V.; Atkinson, F. and Petocz, P. (2007) Effect of alcoholic beverages on postprandial glycemia and insulinemia in lean, young, healthy adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 85(6):1545-1551.

Breslow, R.A.; Chen, C.M.; Graubard, B.I. and Mukamal, K.J. (2011) Prospective study of alcohol consumption quantity and frequency and cancerspecific mortality in the US population Am. J. Epidemiol. 174(9):1044-1053. uil-Cosiales, P.; Toledo, E.; Salas-Salvado, J.; Zazpe, I.; Farras, M.; Basterra-Gortari, F.J.; DiezEspino, J.; Estruch, R.; Corella, D.; Ros, E.; Marti, A.; Gómez-Gracia, E.; Ortega-Calvo, M.; Arós, F.; Moñino, M.; Serra-Majem, L.; Pintó, X.; LamuelaRaventós, R.M.; Babio, N.; Gonzalez, J.I.; Fitó, M.; Martínez-González, M.A. and PREDIMED investigators (2016) Association between dietary fibre intake and fruit, vegetable or whole-grain consumption and the risk of CVD: results from the PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) trial. Brit. J. Nutr.

116(3):534-546.

Cao, Y. and Giovannucci, E.L. (2016) Alcohol as a risk factor for cancer. Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 32(3):325331.

Chiva-Blanch, G.; Urpi-Sarda, M.; Ros, E.; Valderas-Martinez, P.; Casas, R.; Arranz, S.; Guillen, M.; Lamuela-Raventos, R.M.; Llorach, R.; AndresLacueva, C. and Estruch, R. (2013) Effects of red wine polyphenols and alcohol on glucose metabolism and the lipid profile: a randomized clinical trial. Clin. Nutr.

32(2):200-206.

Corrao, G.; Bagnardi, V.; Zambon, A. and La Vecchia, C. (2004) A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the risk of 15 diseases. Prev. Med. 38(5):613-619.

Costanzo, S.; Di Castelnuovo, A.; Donati, M.B.; Iacoviello, L. and de Gaetano, G. (2010) Cardiovascular and overall mortality risk in relation to alcohol consumption in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Circulation 121(17):1951-1959.

Costanzo, S.; Di Castelnuovo, A.; Donati, M.B.; Iacoviello, L. and de Gaetano, G. (2011) Wine, beer or spirit drinking in relation to fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events:a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 26(11):833-850.

Dai, J.; Mukamal, K.J.; Krasnow, R.E.; Swan, G.E. and Reed, T. (2015) Higher usual alcohol consumption was associated with a lower 41-y mortality risk from coronary artery disease in men independent of genetic and common environmental factors: the prospective NHLBI Twin Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 102(1):31-39.

Dal Maso, L.; Torelli, N.; Biancotto, E.; Di Maso, M.; Gini, A.; Franchin, G.; Levi, F.; La Vecchia, C.; Serraino, D. and Polesel, J. (2016) Combined effect of tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking in the risk of head and neck cancers: a re-analysis of case-control studies using bi-dimensional spline models. Eur. J. Epidemiol.

31(4):385-393.

30

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

Di Castelnuovo, A.; Costanzo, S.; Bagnardi, V.; Donati, M.B.; Iacoviello, L. and de Gaetano, G. (2006) Alcohol dosing and total mortality in men and women: an updated meta-analysis of 34 prospective studies.

Arch. Intern. Med. 166(22):2437-2445.

Midlov, P.; Calling, S.; Memon, A.A.; Sundquist, J.; Sundquist, K. and Johansson, S.E. (2016) Women’s health in the Lund area (WHILA)-Alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality among women-a 17 year follow-up study. BMC Pub. Health 16:22.

Estruch, R.; Ros, E.; Salas-Salvado, J.; Covas, M.I.; Corella, D.; Aros, F.; Gomez-Gracia, E.; RuizGutierrez, V.; Fiol, M.; Lapetra, J.; Lamuela-Raventos, R.M.; Serra-Majem, L.; Pintó, X.; Basora, J.; Muñoz, M.A.; Sorlí, J.V.; Martínez, J.A.; Martínez-González, M.A. and PREDIMED Study Investigators (2013) Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet. New Eng. J. Med. 368(14):12791290.

Mukamal, K.J.; Chiuve, S.E. and Rimm, E.B. (2006) Alcohol consumption and risk for coronary heart disease in men with healthy lifestyles. Arch. Intern.

Med. 166(19):2145-2150.

Ferrari, P.; Licaj, I.; Muller, D.C.; Andersen, P.K.; Johansson, M.; Boeing, H.; Weiderpass, E.; Dossus, L.; Dartois, L.; Fagherazzi, G.; Bradbury, K.E.; Khaw, K-T.; Wareham, N.; Duell, E.J.; Barricarte, A.; Molina-Montes, E.; Navarro Sanchez, C.; Arriola, L.; Wallström, P.; Tjønneland, A.; Olsen, A.; Trichopoulou, A.; Benetou, V.; Trichopoulous, D.; Tumino, R.; Agnoli, C.; Sacerdote, C.; Palli, D.; Li, K.; Kaaks, R.; Peeters, P.; Buelens, J.W.J.; Nunes, L.; Gunter, M.; Norat, T.; Overvad, K.; Brennan, P.; Riboli, E. and Romieu, I. (2014) Lifetime alcohol use and overall and cause-specific mortality in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC) study.

BMJ Open 4(7):14.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2017) Guide to labelling of alcoholic beverages: Commonwealth of Australia: http://www. foodstandards.gov.au/code/userguide/pages/ labellingofalcoholic4967.aspx Graff-Iversen, S.; Jansen, M.D.; Hoff, D.A.; Hoiseth, G.; Knudsen, G.P.; Magnus, P.; Morland, J.; Normann, P.T.; Naess, O.E. and Tambs, K. (2013) Divergent associations of drinking frequency and binge consumption of alcohol with mortality within the same cohort. J. Epidemiol. Comm. Health 67(4):350-357.

Gresele, P.; Cerletti, C.; Guglielmini, G.; Pignatelli, P.; de Gaetano, G. and Violi, F. (2011) Effects of resveratrol and other wine polyphenols on vascular function: an update. J. Nutr. Biochem. 22(3):201-211.

Hashibe, M.; Brennan, P.; Chuang, S.C.; Boccia, S.; Castellsague, X.; Chen, C.; Curado, M.P.; Dal Maso, L.; Daudt, A.W.; Fabianova, E.; Fernandez, L.; WünschFilho, V.; Franceschi, S.; Hayes, R.B.; Herrero, R.; Kelsey, K.; Koifman, S.; La Vecchia, C.; Lazarus, P.; Levi, F.; Lence, J.J.; Mates, D.; Matos, E.; Menezes, A.; McClean, M.D.; Muscat, J.; Eluf-Neto, J.; Olshan, A.F.; Purdue, M.; Rudnai, P.; Schwartz, S.M.; Smith, E.; Sturgis, E.M.; Szeszenia-Dabrowska, N.; Talamini, R.; Wei, Q.; Winn, D.M.; Shangina, O.; Pilarska, A.; Zhang, Z.F.; Ferro, G.; Berthiller, J. and Boffetta P. (2009) Interaction between tobacco and alcohol use and the risk of head and neck cancer: pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prev.

18(2):541-550.

Howie, E.K.; Sui, X.; Lee, D.C.; Hooker, S.P.; Hebert, J.R. and Blair, S.N. (2011) Alcohol consumption and risk of all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in men. J. Aging Res. 2011:805062.

Ilomaki, J.; Jokanovic, N.; Tan, E.C. and Lonnroos, E. (2015) Alcohol consumption, dementia and cognitive decline: An overview of systematic reviews. Curr. Clin.

Pharmacol. 10(3):204-212.

Ivey, K.L.; Hodgson, J.M.; Croft, K.D.; Lewis, J.R. and Prince, R.L. (2015) Flavonoid intake and all-cause mortality. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 101(5):1012-1020.

Joosten, M.M.; Beulens, J.W.; Kersten, S. and Hendriks, H.F. (2008) Moderate alcohol consumption increases insulin sensitivity and ADIPOQ expression in postmenopausal women: a randomised, crossover trial.

Diabetologia 51(8):1375-1381.

Klatsky, A.L. and Udaltsova, N. (2007) Alcohol drinking and total mortality risk. Annals Epidemiol.

17(5):S63-S67.

Koppes, L.L.; Dekker, J.M.; Hendriks, H.F.; Bouter, L.M. and Heine, R.J. (2005) Moderate alcohol consumption lowers the risk of type 2 diabetes: a metaanalysis of prospective observational studies. Diabetes Care 28(3):719-725.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

Mukamal, K.J.; Clowry, C.M.; Murray, M.M.; Hendriks, H.F.; Rimm, E.B.; Sink, K.M.; Adebamowo, C.A.; Dragsted, L.O.; Lapinski, P.S.; Lazo, M. and Krystal, J.H. (2016) Moderate alcohol consumption and chronic disease: The case for a long-term trial.

Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 40(11):2283-2291.

Neafsey, E.J. and Collins, M.A. (2011) Moderate alcohol consumption and cognitive risk. Neuropsych.

Dis. Treat. 7:465-484.

Pasinetti, G.M. (2012) Novel role of red winederived polyphenols in the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease dementia and brain pathology: experimental approaches and clinical implications. Planta medica 78(15):1614-1619.

Rehm, J.; Baliunas, D.; Borges, G.L.G.; Graham, K.; Irving, H.; Kehoe, T.; Parry, C.D.; Patra, J.; Popova, S.; Poznyak, V.; Roerecke, M.; Room, R.; Samokhvalov, A.V. and Taylor, B. (2010) The relation between different dimensions of alcohol consumption and burden of disease: an overview. Addiction 105(5):817843.

Ronksley, P.E.; Brien, S.E.; Turner, B.J.; Mukamal, K.J. and Ghali, W.A. (2011) Association of alcohol consumption with selected cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BMJ 342:d671.

Stockwell, T.; Zhao, J.; Panwar, S.; Roemer, A.; Naimi, T. and Chikritzhs, T. (2016) Do ‘moderate’ drinkers have reduced mortality risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality J. Stud. Alc. Drugs 77(2):185-198.

Szymanska, K.; Hung, R.J.; Wunsch-Filho, V.; Eluf-Neto, J.; Curado, M.P.; Koifman, S.; Matos, E.; Menezes, A.; Fernandez, L.; Daudt, A.W.; Boffetta, P. and Brennan, P. (2011) Alcohol and tobacco, and the risk of cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract in Latin America: a case–control study. Cancer Causes Control 22(7):1037-1046.

Tresserra-Rimbau, A.; Guasch-Ferre, M.; SalasSalvado, J.; Toledo, E.; Corella, D.; Castaner, O.; Guo, X.; Gomez-Gracia, E.; Lapetra, J.; Aros, F.; Fiol, M.; Ros, E.; Serra-Majem, L.; Pinto, X.; Fito, M.; Babio, N.; Martines-Gonzales, M.A.; Sorli, J.V.; Lopez-Sabater, M.C.; Estruch, R.; Lamuela-Raventos, R.; on behalf of the PREDIMED study investigators (2016) Intake of total polyphenols and some classes of polyphenols is inversely associated with diabetes in elderly people at high cardiovascular disease risk. J. Nutr. doi:10.3945/ jn.115.223610.

Tresserra-Rimbau, A.; Medina-Remon, A.; Lamuela-Raventos, R.M.; Bullo, M.; Salas-Salvado, J.; Corella, D.; Fito, M.; Gea, A.; Gomez-Gracia, E.; Lapetra, J.; Arós, F.; Fiol, M.; Ros, E.; Serra-Majem, L.; Pintó, X.; Muñoz, M.A.; Estruch, R.; PREDIMED study investigators (2015) Moderate red wine consumption is associated with a lower prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in the PREDIMED population.

Brit. J. Nutr. 113 Suppl 2:S121-130.

Tresserra-Rimbau, A.; Medina-Remon, A.; PerezJimenez, J.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Covas, M.I.; Corella, D.; Salas-Salvado, J.; Gomez-Gracia, E.; Lapetra, J.; Aros, F.; Fiol, M.; Ros, E.; Serra-Majem, L.; Pintó, X.; Muñoz, M.A.; Saez, G.T.; Ruiz-Gutiérrez, V.; Warnberg, J.; Estruch, R.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.M. (2013) Dietary intake and major food sources of polyphenols in a Spanish population at high cardiovascular risk: the PREDIMED study. Nutr.

Metabol. Cardiovasc. Dis. 23(10):953-959.

Xu, W.; Wang, H.; Wan, Y.; Tan, C.; Li, J.; Tan, L. and Yu, J.T. (2017) Alcohol consumption and dementia risk: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective WVJ studies. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 32(1):31-42.

V32N3

VINEYARD TECHNOLOGY

V I T I NC EU W LT SU R E

Real time detection of extreme weather events in vineyards

By Anthony Finn, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095. Email: Anthony.Finn@unisa.edu.au

University of South Australia researchers are investigating whether unmanned aerial vehicles could be used to provide accurate, immediate and cost-effective snapshots of micro-climate in or above vineyards.

I

t is well-known that variability in vineyard micro-climate produces variability in grape quality and production. Its effects, which include vine and fruit damage, are also influenced by topography, variety and phenology, and there is a particularly strong relationship between grapevine yield, wine quality and extreme weather. Moreover, while the impact of extreme weather on vines and fruit is well-known and the synoptic conditions that lead up to such occurrences are easily recognised (forecasters are seldom surprised), the duration of events, exactly where and when frost or hot spots occur within vineyards, and what their impact is on individual plants are all much harder to predict and monitor.

This is largely because, at present, weather forecasts must rely upon a few point source measurements and projections updated from synoptic and mesoscale models that themselves rely upon data several hours old and often taken tens of kilometres from the grapegrowing regions. Regional meteorology and how it changes can be used as a guide to the likelihood of extreme weather in some locations and then used to inform growers when to start their protection systems. However, detailed knowledge of micro-scale meteorology such as inversion layer heights or locations of hot wind eddies within vineyards is simply not known. Growers are therefore unable to accurately monitor or predict— and act upon—the effects of extreme weather, except in the most general terms.

Inevitably, this imposes a cost-overhead.

What is needed is near real time information on vine and fruit temperatures at the vineyard micro-scale. This would enable surgical examination of—and response to—both frost and heat events and lead to improved grape quality and quantity.

V3 2N 3

There are a few ways we might achieve this. For example, we could deploy many thousands of sensors.

Unfortunately, aside from the technological challenges relating to power and communications (to say nothing of the ground-based limitations of any such measurements), there

…weather forecasts must rely upon a few point source measurements and projections updated from synoptic and mesoscale models that themselves rely upon data several hours old and often taken tens of kilometres from the grapegrowing regions.

is also an issue of cost: acquiring and maintaining so many sensors would likely prove very expensive. An alternative strategy to deploying many sensors is to use only a few and move them around the vineyard quickly enough to make any data gathered useful.

Unfortunately, this approach comes with combined challenges of propelling and navigating any platforms carrying the sensors around at speed, without colliding with each other, damaging the vines, or getting stuck in the mud or tangled in the vines.

At the University of South Australia

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

we are working on a rather different approach; one that not only remotely senses the temperatures of the soil, vines, fruit, buds, etc. but also the temperature and movement of air around the vineyards. Moreover, as this technology monitors wind speed and direction, information regarding possible distribution of pests and diseases that may have exploited weather-damaged fruit should also be available; and the airflow and heat distribution generated by frost fans can also be accurately measured in 3D and as a function of topography for the first time.

The concept is based on the computed tomography (CT) scanning and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques doctors use to examine a patient’s internal organs. Instead of using magnetic fields and radio waves, however, we use cameras and the natural sound emitted by an unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV (also known as a ‘drone’), as it flies around a vineyard; and rather than looking at bits of human, we look at bits of vineyard and atmosphere.

The technique works roughly like this.

A UAV is equipped with a high resolution camera that detects light in the visible spectrum, a thermal camera that detects radiation in the long wave infrared (IR) band, a microphone and a sophisticated data acquisition system synchronised to the clocks of the Global Positioning System (GPS). The sound generated by the drone as it flies is synchronously recorded both onboard the aircraft and by an array of microphones in the vineyard, which also have their data acquisition systems synchronised to the GPS clocks. The predicted and observed sounds are processed and compared with one another to determine the sound speeds, and hence propagation delays, for the acoustic signals penetrating the ▶ intervening atmosphere.

www.winetitles. com . au

31

V I T INCEUWL ST U R E

VINEYARD TECHNOLOGY

Figure 1. A conceptual depiction of drone-based acoustic atmospheric tomography.

Each coloured segment represents a section of atmosphere containing different atmospheric properties (temperature, wind speed/direction). These segments are each ‘probed’ by the sound of the drone as it overflies the vineyard. The ground microphones are placed just above the vines.

Figure 2. 2D temperature and wind profile showing development of a ‘thermal’.

Temperature is colour-coded in accordance with the scale on the right and wind direction is depicted as streamlines. Wind speed is not shown but is around 1m/s.

32

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

As the drone overflies the vineyard, rays propagating through the atmosphere intersect one another (Figure 1).

Tomography—the technique used by CT and MRI scanners—is then used to transform the sound speed information into 3D profiles of temperature and wind velocity. The results enable us to visualise volumes of atmosphere at unprecedented levels of resolution (a few metres) and accuracies (0.2°C and 0.3m/s) that compare favourably to more expensive traditional meteorological instruments like LIDAR and SODAR. The technique has been shown to be effective up to altitudes in excess of 1km.

Figure 2 shows a sequence of 2D temperature and wind profiles observed using an Aerosonde UAV for a cross-section of atmosphere above a 600m microphone array (the Aerosonde has demonstrated an endurance of almost 40 hours and was the first UAV to fly across the Atlantic).

Although the temperatures shown in Figure 2 would not have been damaging to fruit or vines, the sequence provides an indication of the type of information available.

The sequence of images is chronologically ordered (a) – (f) and shows the development of a thermal: a column of rising warm air that causes a disruption to local wind flow patterns. Thermals are caused by the uneven heating of the earth’s surface and often manifest as dust devils or hotspots. In the images temperature is colour-coded in accordance with the scale on the right and wind direction is shown as a series of streamlines. Wind speed is not shown but is approximately 1m/s.

The upper limit of the vertical axis (height) shows the altitude at which the drone overflew the microphones. As this was intentionally varied during the experiment, the limits vary a little.

Furthermore, while the high resolution ‘snap shots’ shown in each of the images in Figure 2 were taken about five minutes apart, during the experiment a much more complete set of images were observed at intervals of only 100 seconds (there are simply too many to show). This combination of high spatial resolution and rapid update rate allows the atmospheric dynamics to be visualised at the microscale as a time-lapse movie. The vineyard research program will generate similar information, except that the information will be available in 3D enabling examination of the atmosphere through any selected horizontal or vertical slice of the observed ▶ volume.

V32N3

N E W S

MILES AHEAD

THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

Over 25 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

V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

33

V I T INCEUWL ST U R E

VINEYARD TECHNOLOGY

This atmospheric data is then combined with images obtained from a miniaturised high resolution thermal camera, also carried by the drone on a stabilised gimbal.

Thermography, which has a long history and is (for instance) used by firemen to identify people through smoke or the source of a fire, is then used to provide accurate temperature measurements of the ground, vines, leaves, fruit, buds, etc. The technique exploits the principle that objects emit, transmit and reflect an amount of thermal radiation related to their temperature and specific spectral properties. These irradiance estimates of temperature are also related to several in situ measurements observed by ground-based temperature sensors that communicate back to a control station.

