WTN: 2005 Terres Dorées (Jean-Paul Brun) Vielles Vignes Beaujolais.

2005 Terres Dorées (Jean-Paul Brun) Vielles Vignes Beaujolais France. 12% alcohol. $12.49 at Chambers Street Wines, New York, NY. Imported by Louis/Dressner, New York, NY. Deep red color, deep hue, wonderful fruit aroma and taste, incredible concentration, lovely Gamay fruit taste, long finish. Absolutely delicious. 5*.

Regards, Bob

Notes from Joe Dressner:

The Domaine des Terres Dorées is located in Charnay, a village in the Southern Beaujolais just north of Lyons, in a beautiful area known as the “Region of Golden Stones.” Jean-Paul Brun is the owner and winemaker at this 40-acre family estate and has attracted the attention of the French and American press for the wonderfully fruity and delicate wines he produces. Brun wants to make “old-style” Beaujolais and his vinification differs from the prevailing practices in the region. He believes that the charm of Gamay’s fruit is best expressed by the grapes’ indigenous yeasts, rather than by adding industrial yeast. Virtually all Beaujolais is now made by adding a particular yeast during fermentation.

Known as 71B, this yeast is a laboratory product made in Holland from a tomato base, which imparts wines with banana and candy aromas. It produces a beverage, but with no authenticity and little charm. Brun, on the other hand, wants to make a pure Gamay wine. Brun’s view is that Beaujolais drinks best at a lower degree of alcohol and that there is no need to systematically add sugar to the must (chaptalize) to reach alcohol levels of 12 to 13 degrees. So he chaptalizes minimally or not at all — depending on the vintage and the cuvée. His Beaujolais is made to be pleasurable — light, fruity and delicious — not an artificially inflated wine that shines at tasting competitions.

Only a minimal amount of S02 is used at bottling to keep the wine fresh and “headache-free”. Fermentation naturally produces a lot of CO2, which acts as protection against oxidation during aging; leaving some in the wine at bottling time also helps to keep it fresh. Filtration is also minimal so that the wine keeps its original fruit and aromas. Brun’s wines are not ‘blockbusters’ in the sense of ‘big.’ The emphasis is not on weight, but on fruit: Beaujolais as it once was and as it should be.

Brun’s Nouveaus were rated as the top Nouveau of the vintage by France’s Gault Millau magazine several years in a row. Robert Parker has rated Brun as a four-star producer (the only other Beaujolais producers with four stars are in the Crus) and has written about his wines: “Proprietor Brun is a believer in using only the vineyard’s wild yeast, rather than the synthetic yeasts used by most other producers. His beautiful wines are favorites among purists.”

http://www.louisdressner.com/Brun/?41

Here's Lallemand's info on 71B yeast:

Lallemand 71B Yeast Strain info

71B: For nouveau wines
71B was isolated by the INRA (National Agricultural Research Institute) in Narbonne, France. 71B is known for making blush and semi-sweet wines with a 'fruit salad' character. Long-lived aromas are due to its production of esters and higher alcohols. 71B also softens high acid musts by partially metabolizing malic acid.

I thought even DuBoeuf had backed away from 71B? Seemed less banana-y in recent vintages, though still innocuous and dull.

Thanks for notes on the '05. Just had my next to last '04, have '05 awaiting me at CSW.

Thanks, Alan. Very interesting.

What do you make of Joe's point that "this yeast is a laboratory product made in Holland from a tomato base"? [I mean, besides lauding indigenous yeasts.]

Is there anything wrong with using "industrial yeasts" generally?

Regards, Bob

I'm eager to see what you think of the 2005, Dale. I was a little disappointed in the 2004, but don't have a bottle left to test and compare.

Regards, Bob

Thanks, Alan. Very interesting.

What do you make of Joe's point that "this yeast is a laboratory product made in Holland from a tomato base"? [I mean, besides lauding indigenous yeasts.]

Is there anything wrong with using "industrial yeasts" generally?

Regards, Bob

IMHO it's a bit of a misleading statement being that "industrial yeasts" are just pure strain isolates of yeasts that occur naturally. Wines made with 71B are not my favorite, but he seems to be knocking the entire wine yeast industry and winemakers who inoculate with pure strains. To me it’s just another choice that a winemaker has in his/her arsenal to produce the intended style of wine.

Thanks, Alan.

I'm eager to see what you think of the 2005, Dale. I was a little disappointed in the 2004, but don't have a bottle left to test and compare.

Regards, Bob

You might try picking up more of the 04 if you see it. As Dale's note below/above indicates, it has rounded out a bit since release, although still a very "pretty" wine. Worth drinking IMHO

Thanks, Rahsaan. I was going to order more of the 2005 -- it looks like Chambers Street may be sold out of the 2004, but a couple of New York stores have it based on Wine Searchers Pro -- I'll do a taste test and report.

I thought the 71B was a strain that is used in some Belgian Trappists and which cause the Trappist ales to have a banana-character. I assumed the yeast was then natural, but did I understand correctly that the yeast is in fact cultivated, not original? Or is it only not original to wine producing but could be to beer?

