Eureka

A friend asked an Andean organic winemaker why he and his colleagues don’t pick earlier to avoid having to add acid. The winemaker replied that this was impossible because the wines would taste too “herbaceous.” This made me do some reading and I came to an understanding that is helpful to me and, hopefully, not too simplistic. It anyone has any refinements or corrections, that would be great!

Backing up a little bit, it seems to me that, while growers can base their decision of when to pick on several parameters, the two most important are sugar level (affecting the acid/sweet balance and level of alcohol) and seed/skin/stem maturity (affecting tannin and color)*. Sugar level (Babo/Brix) is mostly a function of heat while seed maturity is mostly a function of light (i.e., photosynthesis). While not independent, these are often not coincident, and this is where the interest lies.

Hot and elevated desert climates, like the Andes, have proportionately more heat than light compared to traditional European wine-growing regions. As a result, sugar maturity happens faster (earlier) than seed maturity. In Europe, summer days are longer, generating proportionately more light, and the angle of solar incidence is more oblique, generating proportionately less heat. So there’s a greater chance of both peaking at around the same time (longer hang times may also produce more complexity). Since, in Europe, it is often difficult to achieve sufficient sugar maturity, growers tend to pick based on Babo sugar levels. At adequate Babo levels, seed maturity tends to be satisfactory, so this criterion seems to rule.

BUT this reminded me of Luca Roagna saying, in his charmingly contrarian way, that he doesn’t use sugar levels because they are, in fact, unreliable. To illustrate, he said that during the extremely hot European summer of 2003, there was proportionately more heat than light, so wineries that picked based on sugar levels made bad wine because the seeds and tannins were still green. But in Europe this mismatch is closer to an exception, while in many new world regions it seems to be the rule.

So, in a way, “Europe in 2003” (a year popular with critics and unpopular with geeks) seems to be the norm in hot climates. There, growers tend to pick based on seed maturity, not sugar levels, otherwise the wines would be too green. Too herbaceous. But if you pick when the seeds ripen, at that point the grapes will have lost some of their acidity and concentrated more sugar, so that the resulting wine will be more alcoholic. Malic acid also tends to degrade above 28C, so that could be another factor. Not to mention that longer “baking” time tends to make the fruit flavors jammy. In other words, presto, low acid, stewed fruit, high alcohol, international/modern wines. It is also easier to fix (spoof) such a wine than it is to counter the taste of unripe tannins.

So, in conclusion, the so-called new world style is not as much a matter of esthetic or stylistic preference, but evolved as a sort of meteorological necessity. One that generated an acquired taste, a taste for itself, in order to survive. That might explain why wines from Patagonia, that enjoys a climate closer to Europe, are vinified (according to some) to taste similar to the commercially successful wines from Mendoza. But that's another matter altogether...

*Sugar maturity - the point where sugar stops accumulating through cellular multiplication and begins to concentrate through water evaporation - is sometimes called “technological,” while seed maturity - where the seeds, skins and stems become ripe - is called “phenolic.” A third term - “physiological” – is ambiguous (in http://www.gangofpour.com/putnam/jargon_busting.html, physiological is distinct from phenolic while in http://www.wineanorak.com/ripeness.htm they mean the same thing), so I’ll just stick to “sugar” and “seed.”

[David M. Bueker]

Interesting post Oswaldo.

So here's a question for you:

In Burgundy (and other areas) the practice of chaptalization has been in place for a very, very long time. Wines picked at a potential alcohol of 12% are often chaptalized up to 13% in order to prolong fermentation/extract more flavor from the grapes. This is a traditional fix that has been employed in a European region (actually in many, many places for a very long time). Is this "spoof"?

Sorry to get hung up on that one term, but I wonder what value there is in using the pejorative term. It seems to divide the wine world along personal preference lines which of course are of necessity quite blurry.

I have two points of discussion regarding your post. First of all, many growers/wineries make a big issue on having low vineyard yields, which is accomplished by removing buds early in the growing season. It seems to me that if they allowed a higher yield in "hot" areas, then proper sugar levels could be attained with seed and skin maturity. Second:

So, in conclusion, the so-called new world style is not as much a matter of aesthetic or stylistic preference, but evolved as a sort of meteorological necessity.

Meteorologically speaking, quite often the harvest may be dictated by immediate local weather; rain in particular. If grapes are nearing maturity and a grower sees 5 consecutive days of rain in the forecast, starting in 2 days, he may have to choose between harvesting early and having under ripe fruit or waiting until the rain stops, thus exposing the fruit to dilution and possible mold and mildew.