This allows the thermographic estimates to be suitably referenced and continually re-calibrated.

The relevant spectral properties of the various vineyard objects within the field of view of the thermal camera are determined by automatically identifying them using a high resolution camera capable of observing light in the visible part of the spectrum and a miniaturised

LIDAR (light detection and ranging sensor), both of which are co-located with the IR camera onboard the drone. A LIDAR uses a sequence of laser beams to illuminate its surroundings and provide distance measurements from the drone to the first objects in the path of each beam. As the drone moves individual images taken by the various cameras and the 3D point cloud of laser reflections obtained from the LIDAR are fused into 3D maps of the vineyard and combined with the atmospheric information. This â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;cubeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of data (air temperatures, wind velocities, vine/fruit temperatures) can then be made available to growers.

The goal is to combine the information in the data cube, so that the equations governing the complex elements of heat transfer within vineyards can be computed much more accurately. Results can then be disseminated to growers so they can tailor their protection strategies against extreme weather much more effectively, thereby reducing vine and fruit injury levels.

For example, more precise knowledge of the locations, temperatures and impending impact of extreme weather events at the micro-scale within a vineyard should permit

more efficient use of sprinklers, wind machines, etc.

Project risk is mitigated by phasing the activities as a function of technological sophistication. Year one aims to demonstrate feasibility, gather representative data sets and develop and evaluate the signal processing algorithms.

In year two the algorithms will be refined and real-time processing introduced. Year three should see introduction of near real time dissemination of the fused data cube.

Initially, the focus will be on observing a small (25-acre) vineyard. Eventually, the goal is for instrumentation of larger (250acre) vineyards.

This research is being undertaken by the University of South Australia in conjunction with Barton Vale Technologies, Textron Systems, Bureau of Meteorology, US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, South Australian Research and Development Institute and winemakers Pernod Ricard and Treasury Wine Estates. We are also grateful to the Australian Research Council and the Sir Ross and Sir Keith Smith Fund for their support to preceding and related research WVJ projects.

2017 SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WINE GRAPE GROWERS SUMMIT FRIDAY 28 JULY - Barossa Arts & Convention Centre SA GRAPEGROWERS LEAD THE WAY The 2017 South Australian Wine Grape Growers Summit will focus on helping SA grape growers maintain their position as leaders in the Australian grape growing industry.

Speakers will provide the latest information on export wine market conditions, understanding profit drivers, succession planning and business structures. The program will also look at the future of the South Australian grape growing industry.

Visit www.sawggs.com.au to register

proudly supported by

34

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

NEW F E 811 & LCO 811B

FELCO Model Typical use

801 Vineyards

Cutting capacity Handpiece weight

30mm 745g

811 Vineyards with older vines 35mm 815g

811B Mixed use including larger branches 35mm 815g

820 Orchards/ larger trees 45mm 980g

U LL TT U U RR EE VV II TT II CC U

VINEYARD TECHNOLOGY

Advances in smoke contamination detection systems for grapevine canopies and berries

By Sigfredo Fuentes and Eden Tongson, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Building 780 Ground Floor, Parkville 3010, Victoria, Australia.

There are currently no practical tools that can determine which vines or vineyard sections have been affected by smoke contamination after a bushfire. A South Australian-based trial has demonstrated the potential for development of canopy and fruit based tools that growers could use to measure smoke contamination and smoke-related compounds in berries and final wine in real time.

INTRODUCTION Bushfires have affected major wine growing regions in Australia and other countries. The latest report from the Climate Council predicted a broader window for bushfires in Victoria from October to March. Furthermore, bushfires will increase in frequency and severity1.

The direct effect of bushfires in viticulture and wine production is the production of smoke taint in wines, similar to smoke-related compounds formed in grapes (guaiacol glycocongugates). The accumulation of these compounds produces undesirable aromas and flavours in wine due to smoke-related compounds, such as guaiacol, 4-methyl-guaiacol and cresols.

Higher concentrations of guaiacol glycocongugate compounds are found in skins compared with pulp and seeds which are passed to the wine in the fermentation/winemaking process.

The most sensitive period for smoke contamination of berries is during veraison, which is within the window predicted to experience more frequent and severe bushfires in Victoria and around the world.

At present, there are no practical tools to determine which plants or vineyard sections have been affected by smoke contamination after a bushfire.

Growers harvest fruit and produce wine as usual, detecting spoilage after winemaking, without a chance to minimise smoke taint through application of researched practices, such as defoliation, fruit washing using water sprayers or differential harvest of contaminated and non-contaminated fruit.

36

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

Figure 1. Structures and materials for grapevine smoking treatments: the metallic tent structure (left top), covered by plastic (left bottom) and straw-based smoke pushed inside the tent using an electric fan (right), the Waite campus, The University of Adelaide, season 2009-10.

A trial to investigate the physiological effects of smoke contamination in four grapevine cultivars was established at a commercial vineyard in South Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Adelaide Hills and at a research vineyard at the Waite campus of The University of Adelaide in the 2009-10 season. This trial was established through an ARClinkage project lead by Professor Kerry Wilkinson, Dr Sigfredo Fuentes, Dr Roberta De Bei and Professor Stephen Tyerman.

Physiological data was measured after artificially smoking vines of different cultivars using custom-made tents (Figure 1). Measurements included leaf conductance (gL), infrared thermography imaging (IRTI) and index (IG)2,3. Chemical analysis of the levels of smoke-related compounds from berries and resulting wine was also performed.

Results from the canopy level measurements showed that the changes in the pattern of gL within the canopies

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

due to smoke contamination can be recognised using IRTI and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN). Furthermore, smoke-related compounds in berries and wine can be modelled using machine learning algorithms based on noninvasive near infrared spectroscopy (NIR) in berries. This system could allow the potential development of canopy and fruit based tools for smoke contamination assessment that can be available to grapegrowers. It is also possible to extrapolate these modelling techniques to assess smoke contamination using IRTI and multispectral cameras as payload for an unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). The latter experiments and modelling will be carried out in the Waite campus vineyard during the 2017-18 season for different white and red grapevine cultivars thanks to funding from the Melbourne Networked Society Institute (MNSI) of The University of Melbourne. With this information,

V32N3

VINEYARD TECHNOLOGY

growers can perform differential harvests from non-affected areas to produce wines without smoke taint and avoid spoiling the whole production.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Experimental sites and cultivars used The trial was conducted during the 2009-10 season and involved the application of smoke to four different grapevine cultivars in two locations (in triplicate, with three central vines monitored per nine vines for each replicate per cultivar): i) Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc vines growing in a commercial vineyard located in the Adelaide Hills region of South Australia (35° 000 S, 138° 490 E); ii) Shiraz and Merlot vines growing in a vineyard located at the University of Adelaide’s Waite campus in Adelaide, South Australia (34° 580 S, 138° 380 E).

All cultivars were exposed to strawderived smoke for one hour (Figure 1) at approximately seven days postveraison, under experimental conditions described previously4-6.

Physiological measurements Leaf conductance to water vapour (taken as averaged stomatal conductance, gL) was measured using a porometer (AP4, Delta-T Devices, Cambridge, UK). Measurements were performed on two mature, fullyexpanded, sunlit leaves for each of the three vines per replicate per treatment per variety at the top, medium and bottom canopy sections (i.e., n = 18).

Measurements were performed at midday (i.e., between 11.30am and 2.30pm, solar time) within one hour after smoke exposure and then again after 1, 2, 3, 7, 11 and 18 days, to study physiological recovery. Infrared thermal images (IRTI) were acquired from grapevine canopies in parallel to gL measurements using an infrared camera FLIR T-series (Model B360) (FLIR Systems, Portland USA), with a resolution of 320 x 240 pixels. The camera measures temperature in the range of -20-1200°C. The thermal sensitivity of the camera is 0.08°C at 30°C/80mK with a spatial resolution of 1.36 milliradians. Each pixel was

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

considered an effective temperature reading in degrees Celsius (°C). Infrared Images and Tdry, Twet, Tcanopy were obtained using protocols described in Fuentes et al. (2012) to calculate the infrared index (IG), which is proportional to gL. The IG index was calculated using the following relationship:

IG =

T dry - Tc Tc - Twet

Berry NIR measurements Diffuse reflectance spectra were acquired from both full berries and halved berries (total n = 224) from seven cultivars from both trial sites described before (Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Pinot Gris and Sauvignon Blanc). The diffuse reflectance spectra of berries were recorded using a purpose-built contact probe attached by fibre optic cable to a spectrophotometer (ASD FieldSpec® 3, Analytical Spectral Devices, Boulder,

Yalumba Nursery, established in 1975, is Australia’s most reliable source of quality grafted vines. Specialising in high quality clones, site specific rootstocks and emerging varieties.

360 Research Road, Nuriootpa, SA 5355, Australia PO Box 10, Angaston, SA 5353, Australia T: +61 8 8568 7700 | M: 0411 487 495 E: ndry@yalumba.com

V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

37

U LL TT U U RR EE VV II TT II CC U

VINEYARD TECHNOLOGY

Colorado, USA). The instrument records spectra with a resolution of 1.4nm for the region 350â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1000nm and 2nm. The instrument was used in reflectance mode. A reference tile (SpectralonÂŽ, Analytical Spectral Devices, Boulder, Colorado, USA) was used as a white reference for scatter correction. Grapes and wine chemical analysis and microvinifications are described in detail in Ristic et al. (2016).

Artificial Neural Network models Customised codes written in The Matlab and Neural Network ToolboxTM 7 (Mathworks Inc., Matick, MA. USA) were used to train a pattern recognition neural network model to assess smokeaffected grapevines according to the infrared thermal changes (IG) that are associated to gL. The ANN is capable of finding patterns in an inductive way through algorithms based on the preexisting data (Baele et al. 2010). The ANN used in this study was a standard two-layer feedforward network, with a sigmoid transfer function in the hidden layer while a linear transfer function in the output layer structure was conformed using as inputs the variability of IG from top, medium and bottom parts of canopies obtained automatically from IRTI analysis. The targets were basically two categorical classifications: smoked and non-smoked, which can be referred to as control treatment.

The selected number of neurons in the hidden layer was three neurons as depicted in Figure 2a. Furthermore, an ANN fitting algorithm was used to fit the transformed NIR spectra using the second derivative from 1100nm to 1850nm (Figure 2b).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION As expected, there was a positive and linear correlation between gL and IG measurements obtained from the top, middle and bottom sections of nonsmoked canopies (R2 = 0.85)2. However, this relationship is not found in data obtained from smoked canopies (R2 = 0.08)7. When applying ANN for pattern recognition using all the IRTIs calculated IG for top, middle and bottom parts of canopies as inputs per cultivars and smoke and non-smoked as targets per cultivar, high accuracy models were obtained for Chardonnay, Merlot and

38

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

A A

B B

Figure 2. (A) Artificial Neural Network (ANN) diagrams for pattern recognition using three hidden neurons infrared thermal images and temperature variability calculated as IG as inputs and smoke and non-smoke grapevines as targets.

The outputs for the models are smoked and non-smoked canopies. A twolayer feedforward network with sigmoid hidden and output neurons for pattern recognition was used. (B) Diagram showing the ANN regression model created using three neurons, the absorbance values from the NIR wavelength range (11001850nm) as inputs (n = 401) and the three components combined (concentrations of guaiacol, 4-methyl-guaiacol and cresols) as targets. The ANN diagram for guaiacol glycocongugates would be the same, but with only one output layer.

Table 1. Artificial Neural Network model outputs as accuracy (%) for pattern recognition between smoked and non-smoked canopies for different cultivars.

Cultivar

Training

Validation

Test

Model

Chardonnay

92.3

100

80.0

91.7

Sauvignon Blanc

60.9

40.0

60.0

57.6

Merlot

88.5

100

80.0

89.9

Shiraz

87.0

100

80.0

87.9

Shiraz, but not for Sauvignon Blanc (Table 1).

The ANN models developed per cultivar (considering model training with 75% of data, validation with 15% of data and test with 15% of data randomly selected) rendered the best and worst models for smoke detection with 91.7 % accuracy for Chardonnay and 57.6 % for Sauvignon Blanc, respectively (Table 1).

The potential effect of smoke on gL is produced by carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) interacting with water vapour from the sub-stomatal cavity (at 100% relative humidity), resulting mainly in the production of carbonic acid (H2CO3). The latter acidifies stomata (drop in pH) resulting in partial stomata closure. However, it is hypothesised that Sauvignon Blanc does not respond physiologically in this

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

manner to smoke contamination due to high pubescence in the abaxial side of leaves, which produces a physical barrier to smoke, increasing resistance of smoke flow to the stomata. This does not mean that there is no smoke contamination for Sauvignon Blanc berries, but it cannot be assessed using IRTI and ANN modelling due to the leaf morphology described.

The ANN models found to estimate smoke-related compounds such as guaiacol glycocongugates (mg L-1) in berries (R = 0.90; concentration range from 0 to 1500mg L-1) and wine, such as guaiacol, 4-methyl-guaiacol and cresols (mg L-1)(R = 0.89; concentration range from 0 to 30mg L-1) rendered high correlations (Table 2). Models developed for halved berries rendered lower correlations R<0.65 (data not shown).

V32N3

VINEYARD TECHNOLOGY

Smoke Contamination Modelling and Mapping

(Figure 3) on top of inspection, irrigation and canopy management practices throughout the season.

CONCLUSION

Diagram: Dr Eden Tongson

And Thermal Infrared

Figure 3. Diagram representing new research using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and remote sensing over vineyards to create smoke contamination models using machine learning algorithms. These models will be created by artificially smoking nine vines inside the smoking tent (Figure 1), replicated three times per cultivar.

The infrared thermal and multispectral data from smoked and non-smoked vines will be used to create the models. UAV flights can also be used for other applications to improve information available for management practices, such as irrigation scheduling, vigour assessment and fertiliser demand, among others.

Table 2. Artificial Neural Network fitting model outputs as correlation coefficient (R) between smoked and non-smoked full berries for different cultivars using transformed NIR (1100-1850nm) with second derivatives as inputs and smokerelated compound concentrations as targets.

Source

Compounds

Training

Validation

Test

Model

Full Berries

Guaiacol glycocongugates

0.97

0.73

0.79

0.90

Wines

Guaiacol/4-methyl-guaiacol/ Cresols

0.99

0.79

0.65

0.89

This is consistent with literature that showed higher concentrations of smokerelated compounds in Merlot were found in the skin, with progressively lower concentrations in pulp and seeds8.

Preliminary results obtained from these studies are very promising for the development of non-destructive, in-field tools that would allow growers to measure either using IRTI for canopies or NIR for berries to assess contamination of smoke and levels of smoke-related compounds in berries and final wine in real time. By having all these measurements georeferenced, 2D maps of contamination can be created using simple kriging interpolation techniques.

V3 2N 3

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

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS Recent funding from the Melbourne Networked Society Institute at The University of Melbourne will make it possible to replicate smoke contamination experiments in the 2017-18 season for several cultivars at the Waite campus experimental site at The University of Adelaide. After smoking vines, an UAV flight will be performed using infrared thermal and multispectral cameras to construct ANN models for pattern recognition from smoked and non-smoked grapevine canopies. This will allow growers to implement UAVs to map the levels of contamination within vineyards

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

Machine learning algorithms and non-destructive measurements of grapevine canopies and berries after bushfires for suspected smoke contamination offer powerful tools for growers to assess levels of contamination and to potentially map affected areas. This information can be used to either manage contamination in the field through defoliation, berry washing or any other management practices. Furthermore, by mapping contaminated grapevines, growers can perform differential harvest to avoid mixing contaminated and noncontaminated fruit for winemaking.

Further advances will be posted in The Vineyard of The Future webpage: www. vineyardofthefuture.wordpress.com REFERENCES 1 Climte Change and the Victoria Bushfire Threat: Update 2017, http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uplo ads/98c26db6af45080a32377f3ef4800102.pdf 2 Fuentes, S.; De Bei, R.; Pech, Jo and Tyerman, S. (2012) Computational water stress indices obtained from thermal image analysis of grapevine canopies. Irrigation Science 30(6):523-536.

3 Fuentes, S.; De Bei, R.; Wilkinson, K.; Ristic, R. and Tyerman, S.D. (2013) Using infrared thermal images to detect smoke contamination for different grapevine cultivars. In: 9th International Symposium on Grapevine Physiology and Biotechnology, M. Pinto, Editor. International Society of Horticultural Science, Chile.

4 Kennison, K.R.; Gibberd, M.R.; Pollnitz, A.P. and Wilkinson, K.L. (2008) Smoke-derived taint in wine: the release of smoke-derived volatile phenols during fermentation of Merlot juice following grapevine exposure to smoke. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56(16):7379-7383.

5 Ristic, R., Osidacz, P.; Pinchbeck, K.A.; Hayasaka, Y.; Fudge, A.L. and Wilkinson, K.L. (2011) The effect of winemaking techniques on the intensity of smoke taint in wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 17(2):S29-S40.

6 Ristic, R.; Fudge, A.L.; Pinchbeck, K.A.; De Bei, R.; Fuentes, S.; Hayasaka, Y.; Tyerman, S.D. and Wilkinson, K (2016) Impact of grapevine exposure to smoke on vine physiology and the composition and sensory properties of wine. Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology 28(1):67-83.

7 Fuentes, S.; De Bei, R.; Ristic, R.; Tyerman, S. and Wilkinson, K. (2016) Development of a detection system for smoke contamination in grapevines after bush fires using infrared thermography and artificial neural network modelling. In: 10th International Symposium on Grapevine Physiology and Biotechnology, Italy.

8 Dungey, K.A.; Hayasaka, Y. and Wilkinson, K.L. (2011) Quantitative analysis of glycoconjugate precursors of guaiacol in smoke-affected grapes using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry based stable isotope dilution analysis.

WVJ Food Chemistry 126(2):801-806.

www.winetitles. com . au

39

U LL TT U U RR EE VV II TT II CC U

VINE

TRIMMING

Influence of trimming Pinot Noir on fruit development and the consequence variability in composition has on wine sensory properties

By Mike Trought1, Benedict Pineau2, Amber Parker1,3, Claire Grose1, Victoria Raw1 and Michelle Beresford2 »

INTRODUCTION The potential effects of variability in fruit composition on wine sensory properties have been widely discussed in recent years, with a general consensus that increased variability will result in poorer wine quality (Barbagallo et al. 2011, Long 1987, Trought 1997).

Differences in grape maturity translate into perceptible differences in wine sensory properties (Cadot et al. 2012, Heymann et al. 2013, Kontoudakis et al. 2011, Pineau et al. 2011), and it is recognised that adding relatively small volumes of wines into a bulk sample during blending can influence sensory properties. While some of the differences in maturity may be due to alcohol concentration, they remain when sugar is added to standardise the alcohol concentration at the start of fermentation (chaptalisation) (Pineau et al. 2011). However, there is little quantitative information on how these differences in fruit composition around a similar average value may influence sensory properties.

Within a vineyard, variation may have many sources, e.g. differences within and between vines in bunch development (Trought et al. 2017), or between vines from factors such as differences in soil type (Trought and Bramley 2011). The rate of ripening of grapes generally slows at lower leaf area:fruit weight ratio (high yields and/or inadequate canopy area).

Non-uniform pruning may result in composition differences at harvest.