-O-

Bob, I bought 3 of the 2004, was a bit disappointed with first, liked second a bit better, third enough to order 3 more. The prickly sharpness of the wine at release seems to have faded. But I look forward to the 2005.

IMHO it's a bit of a misleading statement being that "industrial yeasts" are just pure strain isolates of yeasts that occur naturally. Wines made with 71B are not my favorite, but he seems to be knocking the entire wine yeast industry and winemakers who inoculate with pure strains. To me it’s just another choice that a winemaker has in his/her arsenal to produce the intended style of wine.

From the following link:
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/strains.asp
Lalvin 71B-1122 (Narbonne) : This yeast metabolizes more of the malic acid during fermentation than most other yeasts and should be considered for wines which are high in malic. It is noted for producing "fruity" reds such as vin nouveau and works well with high-acid native North American grapes, producing rounder, smoother, more aromatic wines that tend to mature quickly. Because it is also known for making blush, rosé and semi-sweet wines with a tropical fruit character, it promotes these styles with Cabernet Franc, Gewürtztraminer and Riesling. For obvious reasons, is often the yeast of choice for a great many malic fruit and berries and for vegetable-grape concentrate blended wines. Alcohol toxicity is predictable at 14% and its temperature range is 60-85°. F.
I think "Industrial" is a poor word to use for yeast. "Commercial" strains I think is more appropriate. I'd like to add that the use of the naturally occuring yeasts on the grapes can be risky and lead to generation of VA if things aren't just right. The commercial strains are more tolerant of SO2, which can kill the wild yeasts along with numerous other harmful things like vinegar bacteria. Damaged fruit can go bad quickly if not treated with a sufficient dose of SO2. I am not a big fan of 71B either. While it does soften the malic acid, in addition to the banana aromas, it requires the addition of yeast nutrients to prevent reduction.

[David M. Bueker]

Fermenting with indigenous yeasts has become something of the new badge of honor, but let's not forget that it is also something of a crap shoot. Isolated yeast strains are still a natural product, just with some controls to ensure quality.

Whether a producer chooses to ferment with indigenous (please let's not say "natural" or "wild", as both a terribly misleading) or specific, cultured yeasts is not a reflection on the wine or the winemaker. It's the quality of the final product that counts, as yeast selection is not a manipulation in any way the same sense as things like reverse osmosis or watering back and then acidifying.

[Jenise]

Bob Ross, if you somehow don't find an 04 I have a few bottles and would be happy to send you one--good time of year for that. I thought the 04 was absolutely delicious--I can't imagine you being disappointed. I had problem bottles of prior vintages (in fact, until 04 I had ONLY had problem bottles), so I wonder if these wines aren't easily 'disturbed'.

Whether a producer chooses to ferment with indigenous (please let's not say "natural" or "wild", as both a terribly misleading) or specific, cultured yeasts is not a reflection on the wine or the winemaker. It's the quality of the final product that counts, as yeast selection is not a manipulation in any way the same sense as things like reverse osmosis or watering back and then acidifying.

I'll go along with using "indigenous", but the choice of yeast is a reflection of both the wine and the winemaker. The choice of yeast can effect acid levels, alcohol levels, residual sugar, aromas and mouthfeel. The winemaker can choose to produce wine in a certain style and the choice of yeast type is one of the important variables he/she can control to obtain his/her goal.

I'll trade you, Jenise. I offered to send you a sweet French wine a couple of weeks ago. No response yet, but as an even swap, love to.

The 2004 is pretty much out of stock in New York from the three retailers I deal with.

Regards, Bob

[David M. Bueker]

I agree that the choice of yeast can and does affect the end product, but I would not want to see the use of cultured yeast lumped in with reverse osmosis, malo in barrel, etc. as an "evil" manipulation. A winemaker cannot count on good indigenous yeast being all that's around.

That's more what I meant (and did not express clearly the first time).

Whether a producer chooses to ferment with indigenous (please let's not say "natural" or "wild", as both a terribly misleading) or specific, cultured yeasts is not a reflection on the wine or the winemaker. It's the quality of the final product that counts, as yeast selection is not a manipulation in any way the same sense as things like reverse osmosis or watering back and then acidifying.

David,
Seems to me that this is all a matter of degree.
I can certainly see where one might consider the use of cultured yeasts as a manipulation in winemaking technique. Perhaps, the better question is, "Is it warranted?"
For instance, I know people who allow their fermentations to start with indigenous yeasts and then add cultured yeasts (or super food or DAP or . . .), if needed. I also know folks that immediately choose cultured yeasts that are so efficient and alcohol tolerant that the conversion rates acheived are nothing short of bizarre.
There are many makers who, when faced with more Brix than they anticipated, water back to avoid making wines with huge alcohols.
I think both of these methods could be considered interventionalist, ie. manipulative; my concern would be the why behind the technique.
If I were the winemaker, my philosophy would be to step away from the fermentation tank . . . and return only if things appear to be going awry. That is not everyone's philosophy and there is obviously room for lots of differing approaches - even those that employ RO, spinning cones, super heat/cold, enzymes, cultured yeasts, hydrating and the like.
In the end, the winemaker must be comfortable with his or her place in the scheme of things as they see it and be comfortable with their place in the market. And the balance of those two positions may bring about a relativity in defining and use of manipulation, in any degree.
At least, that's the way I see it.
And while my sentiments will always be on one end of the scale, I can understand how folks come to choose positions toward the other end. Indeed, I think that sometimes Mother Nature makes that choice.
Best, Jim

Whether a producer chooses to ferment with indigenous (please let's not say "natural" or "wild", as both a terribly misleading) or specific, cultured yeasts is not a reflection on the wine or the winemaker. It's the quality of the final product that counts, as yeast selection is not a manipulation in any way the same sense as things like reverse osmosis or watering back and then acidifying.