However, despite extensive research on the causes of variation, the effects that

»

Medium trim

Tall trim

Short trim

Figure 1. Pinot Noir vine canopy immediately after trimming. Note: laterals were removed from trimming to harvest to maintain a constant treatment leaf area. variability has on sensory properties of wine have seldom been tested.

We conducted experiments over two growing seasons in Marlborough to address the impact of variability in Pinot Noir fruit development as a result of canopy trimming on juice composition, wine composition and wine sensory properties.

METHODS Full details of the field and winery methods can be found elsewhere (Parker et al. 2016, Pineau et al. 2017), but in summary, Pinot Noir vines (cone

777, rootstock 3309C) were managed using a Double Guyôt, vertical shoot positioned training system. Vines were managed to produce fruit of low, moderate and high maturities by trimming canopies shortly after fruitset to 300 (short trim, ST), 600 (medium trim, MT) or 1000mm (tall trim, TT), respectively, above the fruiting wire (Figure 1). Lateral shoots were removed to maintain a consistent canopy area over the season. Regular fruit composition measurements (soluble solids [TSS], titratable acidity [TA] and pH) were undertaken using standard ▶ protocols (Table 1).

The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Ltd, Marlborough Research Centre, Blenheim, PO Box 7240, New Zealand

1

The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand

2

Current address: Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand

3

Correspondence: Mike.Trought@plantandfood.co.nz

40

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

V I N E

TRI M M I N G

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

Table 1. Influence of Pinot Noir grapevine canopy trimming and blending of harvested fruit on must composition at the start of fermentation and the resulting wine (n=3).

Fruit blending treatments2

Trimming treatments1 ST

MT

TT

PreFB1

PreFB2

Wine blending treatments3 PostFB1

PostFB2

2011 vintage Fruit composition Soluble solids concentration (oBrix; TSS)

21.1a

22.5b

23.9c

22.7b

22.4b

pH

3.56

3.56

3.57

3.55

3.57

6.63

6.34

6.14

6.32

6.25

Titratable acidity (g·L tartaric acid equivalent; TA) -1

See pre-FB treatments

Wine composition Alcohol (% ABV)

11.5a

12.6b

13.9c

12.9b

12.6b

12.8b

12.8b

3

Pre-adjustment pH

3.91

3.91

3.93

3.90

3.92

nd

nd

3

Pre-adjustment TA (g·L-1)

5.19a

5.23a

5.60c

5.38b

5.23a

nd

nd

3.54

3.54

3.58

3.52

3.56

3.56

3.57

5.64b

5.65bc

5.73c

5.66c

5.57b

5.48a

5.47a

Post-adjustment pH Post-adjustment TA (g·L ) -1

2012 vintage Fruit composition TSS (oBrix)

21.7a

22.1a

23.2b

21.9a

22.4a

pH

3.60b

3.53ab

3.53ab

3.50a

3.54ab

6.71abc

6.91bc

6.66ab

6.95c

6.51a

9.5a

11.1b

11.9c

11.1a

11.3bc

11.1b

10.9b

3.80

3.74

3.73

3.73

3.78

nd

nd

TA (g·L-1 tartaric acid)

See pre-FB treatments

Wine composition Alcohol (% ABV) 3

Pre-adjustment pH

3

Pre-adjustment TA (g·L )

6.34ab

6.29a

6.61c

6.49bc

6.18a

nd

nd

Post-adjustment pH

3.72b

3.65a

3.64a

3.64a

3.69ab

3.63a

3.65a

Post-adjustment TA (g·L-1)

6.53b

6.70bc

7.00d

6.76c

6.52a

6.36ab

6.23a

-1

Grapevine canopies trimmed shortly after fruitset to 30 (ST), 60 (MT) and 100 (TT) cm above the fruiting wire Blends of fruit from the different trimming treatments either pre-fermentation (PreFB) or post-fermentation (postFE): FB1 = 10:80:10 and FB2 = 30:40:30 from the ST, MT and TT grapevines respectively. Values were separated using Fisher’s unprotected LSD (α = 0.05) where values with different superscript letters are statistically different from one another between treatments.

ABV = Alcohol by Volume; GAE = Gallic acid equivalent; M-3-G = Malvadin-3- glucoside; nd= not determined.

3 pH and TA values at the end of malolactic fermentation. Acidity adjustments, to facilitate sensory evaluation, were made by the addition of tartaric acid to wines post-fermentation.

1 2

W H E R E C U T T I N G E D G E M E E T S S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y • S AV E P R O D U C T I O N C O S T S B Y M U LT I -TA S K I N G

MEET THE NEW FISCHER GTL1 & GTL2 MULTI-TOOL SUPPORT FRAME

Watch it on

GREEN QUALITY INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS

Supporting Fischer HDT-400 & 600 Mower Heads, Fischer FKT-420 Cultivator and Fischer TWISTER L1 & L2

FKT-420 BRATI

lis

ch

G

10 YEARS

N

V3 2N 3

LE

s of Fi

• Undervine management at its best.

• Fischer HDT + FKT featuring our acclaimed hydraulic fine-sensor technology.

• Undervine mowing, cultivating & bio-brush weeding.

• For weed control, mechanical de-suckering and to control spring snail population.

• Available with state-of-the-art hydraulic supply and operating systems.

• Front and rear mountable.

• Proven rugged and built to last.

ra

TWISTER L1 & L2

CE

HDT-400 & 600

er Aust

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

contact us at fischeraustralis.com.au Use code fischer10 for our anniversary discount. www.winetitles. com . au

41

U LL TT U U RR EE VV II TT II CC U

VINE

TRIMMING

At harvest, two bunches from a randomly selected shoot on each plot were harvested for berry density segregation using a range of sucrose solutions from 16 to 20oBrix; the remaining fruit was used for winemaking.

Experimental wines were made in triplicate in each vintage (refer to Pineau et al. 2017 for details).

Three ‘homogeneous’ wines were produced from the trim treatments.

Two additional ‘heterogeneous’ wines (PreFB1 and PreFB2) were made from fruit blends of the above-mentioned populations at ratios of 10:80:10 and 30:40:30 fruit of low, moderate and high maturities, respectively. A further two wines (PostFB1 and PostFB2) were created through post-fermentation blending of the wines produced from the trim treatments using the same proportions as above. Descriptive sensory analysis of the wines in each vintage was performed by panels of wine industry professionals within two months of bottling. Wines (30mL samples) were randomly presented to panellists in black XL glasses and evaluated for eight flavour, three taste and three mouthfeel attributes (Table 2). Typicality was also assessed by asking, ‘Imagine you are explaining to a friend what a Marlborough Pinot Noir is like. From your experience, do you think this is a good or poor example of a ‘Marlborough-style’ Pinot Noir wine?’

(Refer to Pineau et al. 2017 for details).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Reduced canopy size delayed the date of veraison (8oBrix), slowed the rate of TSS accumulation, and increased the time taken for fruit to reach 20oBrix by up to 15 days in both seasons (2012 data not given) (Figure 2). In contrast, TA and pH were little affected (Figure 2).

In addition to reducing TSS, trimming increased the variability in fruit, as indicated by a greater distribution in soluble solids (Figure 3). When fruit was blended, TSS were similar to the midtrim treatment (Table 1).

Statistically significant and consistent differences were observed in the sensory profiles of the 2011 and 2012 wines (Table 2). Each year, a significant effect of fruit populations and blend modalities was established

42

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

Table 2. Results from analysis of variance of sensory attribute mean scores obtained by the seven Pinot Noir wines corresponding to different berry populations/blend modalities.

Pre-ferment blend1

Trimming

Post-ferment blend1

2011 vintage Sensory attribute Red berry Dark berry Candied cherries/ jammy Herbaceous/ vegetal/ rhubarb Woody/stalks Spicy

ST

MT

TT

PreFB1

PreFB2

PostFB1

PostFB2

62.3

57.6

57.1

56.6

60.7

59.1

56.3

57.6 ab

57.5 ab

57.7 ab

60.3 a

46.1

46.5

46.3

49.3

44.3 ab

50.9 ab

40.9 b

47.3

49.0

51.1

47.7

50.8 ab

50.5 ab

53.2 ab

48.5 b

48.1 b 56.1 ab 63.3 a 43.5

44.3

49.8

51.3 a 47.4 ab 49.7 ab 45.1 ab 49.0

46.4

50.5

46.4 b 50.7 ab 57.8 a

Earthy/fresh mushroom

36.3

39.6

44.3

41.3

41.8

42.7

39.4

Acid

52.9

52.4

51.4

51.3

52.6

52.9

52.5

Sweet

38.3

34.5

37.4

38.7

39.0

39.1

37.4

Bitter

29.9

37.0

35.8

36.4

36.2

36.8

34.6

Astringent

38.5 b 45.1 ab 50.1 a

48.5 ab

44.0 ab

46.7 ab

47.1 ab

Mid palate fruit weight/flesh

39.0 b

50.4 a

54.9 a

49.1 a

51.3 a

49.5 a

51.2 a

Body/viscosity

36.2 b

49.0 a

54.6 a

46.3 a

48.5 a

47.4 a

50.1 a

2012 vintage Sensory attribute Red berry Dark berry

ST

MT

TT

PreFB1

PreFB2

PostFB1

PostFB2

45.4

46.7

50.9

50.3

51.5

48.3

48.3

53.5 ab

52.9 ab

53.4 ab

46.3 b

46.7 ab 52.4 ab 56.9 a

Candied cherries/ jammy

31.1

31.2

29.8

34.5

28.6

32.0

31.4

Herbaceous/ vegetal/rhubarb

44.6

38.4

36.3

33.7

36.3

39.8

39.5

Woody/stalks

41.5

37.3

39.8

33.7

38.4

39.1

39.0

41.4 a

45.4 a

42.7 a

39.2 ab

Spicy

31.8 b

43.0 a 41.0 ab

Earthy/fresh mushroom

39.0

34.2

31.6

31.8

35.3

31.3

34.4

Acid

49.2

46.1

49.6

50.0

44.7

50.5

47.6

Sweet

28.3

29.6

28.7

28.5

29.9

29.5

26.6

Bitter

20.4

24.4

23.5

22.6

20.7

27.7

25.4

Astringent

32.4 ab 34.4 ab 40.5 a

32.7 ab

31.8 b

38.0 ab

35.9 ab

Mid palate fruit weight/flesh

36.3 b

47.7 a

46.4 a

40.8 ab

49.8 a

46.5 a

43.2 ab

Body/viscosity

34.3 b

45.8 a

44.8 a

40.2 ab

47.7 a

43.4 ab

42.2 ab

Blends of fruit from the different trimming treatments either pre-fermentation (PreFB) or postfermentation (postFE): FB1 = 10:80:10 and FB2 = 30:40:30 from the short trim (ST), mid trim (MT) and tall trim (TT) grapevines respectively. Intensities were measured on a scale anchored at 0=absent/poor and 100=extreme/very good. The 2011 and 2012 data were analysed separately. All pair-wise comparisons were adjusted for multiple testing using Fisher’s protected LSD (α=0.05). Within each vintage and attribute, means followed by the same letter in the same row are not significantly different from one another. Attributes with significant differences are marked in bold.

1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

V I N E

Figure 2. Influence of canopy trimming of Pinot Noir in 2011 on soluble solids content (TSS) and titratable acidity (TA). (INSERT: ‘red dot’, ‘blue dot’ and ‘black dot’ to correspond with graph): short, medium and tall trim TSS; (INSERT: ‘red triangle’, ‘blue triangle’ and ‘black triangle’ to correspond with graph): short, medium and tall trim TA. The red lines indicate the TA when fruit were harvested at 20oBrix, the blue line the date of veraison (8oBrix). for all the mouthfeel attributes (i.e., astringent, mid-palate fruit weight/ flesh, and body/viscosity), as well as for two of the flavour attributes: i.e., dark berry and spicy. Herbaceous/vegetal/ rhubarb flavour intensities also varied significantly across the 2011 wines.

In contrast, the fruit populations and blend modalities affected neither the taste properties of the wines (i.e., acid, sweet, and bitter) nor their red berry, candied cherries/jammy, woody/stalks, and earthy/fresh mushroom flavour intensities.

Perception of the mouthfeel attributes were generally greater with increased trim height (Table 2).

Likewise, the perceived intensities of dark berry and spicy flavours also increased, while the perceived intensity of herbaceous/vegetal/rhubarb flavour

V3 2N 3

TRI M M I N G

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

Figure 3. Influence of trimming on Pinot Noir berry soluble solids distribution in 2011.

decreased, although not significantly so in 2012. Pre- and post-ferment blending appeared to result in wines of similar mouthfeel and flavour, closer to those of the MT and/or TT treatment wines than to those of the ST treatment wine.

To further illustrate the patterns of sensory variation among the wines in each vintage, principal components analysis (PCA) was used. The twodimensional solutions obtained accounted for approximately 96 percent and 81 percent of the total variance in the 2011 and 2012 data, respectively, and the relative positioning of the wines in the 2D spaces are shown in Figure 4 (see page 44). In both years, the ST treatment wine was isolated on the negative side of PC1, illustrating its significantly lower astringency and lighter mid-palate fruit weight and

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

body compared with those of the other wines. In 2011, the TT treatment wine had the highest positive loading on PC1, illustrating its high mid-palate fruit weight, body, astringency and intense dark berry and spicy flavour characters.

The other five wines were clustered around the origin on PC1, meaning that they had sensory properties intermediate to those exhibited by the ST and TT treatment wines.

However, in 2012 the TT treatment wine was not separated from the other wines. Instead, it shared with the MT, PreFB2, and PostFB1 treatment wines the highest relative positioning on PC1, reflecting that all four wines had similarly high scores for all the attributes loaded positively on PC1 (Figure 4). The remaining two wines, PreFB1 and PostFB2, were located

www.winetitles. com . au

43

1.0

U LL TT U U RR EE VV II TT II CC U

VINE

TRIMMING

(a)

(b)

Mid trim

0.0

Body/viscosity Dark berry

PreFB 1 PreFB 2

-1.0

-2.0

Mid palate fruit weight

0.0

Astringent Bitter

-4.0

-2.0

2.0 0.0

Short trim

2.0

4.0

Post.FB 1 Tall Post.FB 2 trim Mid trim

PreFB 1

2.0

Body/viscosity

PC2 21.63%)

Mid palate fruit weight

Dark berry Spicy

0.0

PC1 (76.24%)

(d)

Herbaceous/ vegetal/ rhubarb

0.0

PostFB 2

-6.0

1.0

PC1 (76.24%)

(c)

PC2 (21.63%)

1.0

-1.0

Tall trim

PostFB 1

Short trim

PC2 (20.34%)

Astringent

0.0

PC2 (20.34%)

Herbaceous/ vegetal/ rhubarb

2.0

Spicy

-1.0

PreFB 2

-1.0

0.0

PC1 (58.99%)

1.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

PC1 (58.99%)

2.0

4.0

Figure 4. Principal components analyses of the correlation matrix of the sensory attributes pertaining to differences among the seven 2011 (a and b) and 2012 (c and d) Pinot Noir wines resulting from different fruit populations/blend modalities: a and c: Variable factor maps showing the loading of the significantly varied sensory attributes; b and d: Wine factor maps showing the relative positioning of the seven wines in the two-dimensional space. Blends of fruit harvested from the different trimming treatments: PreFB1 = 10:80:10 and PreFB2 = 30:40:30 fruit from the ST, MT and TT grapevines, respectively. Wine blending treatments: Wines from the blended post-fermentation; PostFB1 = 10:80:10 and PostFB2 = 30:40:30 ST, MT and TT wines, respectively.

close to the origin on PC1, illustrating their intermediate sensory properties.

Mean typicality scores showed a nonsignificant trend for the ST treatment wine to be perceived as a less typical ‘Marlborough Pinot Noir’ than the TT treatment wine in 2011. In 2012, the ST treatment wine was judged to be a significantly less typical ‘Marlborough Pinot Noir’ than the MT, TT, and the two wines resulting from pre-fermentation fruit blends (i.e., PreFB1 and PreFB2 wines), with the post-ferment blended wines (i.e., PostFB1 and PostFB2 treatment wines) receiving intermediate typicality scores (data not shown).

44

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

CONCLUSION Wines from moderate and high fruit maturities as a result of canopy trimming had similar sensory properties, complexity and typicality as ‘Marlborough Pinot Noir’ in both 2011 and 2012. Compared against those benchmarks, low fruit maturity generated from short trimmed vines resulted in reduced fruity, spicy, full-bodied, and more green/vegetal characters, and overall less complex wines. We conclude that low fruit maturity at harvest predominantly affects the organoleptic properties of

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

Marlborough Pinot Noir when assessed using rigorous sensory analysis protocols.

This study also provided evidence that Pinot Noir wines blended from fruit with a heterogeneous range of compositions did not differ from wines from a homogeneous sample of the same mean soluble solids content.

Indeed, the four wines corresponding to fruit populations of heterogeneous maturities, either through prefermentation fruit blends or postfermentation wine blends, had similar sensory properties, overall complexity and typicality. This suggests that Pinot

V32N3

V I N E

Noir wines made using fruit with a wide range of maturities do not have clearly different sensory properties from those made with fruit with a narrow range of maturities, providing the mean soluble solids content is similar.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is part of the PFR Grape and Wine Research program, funded by the MBIE Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF), delivered by PFR in consultation with New Zealand Winegrowers. Funding was provided by the New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology (C06X0707). We appreciate the support of Richard Rose for the use of his vineyard in the trial, the help of our colleagues with field, winery and laboratory work, and that of the industry people who undertook the sensory analysis of the wines. The research was originally published in full in Vitis (Parker et al. 2016; Pineau et al.

2017).

TRI M M I N G

REFERENCES Barbagallo, M.G.; Guidoni, S. and Hunter, J.J. (2011) Berry size and qualitative characteristics of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Syrah. South African Journal for Enology and Viticulture 32(1):129-136.

Cadot, Y.; Caillé, S.; Samson, A.; Barbeau, G. and Cheynier, V. (2012) Sensory representation of typicality of Cabernet Franc wines related to phenolic composition: Impact of ripening stage and maceration time. Analytica Chimica Acta 732:91-99.

Heymann, H.; LiCalzi, M.; Conversano, M.R.; Bauer, A.; Skogerson, K. and Matthews, M. (2013) Effects of extended grape ripening with or without must and wine alcohol manipulations on Cabernet Sauvignon wine sensory characteristics.

South African Journal for Enology and Viticulture 34(1):86-99.

Kontoudakis, N.; Esteruelas, M.; Fort, F.; Canals, J.M. and Zamora, F. (2011) Use of unripe grapes harvested during cluster thinning as a method for reducing alcohol content and pH of wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 17(2):230-238.

Long, Z.R. (1987) Manipulation of grape flavour in the vineyard: California, North Coast region.

In: Lee, T.H. ed. Sixth Australian Wine Industry Conference, Adelaide. 82-88.

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

trimming and maturity variability within fruit population on the sensory properties of Pinot Noir wine. Vitis 56:1-10.

Pineau, B.; Trought, M.C.T.; Stronge, K.; Beresford, M.K.; Wohlers, M.W. and Jaeger, S.R. (2011) Influence of fruit ripeness and juice chaptalisation on the sensory properties and degree of typicality expressed by Sauvignon Blanc wines from Marlborough, New Zealand. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 17(3):358-367.

Trought, M.C.T. (1997) The New Zealand terroir: Sources of variation in fruit composition in New Zealand vineyards. Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on cool climate viticulture and enology, Rochester, New York, USA, 16-20 July 1996.: I-23-I-27.

Trought, M.C.T. and Bramley, R.G.V. (2011) Vineyard variability in Marlborough, New Zealand: characterising spatial and temporal changes in fruit composition and juice quality in the vineyard.

Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 17(1):72-82.

Trought, M.C.T.; Naylor, A.P. and Frampton, C. (2017) The effects of row orientation, trellis type, shoot and bunch position on the variability of Sauvignon Blanc (Vitis vinifera L.) juice composition. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research doi: 10.1111/ajgw.12275.

Parker, A.K.; Raw, V.; Martin, D.; Haycock, S.; Sherman, E. and Trought, M.C.T. (2016) Reduced grapevine canopy size post-flowering via mechanical trimming alters ripening and yield of Pinot Noir. Vitis 55:1-9.

Pineau, B.; Grose, C.; Beresford, M.; Sherman, E.; Raw, V.; Parker, A.; Wohlers, M. and Trought, M.C.T. (2017) Influence of grapevine canopy

Stainless steel tanks specifically designed to the customers needs CELEBRATING 50 YEARS IN THE AUSTRALIAN WINE INDUSTRY

WVJ

• Providing obligation free quotations • Design & manufacture of quality stainless steel tanks from 500 Litres to 3 million Litres • Galvanised structural steel • Catwalks and Stairs

MARZOLA PDP1000 PRESS ex stock!

• Drafting & design • Pumps & fittings • Transport to site and installation Australia wide • Marzola Presses

A&G Engineering Pty.Ltd. Manufacturing sites at Griffith (NSW), Mildura (VIC.) 23-25 Lenehan Road, Griffith NSW. Ph: 02 6964 3422 Fax: 02 6964 3497 Mildura Ph: 03 5024 7183 www.agengineering.com.au sales@agengineering.com.au EXCELLENCE | INNOVATION | SERVICE

V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

45

U LL TT U U RR EE VV II TT II CC U

VINE

TRIMMING

Effects of leaf removal and applied water on flavonoid accumulation in Merlot berries

By Runze Yu and S. Kaan Kurtural, Department of Viticulture and Enology, Oakville Experiment Station, University of California, Oakville, California 94562, United States

A two-year study into the relationship between fruit zone exposure, water deficits and berry flavonoid composition in grapevines growing in California has provided information to viticulturists on how to manage flavonoid composition in a hot climate.

INTRODUCTION Winegrapes grown in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV), California, are characterised by less colour and astringency due to low flavonoid concentration and are mostly used for bulk wine production. Flavonoids contribute to protect plant tissues from UV radiation and high temperature extremes as well as wine quality as secondary metabolites in winegrapes1. Therefore, being able to manipulate flavonoid accumulation is of interest in viticulture as a way of quality management.

Studies have been investigating the effects of solar radiation on anthocyanins and of varying temperatures on proanthocyanidins2,3. These studies showed consensus that when different amounts of light penetrated into the canopy or the temperature was altered corresponding to the change of light amount, grape berry secondary metabolism would be affected4,5. Leaf removal is a practice used in grapevine canopy management to manipulate light transmittance into the fruit zone2,6,7. In these previous studies, the effects of leaf removal treatment on yield and berry composition

In 2013 and 2014, researchers from the University of California conducted a study in this commercial vineyard in the northern San Joaquin Valley of California to see if the berry flavonoid composition of Merlot grapes could be manipulated through canopy management and water deficit treatments without adversely sacrificing yield.

46

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

has been shown. However, there is a lack of knowledge on the relationships between canopy light environments and proanthocyanidin composition in red winegrapes grown in a hot climate.

Water deficits applied on grapevines could promote anthocyanin and flavonol accumulations8,9, but only showed mild effects on proanthocyanidin concentrations10. Studies have shown that water deficits can progressively modify the canopy microclimate, giving the clusters a greater exposure to solar radiation11.

The goal of this study was to manipulate Merlot berry flavonoid composition through canopy management and water deficit treatments without adversely sacrificing yield in a hot climate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Vineyard This study was conducted in 2013 and 2014 at a commercial vineyard planted in 1998 with V. vinifera L. cv.

Merlot (clone 1, grafted onto Freedom 27% V. vinifera hybrid rootstock), located in the northern San Joaquin Valley of California.

Experimental design The study was designed as a factorial arrangement of treatments in a split-plot experiment in a randomised complete block with four replications. The main plot was leaf removal and the sub-plot was water deficits. Each experimental unit consisted of 48 vines. Three leaf removal treatments (one untreated control) were established on the morning (east) side of the canopy based on different grapegrowing cycles. A pre-bloom leaf removal treatment was established at 200 growing degree days (GDD) in both 2013 and 2014; a post-fruitset leaf removal treatment was established at 540 GDD in 2013 and 644 GDD in 2014. A mechanical leaf remover (Model EL-50, Clemens Vineyard Equipment, Woodland, CA) was used to create a 50 centimetre opening of the fruiting zone.

Vineyard crop evapotranspiration (ETc) was calculated by multiplying the reference evapotranspiration (ETo, obtained from the Denair weather station of California Irrigation Management System) and the weekly crop coefficients (Kc). Two irrigation treatments were established. A control treatment of sustained deficit irrigation (SDI) was 80% of

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

V I N E

Figure 1. Effect of leaf removal on external leaf numbers and percent canopy gaps in Merlot grapevine canopy in 2013 (A) and 2014 (B). estimated ETc from fruitset to harvest. A regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) treatment was applied at the same with SDI soon after budbreak but was decreased to 50% ETc from fruitset to veraison and then reinstated to SDI from veraison until harvest.

Data collection External leaf numbers and canopy gaps were measured three times during the season. Yield component measurements were taken on a single harvest date when the total soluble solids (Brix°) reached 24. Monomeric flavan3-ol, flavonol and total anthocyanin in grape skin were measured by C18 reversed-phase HPLC. PA isolates were characterised by acid-catalysis in the presence of excess phloroglucinol followed by reversed-phase HPLC. Also, ironreactive phenolic measurement (IRP) was used to analyse the total proanthocyanidin content.

RESULTS Canopy assessment The external leaf layer number decreased and the number of canopy gaps increased in the pre-bloom leaf removal treatment in both years; post-fruitset leaf removal reduced the external leaf number (Figure 1). The water ▶ deficit treatment did not show an effect.

V3 2N 3

TRI M M I N G

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

YOUR FORK TRUCK YOUR FORK SOLUTION TRUCK SOLUTION

• •

Short term hire for vintage Long term hire to suit your needs

We are a South Australian family owned • Short term hire for vintage and operated business with over 55 years • Long term hire to suit your needs experience in the forktruck industry Weoffer are aavariety South of Australian family owned We services including:-

and operated business with over 55 years • Fully equipped workshop for repairs and service • experience Fully equipped service vans for onsite repairs and maintenance in the forktruck industry • Spare parts for all makes and models - new and secondhand We offer a variety of services including:• Quality advice and technical support • Fully equipped workshop for repairs and service • A range of secondhand fork trucks for sale • Fully equipped service vans for onsite repairs and maintenance • New Hyundai fork trucks available for sale and fully maintained lease options • Spare parts for all makes and models - new and secondhand • Quality advice and technical support • A range of secondhand fork trucks for sale • New Hyundai fork trucks available for sale and fully maintained lease options

Contact us today (08) 8260 3199 Email: warnerforktrucks@bigpond.com www.warnerforktrucks.com.au Contact us today (08) 8260 3199 Email: warnerforktrucks@bigpond.com www.warnerforktrucks.com.au

SALES • HIRE • REPAIRS • SPARE PARTS • SERVICE

SALES • HIRE • REPAIRS • SPARE PARTS • SERVICE

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

47

U LL TT U U RR EE VV II TT II CC U

VINE

TRIMMING

Table 1. Effects of leaf removal and applied water amounts on berry, berry skin mass and yield of Merlot grapevine in northern San Joaquin Valley of California in 2013 and 2014.

Berry mass (g)

Berry skin mass (mg)

Leaf removal

Clusters/ vine

Yield/ vine (kg)

Table 2. Effects of leaf removal and applied water amounts on low molecular weight flavonoids and total skin anthocyanins (mg per berry) of Merlot grapevine at harvest in northern San Joaquin Valley of California in 2013 and 2014.

On per Berry Basis (mg/berry)

2013

Control

1.36 a

55.0 a

86 b

13.9

Pre-bloom

1.27 b

51.7 a

93 ab

13.3

Post-fruitset

1.28 b

45.0 b

102 a

14.2

p value

0.0216

0.002

0.0451

0.4996

Applied water

C

EC

Total skin Total skin flavonols anthocyanins 2013

Leaf removal Control

0.0209

0.0280

0.2405 b

4.5162 b

Pre-bloom

0.0335

0.0334

0.3456 a

6.0095 a

SDI

1.34 a

51.3

98

14.4

Post-fruitset

0.0242

0.0238

0.2676 b

4.4101 b

RDI

1.26 b

47.8

90

13.2

p value

0.0852

0.2918

0.002

0.0388

p value

0.0068

0.5103

0.0876

0.0748

Applied water

LR × applied water

0.9004

0.9074

0.5855

0.8684

SDI

0.0294

0.0323

0.2849

5.1259

RDI

0.0230

0.0245

0.2842

4.8313

p value

0.1811

0.1171

0.9770

0.5997

LR × applied water

0.7089

0.3322

0.3999

0.079

Leaf removal

2014

Control

1.09

45.3 a

116 a

12.9 a

Pre-bloom

1.07

42.9 ab

113 a

12.8 a

Post-fruitset

1.11

39.5 b

94 b

9.4 b

0.5314

0.031

0.0022

0.0016

Control

0.0207

0.0536

0.1570 b

2.7655 a

SDI

1.14 a

42.7

110

12.8 a

Pre-bloom

0.0198

0.0627

0.1726ab

2.4290 b

RDI

1.04 b

42.3

107

11.1 b

Post-fruitset

0.0169

0.0520

0.1938 a

2.8352 a

p value

0.0021

0.6963

0.9589

0.0003

p value

0.0891

0.1271

0.0661

0.0199

LR × applied water

0.4878

0.5892

0.0949

0.0053

Applied water SDI

0.0203

0.0630 a

0.1799

2.6304

RDI

0.0178

0.0490 b

0.1692

2.7261

p value

0.0845

0.0031

0.4008

0.3937

LR × applied water

0.2285

0.6796

0.6236

0.3512

p value Applied water

Yield components Leaf removal treatments reduced berry mass only in 2013, and post-fruitset leaf removal reduced the berry skin mass in 2013 (Table 1). In the same season of 2013, yield values were statistically the same with either leaf removal treatment.

By RDI, the berry mass decreased in both years, and yield decreased in 2014. But berry skin mass and clusters per vine were not affected.

Low molecular weight flavonoids In 2013, both total skin flavonol and anthocyanin concentrations were increased by pre-bloom leaf removal, but increased by the application of post-fruitset leaf removal by the second season (Table 2). Flavan-3-ol monomers were not affected either by leaf removal or water deficit treatments.

Skin proanthocyanidin composition and mDP Post-fruitset leaf removal proportionally increased the epigallocatechin (EGC) extension subunits in 2013, but the same effect was not evident in 2014 (Table 3). Epicatechin (EC) extension subunits were lower with leaf removal treatments in 2013, but higher by the application of post-

48

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

2014 Leaf removal

fruitset leaf removal. Catechin (C) terminal subunits were increased by post-fruitset leaf removal. mDP was constantly greater by post-fruitset leaf removal treatment. Water deficits rarely had effects on berry skin proanthocyanidin composition.

Total proanthocyanidin concentration of berry skin and seed, conversion yield In both years, post-fruitset leaf removal increased the total proanthocyanidin concentration (Table 4, see page 50).

No effects on total proanthocyanidin concentration by leaf removal and water deficit treatments where recorded when measured by IRP. For seed tissue, no effect was observed by leaf removal except total proanthocyanidin concentration was greater by pre-bloom leaf removal in 2014. Conversion yield of proanthocyanidin in 2013 was greater by the application of post-fruitset leaf removal, but such response was not evident in 2014.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

V I N E

TRI M M I N G

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

Table 3. Effects of leaf removal and applied water amounts on berry skin proanthocyanidin extension, terminal sub-units and mean degree of polymerisation (mDP) of Merlot at harvest in northern San Joaquin Valley of California in 2013 and 2014. % mole

mg/kg

Extension EGC

C

Terminal EC

Leaf removal

ECG

C

mDP

2013

Control

40.2 b

1.7 ab

55.8 a

2.3

19.9 b

14.1 ab

Pre-bloom

42.1 b

1.8 a

54.1 b

2

19.3 b

13.9 b

Post-fruitset

42.3 a

1.6 b

54.6 ab

1.5

24.8 a

15.9a

p value

0.0005

0.0139

0.0004

0.1033

0.0024

0.0172

SDI

41.5

1.8 a

54.8

1.86

21.8

14.1

RDI

41.5

1.6 b

54.8

2.03

20.9

15.1

p value

0.8146

0.0049

0.7119

0.5167

0.5579

0.0854

LR × applied water

0.8669

0.8098

0.8172

0.9073

0.8833

0.4905

Applied water

Leaf removal

2014

Control

48.5

1.5

44.1 b

3.6

29.5 b

20.2 a

Pre-bloom

49.8

1.4

45.4 ab

3.3

30.7 b

17.9 b

Post-fruitset

50.8

1

47.1 a

3.3

38.1 a

18.6 a

p value

0.101

0.3414

0.0234

0.0646

0.0223

0.0454

SDI

49.1

1.5

46

3.4

34.6

18.4

RDI

50.3

1.2

45

3.5

30.9

19.4

p value

0.9677

0.1825

0.2666

0.9678

0.1468

0.2326

LR × applied water

0.5429

0.9475

0.4502

0.6678

0.5774

0.9236

Applied water

CONCLUSION In this study, the application of both leaf removal treatments decreased the external leaf layer numbers, but

V3 2N 3

only increased the number of canopy gaps with post-fruitset leaf removal. Leaf removal treatments were observed to increase skin and seed proanthocyanidin concentrations.

Skin mDP was promoted by post-fruitset leaf removal,

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

49

U LL TT U U RR EE VV II TT II CC U

VINE

TRIMMING

Table 4. Effects of leaf removal and applied water amounts on berry skin and seed proanthocyanidin content and conversion yield of Merlot at harvest in northern San Joaquin Valley of California in 2013 and 2014 Skin Total PAs (Phloro) (mg/L)

Total PAs (IRP) (mg/L)

Seed Tri-OH (mg/L)

Leaf removal

Conversion Yield (%)

Total PAs (Phloro) (mg/L)

Total PAs (IRP) (mg/L)

Conversion Yield (%)

2013

Control

426.4 b

1797.1

164.5 b

24.9 b

302.7

4862.6

6.4 a

Pre-bloom

409.1 b

2082.4

165.2 b

20.6 c

295.0

4883.6

6.0ab

Post-fruitset

577.1 a

2099.9

234.9 a

28.3 a

265.7

4941.3

5.4 b

p value

0.0004

0.1001

0.0005

0.0001

0.2161

0.9912

0.0664

SDI

466.7

2062.2

186.3

23.6 b

302.5

4907.3

6.2

RDI

475.0

1924.0

190.0

25.6 a

273.1

4884.4

5.7

p value

0.8060

0.2016

0.8146

0.0427

0.1172

0.6945

0.0769

LR Ă&#x2014; applied water

0.8453

0.8696

0.8669

0.3087

0.2366

0.3839

0.1605

Applied water

Leaf removal

2014

Control

264.4ab

1067.2

127.6

32.4

228.4 b

7317.2

3.0

Pre-bloom

240.6 b

1038.0

112.7

24.6

268.79 a

7606.5

3.3

Post-fruitset

278.0 a

1064.5

131.9

36.1

247.44ab

7835.3

3.3

p value

0.0566

0.8276

0.1010

0.4241

0.1611

0.3745

0.1874

SDI

265.7

1092.7

123.8

30.1

237.9 b

7682.5

3.1

RDI

257.5

1019.5

124.3

32.0

258.5 a

7490.2

3.3

p value

0.5396

0.3602

0.9677

0.9284

0.0588

0.6407

0.0875

LR Ă&#x2014; applied water

0.4595

0.7499

0.5429

0.1942

0.4580

0.1048

0.5447

Applied water

indicating the proanthocyanidin in the skin tissues were more astringent. Also, epigallocatechin extension sub-units were increased by post-fruitset leaf removal in 2013, offering the grapes a higher antioxidant activity, and astringency.

Conversion yield was greater with post-fruitset leaf removal and showed less oxidation reaction during berry ripening with higher ageing potential.

Overall, this study presented that leaf removal and water deficits resulted in manipulating not only the yield component, canopy porosity and quantitative flavonoid concentration but also qualitative responses of proanthocyanidin sub-unit accumulation. This study provides further insight into canopy management and water deficit on flavonoid accumulation in a hot climate.

4 Cortell, J.M. and Kennedy, J.A. (2006) Effect of shading on accumulation of flavonoid compounds in (Vitis vinifera L.) Pinot Noir fruit and extraction in a model system. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 54:8510-8520.

5 Spayd, S.E.; Tarara, J.M.; Mee, D.L. and Ferguson, J. (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.

6 Wessner, L.F. and Kurtural, S.K. (2012) Pruning systems and canopy management practice interact on the yield and fruit composition of Syrah.

American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 64:134-138.

7 Tardaguila, J.; de Toda, F.M.; Poni, S. and Diago, M.P. (2010) Impact of early leaf removal on yield and fruit and wine composition of Vitis vinifera L. Graciano and Carignan. American Journal of enology and viticulture 61:372-381.

8 Kennedy, J.A.; Matthews, M.A. and Waterhouse, A.L. (2002) Effect of maturity and vine water status on grape skin and wine flavonoids. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 53:268-274.

9 Ojeda, H.; Andary, C.; Kraeva, E., Carbonneau, A. and Deloire, A. (2002) Influence of pre-and postveraison water deficit on synthesis and concentration of skin phenolic compounds during berry growth of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz.

American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 53:261-267.

10 Castellarin, S.D.; Matthews, M.A.; Di Gaspero, G. and Gambetta, G.A. (2007) Water deficits accelerate ripening and induce changes in gene expression regulating flavonoid biosynthesis in grape berries. Planta 227:101-112.

REFERENCES 1 Winkel-Shirley, B. (2002) Biosynthesis of flavonoids and effects of stress.

Current Opinion in Plant Biology 5:218-223.

2 Cook, M. G.; Zhang, Y.; Nelson, C. J.; Gambetta, G.; Kennedy, J. A. and Kurtural, S. K. (2015) Anthocyanin composition of Merlot is ameliorated by light microclimate and irrigation in Central California. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 66:266-278.

11 Williams, L.E. (2012) Interaction of applied water amounts and leaf removal in the fruiting zone on grapevine water relations and productivity of Merlot.

Irrigation Science 30:363-375.

3 Cohen, S.D.; Tarara, J.M.; Gambetta, G.A.; Matthews, M.A. and Kennedy, J.A. (2010) Impact of diurnal temperature variation on grape berry development, proanthocyanidin accumulation, and the expression of flavonoid pathway genes.

Journal of Experimental Botany 63:2655-2665.

50

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

WVJ

V32N3

TO N Y

HOARE

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

Reworking vineyards â&#x20AC;&#x201C; why, when and how?