I'll go along with using "indigenous", but the choice of yeast is a reflection of both the wine and the winemaker. The choice of yeast can effect acid levels, alcohol levels, residual sugar, aromas and mouthfeel. The winemaker can choose to produce wine in a certain style and the choice of yeast type is one of the important variables he/she can control to obtain his/her goal.

One could make the argument that the use of indigenous yeasts is as much a part of terroir as any other factor. One case that can be made against the use of any commercial yeast strain is that it will in part mask the terroir, to whatever extent that it dictates the character of the wine (and, if it doesn't dictate the character, why are we purchasing it in the first place?). In that sense, it's a lot like using new oak in vinification: while it can have salutary effects, it runs the risk of dominating the essential character of the fruit itself. Yes, using indigenous yeasts is risky, but who ever said that winemaking was supposed to be free of risk?

Mark Lipton

(and, if it doesn't dictate the character, why are we purchasing it in the first place?).

How about to save a stuck fermentation?
Best, JIm

[David M. Bueker]

Jim,

Indeed it is all a matter of degree. I agree with you. Stepping back but checking constantly seems to be the most "authentic" while also reasonably prudent thing to do. I don't think this thread really headed this way, but I would not want to see a Brun, for example, excoriated for using a cultured yeast in the same way a winery (e.g. Poyferre) gets blasted for using Michel Rolland and reverse osmosis.

Mark,

Indigenous yeasts (the good and bad types) are quite possibly part of the terroir, but then all terroirs have their not so good elements. One could make the same argument that a violent rainstorm on September 29th (to use an example) is part of the terroir in the same way as 12 straight days of sunshine. Nobody expects the winery to delay picking to make sure the rain comes first.

I'm not promoting cultured yeasts by the way, just looking for balance and fine end products that reflect the region, the grape and the style of the domaine.

I don't think this thread really headed this way, but I would not want to see a Brun, for example, excoriated for using a cultured yeast in the same way a winery (e.g. Poyferre) gets blasted for using Michel Rolland and reverse osmosis.

Yep.
Fortunately, we are the ones who decided the matter of degree we will accept in the wines we purchase. No doubt, both M. Brun and M. Rolland are aware of that fact.
Best, Jim

Whether a producer chooses to ferment with indigenous (please let's not say "natural" or "wild", as both a terribly misleading) or specific, cultured yeasts is not a reflection on the wine or the winemaker. It's the quality of the final product that counts, as yeast selection is not a manipulation in any way the same sense as things like reverse osmosis or watering back and then acidifying.

I'll go along with using "indigenous", but the choice of yeast is a reflection of both the wine and the winemaker. The choice of yeast can effect acid levels, alcohol levels, residual sugar, aromas and mouthfeel. The winemaker can choose to produce wine in a certain style and the choice of yeast type is one of the important variables he/she can control to obtain his/her goal.

One could make the argument that the use of indigenous yeasts is as much a part of terroir as any other factor. One case that can be made against the use of any commercial yeast strain is that it will in part mask the terroir, to whatever extent that it dictates the character of the wine (and, if it doesn't dictate the character, why are we purchasing it in the first place?). In that sense, it's a lot like using new oak in vinification: while it can have salutary effects, it runs the risk of dominating the essential character of the fruit itself. Yes, using indigenous yeasts is risky, but who ever said that winemaking was supposed to be free of risk?

Mark Lipton

But what if the indigenous yeast that your vineyard and/or winery hosts produces bad wine, dies when the alcohol reaches 8% ABV or worse makes vinegar? Despite all the romantic imagery surrounding the wine industry, a winery is still at its core a commercial venture that has to have some type of marketable product to survive. Using cultured yeast is one way of minimizing the risks of producing a bad product.

(and, if it doesn't dictate the character, why are we purchasing it in the first place?).

How about to save a stuck fermentation?
Best, JIm

Oh, I agree that you might have to use non-indigenous yeasts to combat specific problems. My point was really why buy 71-B or any other specific strain of yeast if you're not interested in the character it imparts? Why not just go get baker's yeast, good old S. cerivisiae*, from your local supermarket and have done with it? Please note that this was simply a rhetorical point and not an actual call for winemakers to start purchasing Fleischmann's instead of 71-B.

Mark Lipton

* Yes, all wine yeasts AFAIK are S. cerivisiae, but hopefully my point is clear.