Part 2

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

This is the second of a two-part article on the reworking of vineyards. The first article, published in the March-April issue of the Wine & Viticulture Journal, discussed the decision assessment criteria relating to reworking. This article explores the options for reworking and features some recent case studies.

T

he decision to rework or replace a vineyard is an economic consideration that is inevitable for most vineyard owners. Planning for when the time arises allows for assessment of options and budgeting so the most appropriate reworking option or replacement can be implemented. In this article I will discuss planning considerations and reworking options.

PLANNING FOR REWORKING - ASSESSMENT OF VINEYARD Assessment of the vineyard for reworking should be done by an experienced person or group of people with required levels of expertise and experience. A good vineyard manager will have the most intimate knowledge of a vineyard. He or she will know the problem areas and, in most instances, will have a solution for issues that are usually either inherited from previous management, vineyard planning shortfalls or unavoidable changes in the vineyard over time. Vineyard contractors can also provide feedback on vineyard issues they have encountered which maybe improved with reworking. A common request from contractors is wider headlands and smoother midrows to accommodate more modern multi-row machinery. The issues identified within the vineyard and the options for reworking are then best discussed with an independent viticultural consultant.

He or she will have the breadth of experience to know what the most suitable reworking option will be for different vineyards and be able to pair a reworking plan to the expectations of the managers, contractors and owners. In some instances the consultant viticulturist may recommend more in depth expert advice where a particular problem may need to be addressed.

Soil and drainage issues, water quality and supply, varietal and rootstock selection, trellis design, management philosophy, pest and disease pressure are some areas that may require an expert report before reworking to ensure the best long-term results.

seasons without crop loss. Trunk replacement can also be done over time with establishment of water shoots and layering to fill missing vine gaps. This approach is well suited to small reworking projects or small budgets. It can also buy time until a more significant reworking project can be budgeted or timed to suit cash flow or market conditions. The scale of a reworking project should be matched to resources and cash flow. Large scale projects involving topworking with field grafting, or vine removal and replacement require more intensive labour inputs for training with the success of reworking outcomes more reliant on planning and budgeting well in advance. The decision to rework is a difficult one for many growers and the following decision diagram was developed by Wine Australia and SARDI in â&#x2013;ś relation to eutypa dieback affected vines (Figure 1, see page 52).

Go either way.

TIMING OF REWORKING The planning and budgeting of reworking should occur a few seasons before work is due to commence. Having a lead time of a few seasons is especially useful when establishing new fruiting canes for reworking of old cordons or changing of pruning technique. Some reworking can be done slowly over time without losing any seasonal growth or crops. Cordon replacement when trunks are healthy can be staged over two

V3 2N 3

Phone: 1300 558 361 Fax: 1300 557 648 info@tuckaway.com.au

www.tuckaway.com.au

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

51

V I T I C U LT U R E Decision making Remedial surgery significantly increases the longevity of a eutypa dieback affected vineyard but is a costly and labour intensive exercise. Acting early will reduce crop loss and management costs considerably and lead to better disease control.

TONY

H OA RE

The decision about when to act and what to do needs to be made on a case by case basis for each vineyard (Figures 16 and 17).

Assess incidence of eutypa dieback Conduct visual assessment for foliar and dieback symptoms (min. 200 vines) in spring (shoots 30–70cm).

Confirm presence of wood symptoms by cutting cordon and trunks of several symptomatic vines to inspect for stained wood.

Confirm diagnosis with photos/inspection by experienced viticulturist and/or laboratory testing.

Prioritize blocks which maximize vineyard profitability.

Determine extent of infection Select 20–40 symptomatic vines and cut cordon/trunk every 30cm to assess extent of stained wood. Use as guide for the height of trunk cuts required.

Conduct remedial surgery Consider leaving water shoots in previous year to speed up process of replacing vines.

Staining limited to cordons

Staining in trunk above ground

Staining to ground level

Cut 10 cm below cordons.

Cut 10 cm below lowest staining.

Remove and replant or layer.

Consider block profitability

Consider remedial surgery costs

Remove diseased wood

Including long term grape price, demand, predicted yield losses. For lower value grapes, apply the whole row/block approach. For higher value grapes, apply the individual vine approach.

Including cutting vines and wires, removal of vine cordon/trunks and wire, burning/burial of vines, disposal of wire, painting wounds, wire replacement, retraining, modified weed management etc.

Remove cordons (still attached to wire) with a tractor rake or tow entire row out of vineyard. Alternatively, use vine mulcher to strip cordon wood off while leaving cordon wire in place.

Balancing yield losses, costs and labour required over several years to ensure the project is manageable.

Whole row/block approach Use on lower value grapes with widespread or high % of foliar symptoms (large areas). Minimise yield loss by reworking 20% of block each year.

Disposal

Protect wounds

Develop a long term management plan

Apply treatment (barrier and/or fungicide) to large wounds.

Burn or bury (vine mulcher leaves pieces of wood on vineyard floor which may present infection risk).

Retrain vines Individual vine approach Use on higher value grapes with contained or low % foliar symptoms (smaller areas).

Replace trellis wire (if necessary), then select and train watershoot to replace trunk and cordon. Leave extra shoots to reduce vigour and maintain closer spur positions.

Replant or layer Vines with disease recurrence or no shoot growth.

Figure 16. Decision tree for developing a remedial management plan for eutypa dieback affected vines.

Figure 1. A decision tree for developing a remedial Best practice management guide: Eutypa dieback 12 Wine Australia management plan and conducting remedial surgery for eutypa dieback affected vines. Source: Wine Australia, Best practice management guide: Eutypa dieback

Cordon replacement Cordon replacement is a conversion where the existing cordon is usually replaced over one to two seasons with a fresh cane. The motivation for replacing the existing cordon is usually a reduction in fruitfulness, yield and overall uniformity with the existing cordons. Over time, cordons can experience a reduction in bud numbers and pruning spurs through diseases such as Eutypa sp. as well as mechanical damage usually from machine harvesters. The loss of spurs and bud numbers can result in changes in pruning practices to balance vines resulting in the ‘candelabra effect’ where buds become concentrated in an area on the cordon and large gaps become apparent where spurs once existed. The effect of this ‘clumping’ of fruit may assist in maintaining yield, however, at the risk of increasing disease pressure and lowering fruit quality. The old practice of twisting canes between nodes on a wire as tightly as possible has now been superseded by a new approach of minimal twisting or laying down and tying off the end. This approach has been shown not to disrupt the sap flow as the cordon thickens with age and could potentially have the added benefit of reducing the incidence of trunk diseases.

The removal of second, third and sometimes even fourth cordons has been a common occurrence in regions where water and yield restrictions have been introduced. The timing of removing cordons above the primary cordon should be done before the upper cordons shade out and through apical dominance cause the gradual decline of the lowest cordon.

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

Figure 17. Decision tree for conducting remedial surgery on eutypa dieback affected vines.

Best practice management guide: Eutypa dieback

REWORKING OPTIONS

52

Protect wounds Apply registered treatment to annual pruning wounds.

Wine Australia 13

Cordon replacement can be done using suckering canes from the trunk or buds from the crown or first spur positions. The old cordons can be efficiently removed with a mulching machine or by hand. If the cordons are not wound tightly the wire can be preserved by unwrapping the cordons. If the cordons are fixed to the wire then the wire can be removed by cutting staples and the trunks below cordons and then lowering the cordons and wire into the midrow for removal by dragging out with a tractor. Cordon removal should only be considered when the existing variety and clone are saleable and trunk health is able to sustain the increased yield from new cordons and ripen fruit to a winery’s specification. If trunks are bent then cutting below the bend can allow for the training of a shoot to create a new, straight trunk. If the variety or clone are not saleable then field grafting is the next best option for reworking before replanting.

Reworking by cordon removal is the most cost-effective way to reinvigorate a vineyard and implement a new pruning regime of canopy management.

Trunk and cordon replacement When trunks are assessed as not suitable for cordon replacement and the variety is to be retained, the trunks can be replaced with water shoots and reworked onto the wire. This can be a good option for vineyards affected by trunk diseases where diseased wood can be removed and healthy sections of trunk retained to grow water shoots which become new trunks and cordons. Before this is done on a large scale, it is critical that the remaining sections of the trunk are found to be disease free keeping in mind that some trunk diseases have multiple infection

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

TO N Y

HOARE

V I T I C U LT U R E

Table 1. Vineyard suitability checklist criteria for field grafting.

ü Current variety not viable and unlikely to change in short term.

New variety selected based on suitability to region and saleability short to mid term (five years).

Vineyard infrastructure in good condition currently and predicted for the mid term.

Vine trunks suitability – diameter, straightness, disease status acceptable, general health (no damage post bushfire, frost damage).

Vine uniformity high; low numbers of missing vines.

Costs of grafting budgeted and cashflow organised.

Vineyard labour for training, accessible/reliable.

Knowledge of grafting preparation, post grafting management timing and pitfalls well understood by vineyard manager.

Virus testing performed on representative sample from the vineyard rootstock to be grafted and diagnostic results confirm suitability for grafting.

points on trunks. This approach is also useful in reworking poorly trained vineyards with bent trunks. The results of this have been particularly successful for reworking older vineyards where production can be returned after one or two seasons. Many growers and winemakers question whether the fruit quality on the reworked vine will be equivalent to the original. Obviously the vine architecture, canopy and yield will not be the same for the reworked vine as the original and a settling of the reworked vine may take a few seasons with management interventions to return to balance. This question is the subject of current research in Australia.

Field grafting Where trunk health is assessed as acceptable and a new variety or clone is required, field grafting is a good option for reworking. As well as a healthy trunk there are other factors to assess vineyard suitability prior to field grafting (Table 1).

Field grafting retains the existing trunk at maximum height where possible where the new buds are grafted to create new cordons. If the trunk has a disease infection then it can still be used for grafting as long as the infected area is removed and a buffer of healthy trunk is located above the grafted buds and the wound treated with a barrier paint. The main benefit of field

Effective water treatment for : • Dripper Scale • Pipe scale • Iron scale

• Salinity • Canopy growth • Brix & Baume

www.hydrosmart.com.au

HYDROSMART

1300 138 223

I am happy to recommend use of Hydrosmart to any grower considering adapting it to their site’s water as it has added real value to our business. After using it for well over adecade we plan using Hydrosmart on all d’Arenberg bores well into the next successful decade of growing and winemaking.

- Giulio Dimasi Viticulturalist / Grower Relations d’Arenberg Osborn Road McLaren Vale SA

V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

53

V I T I C U LT U R E

TONY

H OA RE

grafting compared with replanting is there is only one season without a crop and then full production can resume as early as the first season after grafting if there is a successful strike rate, favourable climate and post-grafting management. Field grafting is not a guaranteed success and comes with associated risks due to variables such as climate, scion and rootstock compatibility, pre-grafting preparation and post-grafting management. Table 2 outlines factors for consideration prior to grafting which can influence the success of field grafting.

Post-grafting management is just as important to the success of field grafting. The timing of grafting in spring and early summer is when weather can be variable. The unpredictability of weather means vineyard managers need to be able to read the signs of potential issues resulting from weather and effecting grafts. The main issue is the effect of cold and wet weather

conditions. Excess water in the soil profile can lead to sap buildup behind grafted buds. In the first weeks after grafting if this is not detected and a cut made to release the excess sap then the graft will fail. Whilst the weather is beyond anyone’s control and completely unpredictable, the response of the vineyard manager to the weather to protect grafts needs to be swift and decisive.

Other post-grafting factors that also influence the success of grafting and are outlined in Table 3.

Replanting The decision to replant usually arises after all the previous reworking options have been considered and there are too many shortcomings of the existing vineyard to overcome with reworking. It is by far the most expensive option with the slowest return on investment. The long-term nature of a vineyard and

Table 2. Pre-grafting factors influencing the success of field grafting checklist.

√ Budwood – correct amount ordered, certified true to type, correct cane size, virus/disease free, stored appropriately (rehydrated, packed in airtight bags, 2°C. Grafting contractor booked and confirmed – due diligence performed for: high level of experience, professionalism, skill, accessibility post-grafting, reliability, and ability to regraft. Terms of trade outlined in sales agreement.

Cordon removal contractor organised – references checked, dates agreed, vineyard pre-pruned, wires strained, post condition suitable If cordon wire removed – new wire installed either before grafting occurs or within two weeks post-grafting to allow strings to be attached for training.

Trunks – free of growth/canes, wound protection applied.

Debarking of trunks. Assess level of scale, ant and weevil infestation. Debark to lower damage risk to grafted buds/ shoots. Strip outer layer of bark from top of trunk down 30cm.

Snail, weevil, curculio beetle and other chewing pest infestation assessment. Apply controls prior to grafting.

Provide site induction for grafting contractors and access to fresh water, toilets and shade. Ensure no spraying, slashing or othe vineyard activities occur in the proximity of the grafters whilst they are in the vineyard.

Virus testing performed on representative sample from the vineyard rootstock to be grafted and diagnostic results confirm suitability for grafting.

Table 3. Post-grafting management checklist for factors contributing to the success of field grafting.

Management

Monitoring symptoms

Action

Soil moisture

Too wet – excess sap flow. Delayed budburst, stunted shoots. Perform ‘squeeze test’ around buds; look for visual dampness on trunks.

Make cuts, withhold irrigation, continue monitoring until budburst. More than one pass of cuts may need to be performed.

Frost

Frost weather warnings.

Mow cover crop, midrow growth, clean out undervine weeds/trash, roll midrow soil if exposed. Activate frost control fans/irrigation sprays.

Pest and disease

Monitor for mechanical damage to buds, leaves Apply appropriate control within industry guidelines to and shoots. Observe delayed budburst, stunted maintain a pest and disease free vineyard. or damaged vegetation.

Secure grafted shoots

Avoid blown out or broken shoots.

Install training strings immediately after grafters finish and prepare vine trainers for first few training passes.

Training/desuckering

Rolling and unsecured grafted canes.

Watershoots/suckers on truck.

Train shoots onto the wire. Remove all watershoots except one shoot at the highest point until grafted buds have burst. This can then be removed. Expect up to 10 training passes.

Liaise with grafters

Unsure or inexperience with post-grafting management.

Call grafters with any questions to discuss post-grafting management.

Prepare for regrafts

First round grafted buds did not grow.

Consult with grafting contractor. Maintain at least one watershoot at the highest point on each vine to preserve it for grafting the following season.

54

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

TO N Y

HOARE

V I T I C U LT U R E

Table 4.

Case Study 1

Case Study 2

Case Study 3

Vineyard owner/survey participant

Alister Sandow

Tim Adams and Pam Goldsack

Colin Hinze

Type of reworking

Trunk/cordon retraining

Field grafting

Eutypa reworking

Vineyard name and location

Blenheim Vineyard, Watervale, South Australia

Skilly Ridge Vineyard, Clare, South Australia

Taylors, Clare, South Australia

What was the reworking project Topped row of you undertook?

1999-planted Shiraz infected with Eutypa to test regrowth/take

Field grafting - 2 stages: Stage 1, 2014, 2.5ha Merlot/Cabernet Sauvignon; Stage 2, 2015, 2.5ha Chardonnay. Both grafted to Pinot Gris

Trunk renewal to remove Eutypa infection.

Since 2009, have been reworking 5-10ha of Shiraz per year

Why did you rework?

Revenue below $10K/ ha and to overcome Eutypa and increase yields and revenue to acceptable levels

Deficient supply of Pinot Gris and adequate supply of Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay

Overcome Eutypa infection, plus renew old cordon (Riesling)

How long did you plan for the rework?

12 months - 2 years lead time

12 months lead time

Two seasons of monitoring and internal trialling before undertaking on large scale

Was it successful as you had planned?

So far, yes, 98% reshot

Yes. Stage 1: 90% strike rate (10% loss due to irrigation issue); Stage 2: 99.99% strike rate

Has been very successful for Shiraz – from 70% productivity to approx. 98%. Trials of Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot less successful – more trialling needed.

How many harvests were missed during reworking?

1

2: Stage 1; 1: Stage 2

Initially just one, but have since decided we get a better result if we don’t crop in the second growth season (better vine set-up)

Has yield increased since reworking?

I hope so - too early

Significantly

Yes, yield loss has been reversed by around 30%

Is the block profitable?

Too early to tell.

First crop next year.

Expected to stop declining yield and return to profitable gross profit.

Very much so.

Yes in all areas completed.

Was reworking a good investment?

Yes

Yes

Yes – if you have the right variety in the right place, hence Shiraz has been commercialised. Other limiting factors (e.g. poor clone) has guided replanting decisions for other varieties

Would you rework this way in the future?

Yes. We will do somewhere between 2.5 and 5ha

Yes

Yes – again, if the right variety is in the right place.

return on investment are factors that can lead growers to replant and correct limiting factors that caused the previous vineyard to become unviable. Valuable lessons can be learnt from original vineyard plantings to avoid similar problems in the future.

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN A CURE Reworking can be and should be avoided. After planning and establishing a vineyard, the ongoing seasonal management can avoid the need to rework in the future. Unfortunately, the cyclical nature of the wine market can lead vineyards into the inevitable decision to rework. Thankfully, there are viable options to

V3 2N 3

rework vineyards and keep them relevant and, most importantly, profitable.

Table 4 outlines three vineyard reworking case studies.

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 ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

55

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

ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

Hesketh keeps the faith with Bonvendro

By Sonya Logan

M

erv Johns had just begun supplying WD Wines with what both parties believed to be Carignan for the company’s Hesketh label when DNA testing in 2014 revealed what he had been growing was, in fact, Bonvedro.

Even before joining the winemaking team at WD Wines in 2013, Phil Lehmann was familiar with the block of red fruit in the Johns’ vineyard, located in the Light Pass sub-region of the Barossa Valley.

“I’d bought the fruit a couple of times for blending when I was at Teusner when we thought it was Carignan. We bought some when I was still at Peter Lehmann’s before that too,” recalls Lehmann, WD’s chief winemaker.

Indeed, Bonvedro has quite the history in the Johns’ vineyard. Merv and his forebears have owned the property for around a century, and Bonvedro – then believed to be Carignan – had been among the plantings for at least 80 of those years when the decision was made to pull them out in 1968.

WD Wines chief winemaker Phil Lehmann.

56

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

The old vines had simply had their day, explains Merv. But the Johns family weren’t about to give up on the variety.

Instead, they made cuttings from the old vines and replanted some more that same year. Those same cuttings were used to plant a second block some seven years ago.

Today, the Johns’ vineyard contains six acres of what they now know is Bonvendro, which are trellised to a single wire, supported by a foliage wire.

Interestingly, although it is among the first varieties in the vineyard to reach budburst – Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Chardonnay are also grown – it is generally always the last to be picked.

“Because they do shoot early, although not quite as early as Chardonnay, this can make them a frost risk. We can get early frosts here and when we do they can affect the Bonvedro whereas other red varieties in the Barossa like Cabernet haven’t burst by then.”

His several decades of experience with Bonvendro has taught Merv it is essential to thin the variety to ensure consistent yields.

“If you don’t thin them out, they will crop heavy in one year and light the next,” he says. “We aim for around 3-4t/ha. The older vines might crop at slightly less than that. We also have to watch them in the heat as they can lose leaves.”

Phil Lehmann concurs with Merv’s assessment of Bonvedro’s bearing capability.

“Viticulturally, Bonvedro is quite a prolific bearer. It can throw a good crop and has a big bunch architecture. It has a big wide bunch with wings. A 200g bunch wouldn’t be unusual,” Phil says. “It’s also a super late ripener and I don’t think that’s simply due to it carrying a big crop; I think that’s just the way it is. It ripens even later than Mataro. It’s also fairly resistant to disease.

“It seems to get some degree of sunburn in most years. Aside from sunburn it seems tough as nails. It doesn’t pack up and drop leaves in heat like Tempranillo, for example. And even if the grapes shrivel up to nothing it doesn’t really affect the flavours.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

“I find when the grapes are super ripe it gets really powerful flavours like those found in Touriga; the flavours are in such abundance. But, if we pick at a Baume of, say, 13.5, we achieve a better savoury balance,” Phil says, adding an acid level in the low 6s and a pH of 3.65-3.7 would be common at harvest.

“In cooler climates I think Bonvedro would struggle to ripen. It’s grown on nice red dirt in the Johns’ vineyard which is well drained.”

To produce the Hesketh Bonvedro, the fruit is crushed into 7-10t open fermenters where a “coolish” fermentation takes place. After about eight days on skins, the juice is pressed off and placed in older barrels for six to eight months to settle out the tannins.

V32N3

ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

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

BONVEDRO

By Peter Dry Emeritus Fellow, The Australian Wine Research Institute BACKGROUND Parraleta (pah-rah-LEH-tah) is the preferred prime name of the variety commonly known as Bonvedro in Australia. It is widely dispersed around the Mediterranean and on the Iberian Peninsula. Parraleta appears to have originated in the region of Somantano in north-east Spain. Other synonyms include Caricagiola, Carcaghjolu and Carcajolo Nero in Corsica (France), Carenisca in Sardinia (Italy) and Bomvedro in Portugal. DNA analysis has also shown that it is the same as Tinta Caiada in Alentejo (Portugal). In 2010 there were 162ha as Tinta Caiada in Portugal, 119ha as Caricagiola in Corsica and 56ha as Parraleta in Spain. In both Portugal and Spain there has been recent expansion due to renewed interest, particularly in Alentejo and Somontano. Outside of Europe there may not be any significant plantings of Parraleta with the exception of Australia. The exact area in Australia at the present time is difficult to determine. In 1976, the French ampelographer Paul Truel visited vineyards in many Australian regions, accompanied by Allan Antcliff of CSIRO. All of the so-called

‘Carignan’ in South Australia turned out to be Bonvedro—at that time there may have been as much as 100ha of Bonvedro in SA, most of which was planted in the Barossa Valley. For one reason or another, many of the blocks of Bonvedro that survived the Vine Pull Scheme (1987) in SA have continued to be incorrectly known as ‘Carignan’.

Furthermore, any ‘Carignan’ planted before 1966, or propagated from vines planted before 1966, is likely to be Bonvedro. In summary, it is unlikely that there is much true Carignan at all in SA. As for the other states, the situation is less clear. The Vine Health Australia website lists ‘Carignan’ with 5.09ha in the Barossa Valley, 4.26ha in the Riverland and 2.61ha in McLaren Vale—but only 0.57ha of Bonvedro (in the Barossa Valley). There are just two wine producers of Bonvedro listed in the 2016 Wine Industry Directory—but the correct number is likely to be closer to ten. For further information on the Bonvedro/Carignan situation in Australia, refer to Dry, P.R. and Dry, N.S. (2014) Carignan – the unmasking of an imposter. Wine Vitic. J. 29(4):4952.

An aerial view of the Bonvedro vines in the Johns vineyard at Light Pass in South Australia’s Barossa Valley.

V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

VITICULTURE Maturity is mid-season and vigour is high with erect growth habit. Bunches are medium and compact with medium berries. Yield is moderate to high. Spur pruning is used in Australia. Berries are susceptible to bunch rot. There are at least seven clones registered in Australia, mostly local selections.

WINE Parraleta produces well-coloured, light to medium bodied, fresh and fragrant wines. There is often a slightly floral character. Wines are best consumed when young. In both Portugal and Spain, some producers consider Parraleta makes better wine than Carignan. There are some blocks of old Bonvedro vines in the Barossa Valley that have a good reputation for their wine.

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.

“We release if fairly early – in November in the same calendar year that it’s picked,” Phil explains.

He says as a medium-weight wine, Bonvendro is most like Touriga in its flavour profile.

“It has ample flavour with sweet exotic fruit, but a savoury character too; opulent yet savoury. It has flavours of dark plums, sage, saltbush, and something vegetative but not green.”

He says it has a medium ageing potential along the lines of Mataro or Carignan.

“It will continue to improve for about four to five years. It becomes more earthy and leathery over time, but some red fruits remain.”

Hesketh Wines Bonvendro is primarily distributed to on-premise outlets, including a couple of restaurants in the Barossa. WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

57

BUSINESS BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING

S U P P LY & D E M A N D

Supply and demand dynamics for Australian wine following vintage 2016

By Mark Rowley, Industry Analyst, Wine Australia

T

he release of Wine Australia’s Australian Wine: Production, Sales and Inventory 2015–16 report provides an opportunity to look in more depth at the supply and demand dynamics for Australian wine.

Although business remains challenging in certain segments, from a macro point of view there has been more positive news than negative.

Positives for Australian wineries such as lower global production, reduced trade barriers, a growing appetite for wine in Asia and domestic consumers coming back to the category all bode well for 2017.

wine sales up 1.3 percent to 1.2 billion litres. However, higher sales were not enough to account for all of the additional wine production and, thus, wine inventory increased by 7 percent to 1.8 billion litres1.

Additional wine can be a mixed blessing, but whether this eventuates as a positive or negative depends primarily on exchange rates, global supply and the prevailing demand for Australian wine. It’s a complex market with different factors intertwining.

To help understand the market, I will present a series of the key indicators for Australian wine.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

POST-VINTAGE SALES

In the report, most categories tracked higher during the 2015–16 financial year. Wine production increased by 10 percent to 1.3 billion litres, primarily a result of higher yields (the crush increased 5.9 percent to 1.81 million tonnes) and above average extraction rates. Sales also increased with greater wine availability and better market conditions, with total Australian

The additional 100 million litres of wine do not appear to have undermined Australian wine sales in either the domestic or export markets. Volume and pricing have both improved, which indicates that demand for Australian 1 Selling all additional wine in the first year after harvest is neither feasible nor necessary. Markets take time to develop and wine needs cellaring time.

wine is buoyant enough to cope with the additional supply.

In the first eight months of 2016–17, Australia shipped an additional 26 million litres of wine compared with the first eight months of 2015–16 (Figure 1). This equates to an annual ‘run-rate’ of 39 million litres. Encouragingly, the bottled average value has increased by A$0.17 to A$5.44 per litre (see Figure 2), which is being propelled by a pivot towards Asia. Meanwhile the bulk wine average value declined slightly to A$0.98 per litre. Brexit could be a contributing factor in this case as, when the UK is removed from the figures, the average value of exports to the rest of the world increased by A$0.09 per litre to A$1.03 per litre.

These results come without the tailwind that the depreciating Australian dollar provided during previous years. A depreciating currency helps producers with pricing as buyers can purchase Australian wine more cheaply in their domestic currency. The Australian dollar has appreciated against the important currencies since June 2016.

The largest appreciation was against

AUD per litre

Million litres 600

$0.25

2015‐16

500

2016‐17

400

$0.20 $0.15 $0.10

300

$0.05 $0.00

200

‐$0.05

100 0

Total exports

UK

Rest of the world

Figure 1. Volume shipped in the first eight months of each financial year by destination.

58

Bulk

‐$0.10

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

‐$0.15

Total exports

UK

Packaged

RoW

Figure 2. Change in average value by container type and destination (first eight months of financial years).

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

S U P P LY & D E M A N D

June 2016

In the first eight months of 2016-17, Australia shipped an additional 26 million litres of wine compared with the first eight months of 2015-16….

Encouragingly, the bottled average value has increased…

These results come without the tailwind that the depreciating Australian dollar provided during previous years.

BUSINESS&&MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

February 2017

Bottom end

Top end

Bottom end

Top end

Movement

Dry White

$0.44

$0.52

$0.46

$0.57

Chardonnay

$0.63

$0.70

$0.65

$0.77

Sauvignon Blanc

$0.67

$0.74

$0.69

$0.80

Pinot Gris

$0.89

$0.96

$0.96

$1.11

Dry red

$0.56

$0.63

$0.57

$0.69

Cabernet Sauvignon

$0.67

$0.74

$0.77

$0.96

▲ $0.04 ▲ $0.05 ▲ $0.04 ▲ $0.11 ▲ $0.03 ▲ $0.16

Merlot

$0.67

$0.74

na

na

na

Shiraz

$0.70

$0.78

$0.77

$0.96

Muscat

$0.59

$0.67

$0.57

$0.69

▲ $0.13 ▲ $0.00

Figure 3. Ciatti price ranges for Australian wine by variety (USD per litre). Source: Ciatti World Report and Pricing. the Great British Pound (GBP) (up 16 percent) as result of Brexit and moved strongly against the Euro (up 8 percent) but has remained relatively stable against the US dollar (up 3 percent).

Australian wine sales in the domestic off-trade market have also improved in the past eight months

according to Aztec. From June 2016 to March 2017, the rate of value growth doubled from 2.0 percent to 3.8 per cent. The rate of volume growth remained stable at 1.5 percent, which infers growth has been propelled through average value growth (i.e., consumers trading up).

BULK WINE PRICING Bulk wine pricing data from Ciatti also confirms that demand for Australian wine has been strong enough to offset the additional production. From June 2016 to February 2017, prices for all of the

®

V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

www.winetitles. com . au

59

BUSINESS BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING

S U P P LY & D E M A N D

reported varieties have gained in US dollar terms. Cabernet Sauvignon and Shiraz have recorded the strongest movements with both varieties, very much linked to demand stemming from China. Pinot Gris has also recorded improved pricing, with demand predominantly stemming from the USA and the domestic market.

Billion litres 0.2 1%

5%

2%

0%

0

‐0.2

‐5%

‐6%

‐2%

‐22% ‐0.4 ‐34%

GLOBAL SUPPLY A small vintage globally was one major influence on global wine pricing.

Total global production was down 5 percent to 26 billion litres in 2016.

Australia was one of the few countries to experience higher yields and production (see Figure 4). Although this growth is significant from Australia’s perspective, the figure illustrates the small contribution Australia’s increase in production makes in global terms.

This reduction in global production has opened market opportunities for the higher Australian production.

Australia’s large vintage has come in a fortunate year as the major macro

‐12%

‐0.6

Percent change ‐0.8

‐1

Change

Italy

France

Spain

USA

Australia

China

South Africa

Chile

Argentina Germany

Figure 4. Change in wine production (2016). Source: OIV factors that impact on wine markets have become more favourable. Lower global production, a stable currency (bar the GBP), a series of free-trade agreements, strong demand from Chinese and other Asian consumers and domestic consumers coming

back to the Australian category have been welcome. Additional volume and stronger pricing is a ‘double whammy’ for revenue, which is great news for the Australian wine sector, having faced a challenging decade.

WVJ

Seeking NEW staff?

Ensure you are reaching the right target market in the most efficient way.

Our jobs site www.winejobs.com.au is the ideal platform to find your perfect candidate from within the wine industry.

Specifically developed for Australian and New Zealand wine industry professionals, www.winejobs.com.au offers the easiest and most cost effective method for employers and recruitment firms to list job vacancies across various fields.

All Winejobs ads also appear on Daily Wine News (emailed Monday to Friday) for 5 days and shared with our numerous followers in social media.

Consider this exposure to your target market: • Reach qualified candidates • Job postings start from only $65 for one week • Posting a job opening is EASY, simply visit winejobs.com.au • Searching is FREE created and managed by

60

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

Winejobs ads now also posted on Facebook and LinkedIn for extra reach. facebook.com/winejobs linkedin.com/company/ winetitles-pty-ltd

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

ü Averaging 18,000 page views on www.winejobs.com.au each month while our main company website; www.winetitles.com.au receives around 70,000 page views per month ü Over 12,000 Daily Wine News subscribers – the wine industry’s most trusted and widely read e-newsletter ü More than 1,400 Twitter followers

This means that qualified people will be viewing and responding to your job listing.

Posting a job ad takes only minutes and appears online immediately.

V32N3

WI N E

P RI C I N G

BUSINESS&&MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

Understanding consumer response to price changes for high-priced wine brands

By Ava Huang and Larry Lockshin, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia

Little research has been conducted to test consumers’ responses to price changes for wine brands selling at higher price points. An online choice experiment was designed to do just that, becoming the first study to investigate the direction and magnitude of price elasticity for high-priced wine brands.

P

rice is an important consideration in the consumer decision-making process. It shapes consumer perceptions of a brand, and changes in price can markedly change demand for the brand. Correct pricing strategy is crucial to a brand’s success. This research examines an important but unresearched aspect of pricing: what happens when higher priced wine brands decide to either raise or discount their prices?

The most widely used measure of consumer response to price changes is price elasticity. Price elasticity is almost always reported to be negative: lower price means higher unit sales, and vice versa.

However, in rare cases it is reportedly positive, although the possible reasons are elusive. High-priced luxury goods are said to be an exception to the usual demand– price relationship. Products such as these are classified by economists as ‘Veblen goods’.

Veblen argued that most levels of consumption by the upper classes are merely ways of displaying wealth and social status. Expensive perfume and wine are good examples of items that economists would consider Veblen goods, as people who cannot easily tell the quality of a perfume or wine may use price as

an indicator of quality instead. Therefore, the higher the price (within limits), the more likely it is that luxury-oriented consumers will buy that brand. However, Veblen’s theory was developed more than a century ago, when luxury consumption was only accessible to a very limited number of people. In more than 100 years of development, society has changed, and luxury goods have become more accessible to the general public. Such changes lead to doubt regarding whether Veblen’s theory is still applicable to contemporary society.

The literature on price elasticity has found a reasonable degree of consistency in average price elasticity, with multiple studies producing similar figures of approximately -2.6 for fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs). This means that a price rise of 1 percent results in a decrease in sales of 2.6 percent.

For FMCGs, the price gap between the cheapest and most expensive brands may only be a few dollars, but at the same time the most expensive brand may be twice the price of the cheapest (as is the case for commonly bought categories such as instant coffee, toothpaste, toilet paper and pasta sauce).

By contrast, product categories such as wine have more dispersed prices. Many

Figure 1. Example of the initial wines without discounts or increases.

Figure 2. Examples of choice sets with varied prices.

V3 2N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

wine brands sell for less than $10 per bottle, yet many others sell for five or ten times that price or even higher. Therefore, prices vary by several hundred percent.

Some brands in categories such as wine are hundreds of dollars more expensive than others.

Little research has been conducted to test consumers’ responses to price changes for wine brands that sell at higher price levels. Knowledge about the price response for higher priced wine would be useful for marketers, given the demand for premium wine is increasing among consumers, and the industry is introducing more premium wines to adapt to this consumer shift. More competition in higher price points puts pressure on wine brand managers to adjust prices.

An online choice experiment was designed to test consumer responses to price changes for high-priced wine brands.

To make the choice experiment more real, all brands presented in the experiment were real brands currently available in most leading wine retailers. The attributes associated with each individual brand (i.e., grape variety, region, ratings) were all real.

The price level chosen for this study was from $50 to $100 per bottle retail price.

The reason $50 was chosen as the starting

www.winetitles. com . au

61

BUSINESS BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING

WINE

price level is according to Sjostrom, Corsi and Lockshin (2016), consumers shift their perceptions of wines from regular to luxury/premium at about $50.

The choice experiment presented the respondents with 14 different choice sets that consisted of six brands. Within a choice set, the price of each brand was deliberately varied between a normal in market price for that brand, and about a 15 per cent decreased or increased price.

In order to investigate how the importance of the consumption situation influences price elasticity, the respondents were randomly assigned to one of the three usage situations that represent different levels of perceived risk or importance. The level of perceived risk or importance of the three situations in ascending order was as follows: Situation 1, to drink at home during the week over dinner; Situation 2, to take to a dinner party at a friendâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house; and Situation 3, to give to a person you highly respect as a gift for their 50th birthday.

The participant samples were sourced from a professional online provider. The sample (n=541) encompassed residents from all over Australia who were older than 18 years of age, not currently working in the wine industry and had purchased wine over $30/bottle in the last 12 months for off-premise consumption. Although this research is based on a simulated choice experiment rather than actual purchase records, the total number of choices for each wine in the experiment corresponded to the market share of the brands used.

More people chose the brands with larger sales (higher real-world market share) than the brands with lower sales, regardless of price. This helps establish external validity for our approach.

Figure 3 shows the choice share for each brand of wine in the choice experiment at different price levels. It clearly shows that all six brands had their highest choice share when sold at a decreased price, and the lowest share when sold at an increased price. All the brands exhibited negative price elasticity.

This confirmed that the direction or sign of price elasticity is the same for these highpriced brands as has been reported for brands generally.

In answer to the magnitude of the consumer response, the average elasticity in the study was -1.8 across three varying conditions of purchase occasion importance; or -2.3 using only the two

62

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

P RICIN G

Table 1. Price elasticity results.

Elasticity

Elasticity for price decrease

Elasticity for price increase

Drinking at home (n=185)

-2.7

-2.7

-2.8

Dinner party (n=178)

-2.2

-2.9

-1.4

Gift for a 50th birthday (n=178)

-0.8*

-0.9*

-0.7*

* statistically significant difference to at least one other factor at p<=0.05 level

Figure 3. Choice share for each brand at different price levels. more â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;everydayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; purchase occasions. This is somewhat smaller than other studies or meta-analyses which have reported figures of -2.6.

However, given the complex nature of this research question, it is difficult to draw a generalised conclusion based on the results of a single experiment. More work is needed to examine the external validity of elasticities from stated choice experiments.

To address whether price elasticity is lower for important consumption situations, we calculated the price elasticity according to the three consumption situations, which varied by importance.

Table 1 indicates that price elasticity decreased in line with the perceived importance of the consumption situation.

The most important occasion, a gift, yielded an elasticity of -0.8, less than the other two less important occasions (significantly different at p<0.05). However, whilst the elasticity for the mediumimportance occasion was lower than for the least important occasion (-2.2 vs -2.7) the difference between them was not statistically significant (p=0.16).

The results across different usage situations indicate that price elasticity decreased significantly when the perceived importance of the consumption situation increased. This result aligns with the findings from prior research on the topic.

The differences between elasticities indicate that consumers are more tolerant of price increases for high-priced brands when they are buying for more important

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

situations. This result supports prior findings that consumers usually move up one or two price points for gifts and special occasions. In conclusion, a more important consumption situation does result in lower price elasticity.

This research is the first to investigate the direction and magnitude of price elasticity for high-priced wine brands. It contributes to understanding the complex nature of wine pricing research. For managers, particularly of high-priced brands in their portfolio, the study provides some practical implications. First, highpriced wine brands are not immune to the inverse relationship between price and demand; such brands have negatively assigned price elasticity that is approximately similar to normal brands.

Therefore, price increases for high-priced wine brands will dampen demand and price decreases will increase demand. A second practical implication pertains to situations: higher importance situations are linked to lower price elasticity. A brand manager interested in reducing price elasticity for their brand should consider linking it to more important consumption occasions via marketing communications, such as what the Champagne producers have done focussing on celebrations.

REFERENCE Sjostrom, T.; Corsi, A.M. and Lockshin, L. (2016) What characterises luxury products? A study across three product categories. International Journal of Wine Business Research 28:76-95.

WVJ

V32N3

C H I N A

BUSINESS&&MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

What do ‘luxury’, ‘premium’ and ‘fine’ wine mean in China?

By Justin Cohen, Armando Corsi, Larry Lockshin, Johan Bruwer and Richard Lee, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia

Interviews with representatives of the wine trade in China has given some insight into whether use of the terms ‘luxury’, ‘premium’ and ‘fine’ wine can help build the perception of Australian wine.

I

n the last issue of the Wine & Viticulture Journal, we summarised the scope of the work we have conducted to date with a call to action to extend our industry’s ability to market wine in China. The Australian wine industry needs to optimise its actions, push the correct levers and further build demand for the great wines produced in Australia. As an industry, we need to build on, rather than rely on our perceived strong performance in a few key cities. We must develop strategies that are both cost and resource effective to build awareness and positive perceptions for the Australian category in new cities, regions and under-indexed channels to help us build market share against competing countries of origin. Certainly, more nuanced strategies are required for specific brands’ architecture and size, but that is for a future discussion.

The research program we are implementing now, generously supported by Wine Australia, has multiple stages to help us achieve the overarching goal of increasing demand through a better understanding of physical and mental availability in China (Sharp 2010, Romaniuk and Sharp 2016). However, before moving to primary data collection, we conducted 15 expert interviews in order to better understand the market situation from the perspective of thought leaders based in China.

Those interviewed came from a diverse commercial background representing small to large format and specialised wine, to grocery brick and mortar retailers, digital and e-commerce experts, distributors, Australian wine brands with China-based managers, governmental promotional bodies and market research and branding agencies in China.

V3 2N 3

Many topics were covered in the interviews and we will share insights in future articles. At this point, however, it is useful to share the perspectives on positioning of those interviewed relating to increasing the demand for our quality wines in China. Some of our largest Australian brands like Penfolds and Jacob’s Creek are becoming well-known, but most of our small and medium-sized producers lack awareness in China among ‘normal’ wine consumers.

…general consumers with low involvement might still give some credence to positioning around ‘luxury’, ‘premium’ and ‘fine’, but these terms are in danger of being abused too much and lack meaning due to the heavy usage by imported brands.

There is a hypothesis that if, as an industry, we can build the perception that Australian wine is special that this could in turn drive up the price paid for our wines. The question becomes what wording or theme would best be suited to build this reputation in the China market? In Australia, words like ‘luxury’, ‘premium’, and ‘fine’ are considered, but little is known how the Chinese would perceive the positioning of our wines in this regard.

The situation is further complicated by some of our biggest brands changing their distribution models and

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

landing their quality wines in retail for significantly lower price points than previously. There is confusion within our industry what to do. To that point, we now share some preliminary viewpoints.

A critical aspect is that experts in the industry struggle to define what ‘luxury’, ‘premium’ and ‘fine’ mean in the context of the wine industry in China. There was a general consensus that consumers, even if they don’t have a lot of category knowledge, are sophisticated shoppers and dubious of superficial labels, tags and classifications. This supports findings from other Ehrenberg-Bass Institute research into the media and advertising landscape in China. One branding consultant interviewed said, “Luxury, premium and fine have been abused in the China market. There is a healthy cynicism around the terms in China.”

Due to food safety issues, it was also pointed out that authenticity is something that matters much more to consumers than luxurious packaging in consumable categories.

Specifically discussing wine, it was said that general consumers with low involvement might still give some credence to positioning around ‘luxury’, ‘premium’ and ‘fine’, but these terms are in danger of being abused too much and lack meaning due to the heavy usage by imported brands. Many of those interviewed questioned the viability of this strategy in the brick and mortar and online retail space.

However, they felt using language around ‘luxury’, ‘premium’ and ‘fine’ are still acceptable in on-premise.

Delving deeper, we wanted to understand how consumers in China compare these terms. It was suggested that consumers in China develop a hierarchy based upon pricing with

www.winetitles. com . au

63

BUSINESS BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING

Due to food safety issues, it was also pointed out that authenticity is something that matters much more to consumers than luxurious packaging in consumable categories.

‘luxury’ being at the top of the quality pyramid, followed by ‘premium’ and then moving onto ‘fine’. A digital expert said, “A ‘luxury’ tag translates to Chinese consumers as expensive. A ‘premium’ product is considered to be smaller in quantity and lower in cost.

Describing an item as ‘fine’ is very vague and in Chinese, basically means good.”

It was suggested that there is a risk that these terms become merely qualifiers that have little meaning to involved wine buyers. We will continue to explore what these terms mean to Chinese consumers in a quantitative study in later stages of this research.

However, we will also work towards identifying the category entry points (CEPs) for the wine category in China

CHINA

and determine how best to use these to build the mental availability for Australian wine. By understanding the who, what, when, where, how and why, we will help quality Australian wine develop more meaningful messaging to build mental market share among Chinese consumers, which will give Australian wine a competitive edge.

When discussing how to classify wine in China, the majority of those interviewed found it is easier to break this down by price tiers. Those with more specific knowledge of brick and mortar, online and on-premise channels were even able to suggest which price tiers favoured particular channels and countries of origin.

They also suggested that consumers often would buy wine at particular price-points for particular reasons, confirming the results of the China Wine Barometer (Corsi et al. 2016).

Having some guidelines as to how wine is classified by price tier is useful for the next stage of the research.

We are conducting retail audits in Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou in order to develop a snapshot of the market structure across a range of channels – from traditional grocery stores to hypermarkets, from convenience stores to specialised wine and spirits shops – where Australian wine could be sold. We are cataloguing a number of variables for analysis including price points and country-of-

origin and we will be able to compare our audit data with the perspectives of thought leaders as well as against reported secondary data. This will allow us to draw conclusions where Australian wine is over/under-indexed and help us design more relevant surveys to test demand and determine what messaging is most effective for Australian wine among different consumer groups in later stages of this research. We look forward to reporting further findings in this journal.

REFERENCES Cohen, J.; Corsi, A.M.; Lockshin, L.; Lee, R. and Bruwer, J. (2017) This isn’t the time to pat ourselves on the back, Wine & Viticulture Journal 32(2):28-29.

Corsi, A.M.; Cohen, J. and Lockshin, L. (2016) The China Wine Barometer (CWB): a look into the future. Accessible at: https://www.wineaustralia. com/au/research/search/completed-projects/ us-1202 Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B. (2016) How brands grow: Part 2. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Sharp, B. (2010) How brands grow. In B. Sharp (Ed.), How Brands Grow (16-27). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. www.marketingscience.info/wine

WVJ

Keep up TO DATE! An essential snapshot of wine business, research and marketing news from Australian and international wine media sources.

Distributed to over 12,000 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 Nicole Evans on +618 8369 9513 or n.evans@winetitles.com.au for details

64

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

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

Having skin in the white winemaking game The makers of the four top wines from our recent skin contact white wine tasting (see results page 69) take us behind the scenes of the making of their standout performers.

BRAD HICKEY WINEMAKER/VINITOR/CO-DIRECTOR BRASH HIGGINS WINE CO MCLAREN VALE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Wine: Brash Higgins 2016 ‘ZBO’ Zibibbo (RRP $39.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE The grapes for this wine are estate grown in the Riverland by Ashley Ratcliff of Ricca Terra Farms. The elevation of the vineyard is about 5m above sea level while the soil is a red loam over limestone. The average daily maximum in the vineyard is 25°C and the minimum is 10°C. While frost can be a risk, the Zibibbo vineyard is located approximately 5km from Lake Bonney.

The risk of frost seems to lessen for those vineyards located close to the lake.

The vines are approximately 75-80 years old (no written records of when the vineyard was planted can be located) and planted on their own roots. They are growing on an old t-trellis which has fallen apart, so they can now be considered bush vines. Vine rows are 3.2m apart.

The main issue with this variety is sunburn, so the fruit can’t be exposed.

Irrigation is applied according to the vines' requirements. The source of the water comes from the Murray River and is applied via drip irrigation.

No cover crop is used, with the natural grasses and weeds allowed to grow before being slashed.

The vines are hand spur pruned.

There are no pest or disease issues that are of particular concern with this variety.

No changes to the vines’ management is planned for the future; we simply respect that the vines were planted at the same time as World War II, and keeping that heritage alive is the most important thing.

The vines yield an average of 6t/acre.

The main quality we look for at harvest is when the flavour is delicate and the Muscat characters are not becoming dominant.

V3 2N 3

Brad Hickey emptying the free run juice off a Zibibbo ferment.

WINEMAKING Zibibbo is an ancient, aromatic white grape from the Muscat family grown in the warmth of the Mediterranean and South Australia. From fruit grown at Ricca Terra Farms in the sunny Riverland, the variety was chosen for its potential to develop length and complexity from longer skin contact. The wine is fruity yet bone dry, reminiscent of something from Alice in Wonderland, where things aren’t always as they seem.

Hand-picked, the golf ball-sized, bronze fruit was destemmed into waiting terracotta amphorae. A wild ferment ensued with the caps hand-plunged twice daily until the ferment finished and the skins sank into the wine. The skins, seeds and juice remained covered in situ for six months. A natural layer of

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

flor yeast volunteers itself, covering and helping to protect the wine. The ‘free run’ was siphoned off in spring and combined with the pressings. The wine settles before being racked and sent to bottle unfiltered and unfined.

MARKETING ZBO is available all over Australia in on and off-premise outlets and direct from the winery, with production currently around 125 cases. Exports include Ontario, America and Singapore.

ZBO is the longest skin contact white in the Brash Higgins range, and stands out for this reason. It is marketed as an ‘orange’ wine and/or ‘amphora’ white and has remarkable versatility with food and wine pairings.

▶

www.winetitles. com . au

65

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

VANYA CULLEN MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHIEF WINEMAKER CULLEN WINES MARGARET RIVER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA Wine: Cullen 2014 Amber (RRP $39.00/ bottle) Varieties: Sauvignon Blanc, Semillon

VITICULTURE The fruit for this wine was all estate grown on the adjoining Cullen and Mangan vineyards in the Wilyabrup subregion of Margaret River. The Cullen vineyard was planted in 1976 and the Mangan vineyard in 1996. Sauvignon Blanc and Semillon fruit were used in the production of this wine, the Sauvignon Blanc clone being 1C 698110 and the Semillon clone 1W 672100. All the vines are grown on their own roots.

The vineyard soils are mainly preCambrian â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Forest Groveâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; type soils comprising loams and gravel topsoil to a depth of 40-60cm over laterite and clays at around one metre. The aspect of the vineyards is mostly level or slightly undulating. The estate is around 50 metres above sea level.

The Wilyabrup region enjoys a moderate maritime Mediterranean climate with extremely low frost risk during the growing season. However, strong winds from seasonal cold fronts can affect yields.

Cullen follows the maxim that great wines are made in the vineyard. Both estate vineyards have been farmed using biodynamic methods for more than 10 years and are fully certified with Australian Certified Organic.

All our fruit is dry grown on vines that are spur pruned. The Sauvignon Blanc and Semillon, due to their higher vigour, are trained on a Lyre trellis and pruned to four canes with 10 buds per cane. This gives a greater area for the leaves and fruit to grow on, enabling the fruit to reach proper physiological ripeness without shoot or bunch thinning.

Vine row widths in the vineyards is 3.6 metres while vine spacing is typically 1.8 metres. The vineyards are both dry farmed and yielded 11.5t/ha of Semillon and 5t/ha of Sauvignon Blanc in 2014.

A mixed polyculture cover crop is cultivated in the inter-rows. The mixture contains cereals, legumes, clovers, grasses and brassicas. There may be 25-30 different species including volunteer species. Compost is applied at around 5m3 per hectare. This biodynamic program aims to promote functional soil with high levels of humus and a healthy soil microbial ecosystem in a long-term sustainable manner.

Powdery mildew is the main disease risk for these vines.

Semillon fruit going into 300L terracotta amphora for a skin contact fermentation at Cullen Wines.

66

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

WINEMAKING This was the first skin contact white wine to be produced at Cullen Wines. The varietal composition of the wine is 64% Semillon and 36% Sauvignon Blanc.

Cullen has extended the holistic approach applied in biodynamics to the winemaking and has been moving towards naturally minimalist methods such as wild fermentations, naturally balanced acidity and minimal or no use of additions and agents. In 2014, the outstanding quality of the Semillon fruit provided the opportunity to make a skin contact white wine in a way similar to the ancient artisanal methods used in wine production around the Mediterranean region. These wines show great complexity, ageability and are well suited to a wide range of food pairings.

The fruit was hand harvested into small buckets on 1 and 16 March 2014.

At the winery the bunches of grapes were hand sorted prior to being destemmed.

Multiple fermentations were then carried out in various vessels, including open fermenters, closed tank, barrels, concrete egg and amphora. The grapes were left on skins and partially fermented before being basket pressed. The period of skin contact varied from two days to one month. Around 80% of the wine was aged in new Bordelaise and Louis Latour oak barrels for four months.

Cullen Wines managing director and chief winemaker Vanya Cullen with canine friend Solstice.

V32N3

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

The wine received a light bentonite fining at 0.5g/L and was then cold stabilised prior to a light filtration at bottling. Sulfur dioxide levels were kept below 40mg/L.

MARKETING Although made using a very old style of winemaking, Cullen Amber now has an avid following particularly with supporters of the ‘natural’ wine movement. It shows a complex and textured palate with great persistence that makes an excellent partner with many styles of food. Cullen Amber is sold directly through cellar door and mailing list, and distributed nationally with strong support from the on-premise sector.

Small volumes have been exported to Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, USA and UK.

CHRIS CARPENTER WINEMAKER LARK HILL WINERY CANBERRA DISTRICT Wine: Lark Hill 2014 ‘Mr.V’ Marsanne/ Roussanne/Viognier (RRP $35.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE The fruit for this wine is grown at our ‘Dark Horse’ vineyard in the Murrumbateman sub-region of the Canberra District. The vineyard has an elevation of 620m above sea level and sits on a westerly facing slope. Soil in the vineyard is a deep granite.

The climate experienced in the area is strongly continental – warms days and cold nights – while the prevailing winds are from the west. There have been no recorded frosts during the growing season.

Planted in 2000, the vines are on own roots and trellised to a VSP. Vine rows are 2.7m apart and vines 1.5m apart.

The vines are watered via drip irrigation from a bore but irrigation is minimal due to the availability of water.

The entire vineyard is biodynamically managed.

Hand spur pruned to 20 buds per vine, the vines yield an average of 3t/acre.

The timing of harvest is varietaldependant; we look for flavour ripeness predominantly as these three Rhone whites seem to have a distinct point

V3 2N 3

Winemaker at Lark Hill Winery in the Canberra District, Chris Carpenter.

(usually above 21 Brix) where varietal character is expressed. Harvesting earlier results in poor or no fruit characters.

Harvesting usually takes place around the first week of April.

WINEMAKING Harvesting is carried out by a mix of hand and machine depending on the variety. All fruit is crushed and destemmed.

The Marsanne is fermented on skins using wild yeast ferments, warming to around 20°C for fermentation.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

Fermentation takes around 14-20 days to go to dry, at which point the juice is pressed off skins and filled to older French oak (seven to 10 years old) for six months maturation.

The Roussanne is crushed and pressed to older French oak (seven to 10 years old) for own-yeast fermentation and six months maturation on lees.

The Viognier is crushed and pressed to older French oak (seven to 10 years old) for own-yeast fermentation and six months maturation on lees.

Between the 2013 and 2014 vintage of this wine we reduced the ripeness of the components to keep the final blend

www.winetitles. com . au

67

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

lower in alcohol (2013 was approximately 14% and 2014 is 12.5%) and adjust the balance a little.

The 2014 included a higher component of skins fermentation – all of the Marsanne component (a third of the blend) whereas the 2013 was only a sixth of the blend.

MARKETING Mr V is sold directly at our cellar door and also to restaurants and wine bars in Canberra, Sydney and greater New South Wales. We do not make enough to distribute it more widely than this.

DAN GRAHAM WINEMAKER/OWNER SIGURD WINES BAROSSA VALLEY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Wine: Sigurd 2016 White Blend (RRP $34.00/bottle) Varieties: Gewurztraminer, Riesling, Garaganega, Viognier

VITICULTURE Currently, Sigurd Wines buys all its fruit. Of the vineyards it sources fruit from, none are certified organic but most practise organic principles. In the future the goal is to work closely with the vineyard owners to follow a minimal impact/sustainable approach to growing the fruit. This is in line with my low intervention winemaking principles.

The challenge is changing people’s perspectives of what they have done for many years by coming in and saying ‘doing less is better’ when it has been the opposite for so long.

All the wines I produce are predominately hand-picked, though there is still some machine harvesting (only about 10% of the fruit is harvested by machine still which is due to picking with other people/wineries in these vineyards). I hope to cut out all machine harvesting this year (2017) and work on sourcing all fruit from low intervention vineyards and hopefully bring their practices closer to organics or, if necessary, source fruit from other locations that will be in line with my philosophy a little more. It’s a long road when you do not own any of your own vineyards.

I run a small block of Shiraz based around Williamstown which has been a

68

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

Some Gewurztraminer just pressed off skins after about five days skin contact at Sigurd Wines. big eye opener and also provides a lot of challenges. Since I took over in the 2015 vintage I have managed it according to organic principles and tried to reduce any impact I make on the property with synthetic chemicals. It’s a hard road but worth it. The 2017 harvest proved that trying to reduce your impact on a site can really be worth the hard work.

For the white blend, the fruit was sourced throughout the Barossa: small parcels of Riesling and Gewurtztraminer from the Eden Valley near Springton, and Garaganega and Viognier off a block near Williamstown.

WINEMAKING The 2016 Sigurd White Blend comprised Riesling (55%), Garganega (21%), Gewurtraminer (12%) and Viognier (12%). Harvesting of the white grapes began in early February with the picking of the Gewurtraminer, which was then fermented on skins for three days before being pressed off into old French oak hogsheads (300L). The Garganega was fermented out to dryness on skins for

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

about seven days, and pressed off to old French puncheons (500L). The Riesling and Viognier came in last in mid-March from Mt Crawford and High Eden Valley from the Barossa. Both were pressed off on the same day. From then they were placed in French oak barriques (225L) and left to ferment. All wines finished ferment in oak and then were left on their lees for five to six months before being racked of lees and bottled straight away with a small addition of sulfur.

Each year is unique so every year I look at the components of this wine with a fresh set of eyes and blend accordingly.

This is also the case with the amount of skin contact for each component of the wine.

MARKETING Despite being a relatively new field for Australian wine this wine has been taken on very well. The main area where it has been popular has been the eastern seaboard with younger drinkers at trendy bars and restaurants.

WVJ

V32N3

TASTING NOTES

Australian skin contact white wines pushing boundaries – or are they?

By Sonya Logan

O

range wine. Amber wine.

Extended skin contact white wine. However you describe it, it’s been suggested the first time you try a white wine that’s been made from fruit left on its skins for a time that you are sitting down in preparation for the challenge that lies in glass for your nose and mouth.

However, if the Wine & Viticulture Journal’s recent tasting of Australianmade versions of the style is anything to go by, then standing might be quite safe.

Although all our four tasting panellists expected a wild ride with the 19 wines that lay before them, they were rather surprised to discover only a couple warranted the trepidation. What’s more, their expectation of tasting several faulty wines fell short of the mark.

Making up the tasting panel for the Journal’s inaugural skin contact white tasting were Alex Shulkin, from the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) and The Other Right wine company and Dan Graham, from Sigurd Wines and RedHeads wine companies, who have both ventured into making skin contact whites and had wines in the blind line-up. Joining them were Shulkin’s AWRI colleague Richard Gawel, and wine marketer and former Seppelt fine wine manager Brian Miller.

“I must admit I came into this tasting with a bit of scepticism,” Richard Gawel said. “I expected to see a lot of really defective wines. And I did find some. But, in the main, they were all pretty sound and interesting and there were some very nice wines in there. I’ll be honest, I was out of my comfort zone with many of them. And, I think these wines would be challenging enough for most people.

But the better ones were those that had fruit characters to match their full and rich palates. Some were a bit thin and neutral; some had an oxidative note to them, although not in a bad way – they were just bland. I thought there would be more oxidised wines than there were,” Gawel said.

V3 2N 3

The panellists for our ‘orange’ wine tasting were (from left) Alex Shulkin, from the Australian Wine Research Institute and The Other Right wine company; wine marketer Brian Miller; Richard Gawel, AWRI; and Dan Graham, of Sigurd Wines.

Alex Shulkin said despite a good representation of wines in the line-up he expected to taste more that would challenge the average consumer.

“Given my experience with 'orange' wine I expected a lot of them to not necessarily be out of my comfort zone, but I would understand if someone like Richard said he wouldn’t want to drink them. There were a couple of wines that were truly ‘orange’, but a lot less than I expected there to be. There’s quite an array of wines in there, but what’s missing are really intense, big ‘orange’ wines. But I guess that might show there’s just not a lot of that being made in Australia. It’s more in Italy and Georgia,” Shulkin said.

Dan Graham and Brian Miller agreed.

“From what I’ve had of international ‘orange’ wines this tasting would suggest we’re on the moderate end of ‘orange’. And I also expected to find a few more faulty wines,” Graham said.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

“None are as extreme as I thought they would be,” Miller added. “Some are quite conventional wines in many respects. The common factor is that they are very, very dry and tannic. They are all food wines to me, not party wines.

Some have characters of conventional wines that have been aged in bottle for 10 years or longer – like old Semillons or Chardonnays. There was a dustiness in a few of the wines, probably from old oak. Others were neutral and had no character at all.”

Named in the panellists’ best wines of the tasting were Lark Hill’s 2014 Mr V, a blend of Marsanne, Roussanne and Viognier; Sigurd’s 2016 White Blend, made from Riesling Garganega, Gewurztraminer and Viognier; Brash Higgins 2016 ZBO, made from Zibibbo of the Muscat family of grapes; and Cullen’s 2014 Amber, of Semillon and Sauvignon Blanc.

WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

69

TASTING NOTES

CULLEN 2014 AMBER Margaret River, Western Australia 15.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$39.00/bottle Varieties: Semillon, Sauvignon Blanc Time on skins: 2-30 days Best of tasting: Deep gold in colour with a hint of amber. Complex, honeyed nose with characters of custard, crème brulee, ginger spice, flint, good oak and a hint of toffee. One taster described the nose as being “a bit whisky-like, but pleasantly so”. “Smells like an aged Semillon,” said another. Full, juicy and surprisingly soft palate which is bit oaky - a mocha-like oak which would normally be out of place in a white wine but it makes sense in this wine. Rich fruit, primarily stone fruit, carries the oak well. Nice roundness and viscosity; moderate drying tannins; long finish. A touch hard and bitter on the finish but probably wouldn’t be noticeable if the wine was cooler. “A good mix of stuff,” said one taster. “A very interesting wine,” said another.

BRASH HIGGINS 2016 ZBO ZIBIBBO McLaren Vale, South Australia 13.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$37.00/bottle Time on skins: 180 days Best of tasting: Deep yellow in colour. Delicate nose featuring citrus, wattle, sarsaparilla, exotic dried herbs, preserved lemons and floral characters. Preserved lemons continue on the palate which has a nice freshness and vitality and a distinct phenolic grip expected of this style of wine; high acid; long, tangy finish. “Not a classic ‘orange’ wine but very different and interesting,” said one taster. “Is an orange wine in the sense that it smells like Muscat that has been on skins and you don’t get that character from Muscat in a conventional white wine,” said another taster, adding, “Structure wise, however, this wine is not distinctly ‘orange’.”

SIGURD 2016 WHITE BLEND

LARK HILL 2014 MR V

Barossa Valley, South Australia 12.5%v/v – Diam RRP$34.00/bottle Varieties: Riesling, Garganega, Gewurztraminer, Viognier Time on skins: 2-11 days

Canberra 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$35.00/bottle Varieties: Marsanne/Roussanne/ Viognier

Best of tasting: Semi-cloudy colour of light gold. Hay, straw, dried grass, lemon/lime pith, apples, apricots, ginger beer and thyme on the nose.

Quite a lot going on in the mouth; good balance of acid, fruit and astringency.

VA highlights a sweetness. Slightly drying phenolics. Soft, citrusy, lingering finish. “Moreish and fun,” noted one taster. “A well-made wine,” said another.

Best of tasting: Clear pale gold in colour. Elegant, delicate and fresh nose of lemon tree, lemon blossom, dried apricot, stewed apples, florals and a botrytis character. Zesty palate which is fruity. Rich, powerful peach flavours with some spicy oak; botrytis carries through onto the palate but still finishes completely dry. Clean finish. “A very interesting, complex wine with a lovely botrytis character,” said one taster. “Pretty and plush; good drinking,” said another taster.

“Cleanest and freshest wine on table,” said yet another taster.

Orange Wine tasting 70

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

TASTING NOTES

ARCHITECTS OF WINE 2016 CLARE VALLEY SKIN CONTACT RIESLING Clare Valley, South Australia 12.00%v/v – Diam RRP$30.00/bottle Time on skins: 10-16 days Clear pale gold in colour. Aromas of honey, hay, spice, stewed fruits, citrus, apple, hazelnuts, dried pears, and herbs. Mouthfilling and textured palate which is dry, tangy and high in acid; some sourness apparent.

Flavours of apple crumble, lemon pith and dried thyme. Good length. “A fine, fun wine with lovely acid,” noted one taster. “A bit tired,” said another.

V3 2N 3

BRAVE NEW WINE 2014 DOPPELGANGER RIESLING

HELEN & JOEY ESTATE 2016 WAYWARD CHILD PINOT GRIS

Denmark, Western Australia 12.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$28.00/bottle Time on skins: 8 months

Yarra Valley, Victoria 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$35-40.00/bottle Time on skins: 4 weeks

Gold in colour with amber/bronze hues.

An unusual but not unattractive nose with some oxidative and madeira-like notes; intense fruit characters along with almonds, cashews, dried apples, figs, cloves and allspice.

Palate is very full, rich and mouthfilling with almost Chardonnaylike flavours. Acid in balance. Beautiful length with a doughlike, firm tannin finish. “Almost like a white wine version of a red wine in terms of mouthfeel,” noted one taster. “Perhaps a bit too much oak?” questioned another.

Pink and clear colour with orange tinges at the edges. Nose is clean and elegant and also features pink characters – dried rose petals, potpourri, Turkish delight, white cherries, and freeze dried raspberries.

Slight herbal note also evident. Soft palate of rich fruit; acid in balance, some sweetness in the mid-palate. Firm drying tannins on the finish. Acid drops away a little. “More of a rosé than an ‘orange’ wine,” noted one taster.

“Slightly structural but otherwise it’s just a good rosé,” said another, adding “On the other hand, I’ve tasted more structural roses than this wine.” “Still does have a dryness that makes it different to a rosé,” said yet another.

QUEALY 2016 TURBUL FRIULANO

QUEALY 2015 TURBUL FRIULANO

Mornington Peninsula, Victoria 13.5%v/v - screwcap RRP$40.00/bottle Time on skins: 10 days

Mornington Peninsula, Victoria 12.6%v/v – screwcap RRP$40.00/bottle Time on skins: 11 days

Deep yellow in colour with bronze hues.

Aromas of preserved lemon, dry hay, yellowbox honey and ginger with slight orange peel and floral notes. Rich, round, creamy and textural palate with good intensity; not high in acid or tannin.

Perhaps a bit too much oak. “Tastes like a conventional aged Semillon,” noted one taster adding, “doubt if many people would pick this as an amber wine.” “A lot like an old-school Chardonnay,” said another.

Pale clear colour – the clearest in the line-up. A delicate and slightly reductive nose; aromas of citrus, tropical fruit, fruit salad, fresh herbs and a slight green note. Mouth-watering acidity on the palate which is lean, dry and quite astringent.

Green note carries through. Lacks underlying fruit. Tart acid finish.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

ALPHA BOX & DICE 2016 GOLDEN MULLET FURY

BRAVE NEW WINE 2016 KLUSTERPLUNK CHARDONNAY

McLaren Vale, South Australia 13.7%v/v – Diam RRP$30.00/bottle Varieties: Semillon, Viognier Time on skins: 7-10 days

Denmark, Western Australia 11.3%v/v – screwcap RRP$28.00/bottle Time on skins: 13 days

Clear, medium gold in colour. Sherry/ madeirised and herbal/grassy characters on the nose which also has a slight aldehyde note.

Some tropical notes on the palate which is dry and neutral and slightly sour and vinegary. “Reminds me of a Fino sherry,” said one taster. “VA is a bit much as the wine can’t support it,” said another taster, adding. “the VA also adds an attenuated sweetness.” “Slightly oxidative, slightly extracted but really good fun – but not comfort-zone drinking,” wrote another taster.

Amber in colour with a hint of orange brown.

Very fruity, slightly oxidised, complex nose of tropical fruit, fruit salad, honey and dried herbs - particularly thyme and sage - as well as a dried grape character; hint of Brett.

Palate is astringent, a bit broad and lacks fruit; slight lemon peel and tart characters.

“Slightly sweaty, slightly savoury, probably Bretty palate which is seriously delicious,” thought one taster.

www.winetitles. com . au

71

TASTING NOTES

THE OTHER RIGHT 2016 SUNSHINE ON MY SKIN VIOGNIER Adelaide Hills, South Australia 12.3%v/v – cork RRP$35.00/bottle Time on skins: 14 days Dull gold in colour with bronze hues.

Clean, lifted, fragrant nose with a hint of spice and aldehyde.

Honeyed fruit, dried apricots and dried herbs on the palate which lacks some freshness. “Fun and enjoyable,” noted one taster.

KALLESKE 2016 AMSTED & CO PLENARIUS 2015 SKIN VIOGNIER CONTACT MARSANNE Barossa Valley,

STEFANO LUBIANA 2015 AMPHORA

South Australia 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$26.00/bottle Time on skins: 7 days

South Australia 12.5%v/v - screwcap RRP$28.00/bottle Varieties: Semillon, Pedro Ximenez, Riesling, Roussanne, Slightly cloudy, yellow Muscat in colour. Complex

The most orange wine in terms of colour in the lineup: clear, deep amber. Complex, sweet nose which is slightly oxidative; characters of spice, confectionary, boiled lollies, toffee, marzipan, mead, marmalade and a slight waxy note.

“Almost Port-like,” said one taster of the nose. Waxy note carries through onto the palate which is soft, zesty, generous, giving and full. Not a highly structured wine nor particularly long, Chocolaty finish with a tangy aftertaste.

“Lovely fruit and nice aftertaste,” said one taster. “Looks and tastes like a 25-year-old wine,” said another.

Bendigo, Victoria 13.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle Time on skins: 14 days Clear colour of straw.

Delicate, elegant nose of dried grass, lemon balm, lemon herbs and ginger beer. “Smelt a lot like a sour beer at first,” noted one taster, adding, “The palate has an obvious bacterial imbalance but some good fruit underlies that which would make it fairly drinkable on a hot day with an ice cube in it.”

Somewhat nutty on the palate with a hint of ginger beer. Firm, pleasant phenolics with nice fruit sweetness. “A lovely structural wine,” said another taster. “A conventional wine in many respects except it’s bone dry,” said yet another taster.

Tasmania 13.5%v/v – Vinolok RRP$38.00/bottle Varieties: Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc

nose of dried herbs, grass, quince, lemon pith, green tea and jasmine. Juicy palate with nice phenolics and lively acid; lacks fruit - lots of secondary characters.

Good length and structure.

SMALL FRY 2016 CASTAGNA TANGERINE 2014 GROWERS DREAM SELECTION HARLEQUIN Barossa Valley,

Cloudy yellow in colour. Subdued nose of apple and pear, dried orange peel/ lemon peel, old wood and a hint of honey.

Almost sweet on the palate but then it cuts really dry. Palate lacks fruit and is a bit tart and bland; firm phenolics; slight oxidised/VA note.

Finishes short. “Tries to offer as much as it can but doesn’t quite get there,” said one taster.

THE OTHER RIGHT NV BRIGHT SIDE OF LIFE PET NAT

Beechworth, Victoria 13.0%v/v – Diam RRP$35.00/bottle Varieties: Roussanne, Sauvignon Blanc, Semillon, Viognier

Adelaide Hills, South Australia 12.8%v/v – crown seal RRP$28.00/bottle Variety: Viognier Time on skins: 7 days

Clear and golden in colour. Aromas of honey, marmalade, orange peel and blossom, and Indian spices. One taster thought the nose showed evidence of a “fair bit of battonage”.

Soft, dry, full, balanced palate with characters of peach and candied orange peel; slightly buttery.

“Has some elements of a traditional Aussie white wine but with good phenolics and acid,” noted one taster. “Reminiscent of a 20-year-old Rosemount Roxburgh Chardonnay,” said another. Drink now.

Pale and faintly cloudy in colour. Aromas of dried herbs, particularly thyme, dried orange peel and ginger beer. Sweet palate of quince, orange peel, ginger and lemon; juicy with a slight spritz.

Orange Wine tasting 72

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

V32N3

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

Electrocoup F3015 electronic pruner delivers greater control and quality cuts

T

he range of French-made products by Infaco have been around for the last 30 years and have revolutionised pruning practices in the horticulture industry around the world. Among the various tools in the range, the Electrocoup F3015 electric pruner is the most popular and widely used tool of its kind in Australia.

The battery operated secateurs are a multi-purpose, easy-touse tool and boast a number of benefits. The pruner can be used for a number of jobs thanks to the interchangeable cutting heads with varying blade sizes. The heads allow users to make wood cuts from 40mm to 55mm making it capable of selective limb removal up to certain diameters.

The user-friendly product features exceptional power-to-weight ratio and can be customised to increase the cutting speed. This gives users greater control and adds to a quality result.

The secateurs can be used with a number of different accessories making pruning less of a hassle and safer. The F3015 can be adapted with extensions that reach as high as 4m allowing users to operate from the ground and get into canopies with greater precision. It is also the only electric pruner that comes with a safety cut-off glove for ultimate safety.

The same battery can also power a new range of Powercoup PW2 tools. The unit comprises a powerful yet lightweight motor to which multiple heads can be attached. The PW2 can be adapted to suit a chainsaw head, reciprocating saw, hedge trimmer and olive harvester.

nfaco’s popular Electrocoup F3015 electronic pruner.

For further information visit www.ryset.com or phone (03) 9457 2982

Whitco - superior hedging systems

W

hat happens when a firewood machinery designer plants a vineyard?

David Burder, head designer and chief executive of Whitlands Engineering, based in North East Victoria, began designing vineyard equipment for his own vineyard in 2001 after realising that some of the vineyard equipment on the market was overpriced and inefficient.

An inventor of sorts, David had started out designing firewood processing machinery under the wellknown Superaxe brand. Believing several of his vineyard innovations had potential, Whitco Vineyard Equipment was born. And, as they say – the rest is history. Tried and tested in the company vineyard for more than 10 years, Whitco equipment is now distributed across Australia and New Zealand by certified dealers. As a testament to the quality, durability and reliability of the machinery,

V3 2N 3

all products are backed by a one-year warranty.

Designed and built in Australia, Whitco hedging systems provide versatile and innovative solutions to trimming and pruning work in vineyards, olive groves, orchards, etc. Available in medium duty for summer trimming and heavy duty for winter pruning, the efficient and robust cutting mechanism allows impressive ground speeds – meaning big savings on labour. Both models are available in four lengths and either right hand or left hand configuration. They are a modular type system which allows vineyard operators to start with a single cutter bar and add on to create either double, triple or quadruple hedging systems to suit their particular trellising systems and canopy styles.

For further information and details of your nearest distributor visit www. whitcovinquip.com.au or phone 1800 702 701.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

Whitco Vin Quip Triple ‘over-the-row’ hedger configuration.

www.winetitles. com . au

73

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

Great wine begins in the nursery

Yalumba Nursery’s field site at Oxford Landing in South Australia’s Riverland.

Y

alumba Nursery has been supplying the Australian wine industry for more than 40 years and prides itself on supplying high quality grafted vines and excellent customer service.

Understanding the relationship between site, clone and rootstock is critical to the success of any viticultural enterprise and Yalumba

Nursery has spent the last 40 years building knowledge in this area by undertaking clone and rootstock trials and gathering commercial information from its customers as well its team of winemakers, vineyard managers and growers. There is an old adage that great wine begins in the vineyard. At Yalumba Nursery we strongly believe great wine begins in the nursery.

The 2017-18 propagation season looks to be another busy one with popular rootstocks in short-supply. At the time of publication, Yalumba Nursery had access to good volumes of 1103 Paulsen, 101-14 and Ramsey.

If you’re still chasing vines for planting in 2018 contact Nick Dry on 0411 487 495.

New Felco saws make the cut

F

elco of Switzerland has released two new models of highperformance pruning saw to complement its range of professional quality secateurs and pruning tools.

The new models are the Felco 630 and the Felco 640. Both feature chromed steel, rust-resistant blades and balanced tooth geometry for cleaner cuts and increased cutting speed. The saws also offer a new level of comfort with a nonslip, ergonomic hooked handle, a safety scabbard with blade locking system and a detachable left or right handed belt loop.

Other recent releases from Felco include the Felco 16 and 17 pruning

74

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

shears specifically designed for left handers. The Felco 16 suits smaller hands while the Felco 17 features a soft-grip rotating handle. Both models offer a cutting capacity of up to 20mm, a toothed centre nut for easy adjusting of the cutting and anvil blades and a shockabsorbing cushion stop.

As with all Felco products, all parts can be replaced, allowing the tools to be refurbished time and time again for the term of their life.

For more information on these new products or the Felco range contact Felco Australia on 1800 730 257.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2017

The new high-performance Felco 630 pruning saw.

V32N3

Wine Industry information and news.

Anywhere, Anytime

Now available as a mobile app.

Winetitles Media digital editions and Apps means that accessing your wine industry publications has never been easier.

This service enables you to access full-content editions in a format that suits your smartphone, tablet or desktop.

Once downloaded, the publications can then be read anywhere, anytime, even if you are offline.

Sign up today at winetitlesdigitaledition.com.au or search the app store for North East Media. Magazine subscribers have free access with login.

w w w. w i n e t i t l e s . c o m . a u T: +618 8369 9522 | E: subs@winetitles.com.au

Melbourne

Adelaide

WA

NSW

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: New South Wales Melbourne Adelaide Western Australia New Zealand

2/40 Bradmill Ave Rutherford 59 Banbury Rd, Reservoir 12 Hamilton Tce, Newton 5/1 Ostler Dve, Vasse 3M Henry Rose Place, Albany, Auckland

Ph. 02 4932 4511 Ph. 1300 882 850 Ph. 08 8365 0044 Ph. 08 9755 4433 Ph. 0800 699 599

E. sales@winequip.com.au www.winequip.com.au www.winequip.co.nz