David, I see your point and it is, of course, very germane. Yes, from a "natural" wine point of view (semantic difficulties of "natural" notwithstanding), chaptalization is spoofing, just as much as acidulation. The fact that it is so traditional and practiced by so many of our favorite wineries doesn't change that, and is one of the reasons why "traditional" and "natural," sometimes used interchangeably, are not really so correlated. Since the proof is ultimately in the pudding, perhaps one can just say (or believe) that wine tends to taste better and evolve better for longer the less interference there is, and that low interference is only possible in good vintages. On the other hand, the widespread idea that, in bad vintages, you should stick to good winemakers, suggests a beliefe in their redemptive abilities.

Howie, I'll look into your first point. As for the second, there is effectively no rain in the Andean desert climates, so they are free to pick whenever they want. But your point stands for other new worlkd areas that have rain

[David M. Bueker]

Oswaldo,

I mostly agree with you, but there are a great many good and great winemakers who make fabulous wines who chaptalize, even in vintages that would be considered very fine as a minimum.

First of all, many growers/wineries make a big issue on having low vineyard yields, which is accomplished by removing buds early in the growing season. It seems to me that if they allowed a higher yield in "hot" areas, then proper sugar levels could be attained with seed and skin maturity.

Howie, this is an obvious point of debate but there is work that has been done in Virginia (I think by Zoecklein at Virginia Tech) that concluded that one could use divided canopies and increase yields by about 66% without impact to wine quality and some results point to increased wine quality. Without dividied canopies there are problems with increasing yields. With optimum leaves to cluster ratio and the need to have thin canopies for light penetration and the ability to get air to circulate for mildew resistance, leaving more bunches quickly turns into losing situation. Generally I look for 4-5 shoots per linear foot of trellis which should yield between 1 and 1.5 pounds per the same measure. More than that you get crowed. Less than that and the canopy never slows its growth at verasion.

Sugar level (Babo/Brix) is mostly a function of heat while seed maturity is mostly a function of light (i.e., photosynthesis).

I have read this many times and thought it to be true but 2008 made me question this statement. In my Barbera I had a rather severe downy mildew infection that resulted in the loss of a significant portion of my leaves. As a result the sugar stopped accumulating at around 16 brix sometime in late August/early September. I left the grapes on the vine hoping for a bounce in sugar until the first weekend in October when I finally picked (to make a rose). While the brix were stalled the seeds continued to mature. I discussed this with the University of Maryland Viticulture specialist and he told me that this is normal in a situation where there is a loss of significant leave surface. Therefore I have problems relating the statement above which is generally accepted with the specific issue I witnessed last year.

Sugar level (Babo/Brix) is mostly a function of heat while seed maturity is mostly a function of light (i.e., photosynthesis).

I have read this many times and thought it to be true but 2008 made me question this statement. In my Barbera I had a rather severe downy mildew infection that resulted in the loss of a significant portion of my leaves. As a result the sugar stopped accumulating at around 16 brix sometime in late August/early September. I left the grapes on the vine hoping for a bounce in sugar until the first weekend in October when I finally picked (to make a rose). While the brix were stalled the seeds continued to mature. I discussed this with the University of Maryland Viticulture specialist and he told me that this is normal in a situation where there is a loss of significant leave surface. Therefore I have problems relating the statement above which is generally accepted with the specific issue I witnessed last year.

Maybe I'm missing something, Brian, but this sounds like corroboration. With less leaf surface, the grapes got more light than they would otherwise have received, so the seeds continued to mature, while the sugar level was stalled, presumably because of insufficient heat (were temperatures in August/Sep 2008 lower than normal)?

Maybe I'm missing something, Brian, but this sounds like corroboration. With less leaf surface, the grapes got more light than they would otherwise have received, so the seeds continued to mature, while the sugar level was stalled, presumably because of insufficient heat (were temperatures in August/Sep 2008 lower than normal)?

Maybe its me that is missing something. The grapes did continue to receive light you are correct. Maybe its the use of the term photosynthesis that confuses me since photosynthesis takes place in the leaves and I had lost most of my leaf surface. If it is indeed a function of light on the grapes and not on the leaves than it does make sense. Likewise I thought that sugar production was from photosynthesis and as such leaf loss should impact sugar production significantly which I saw. But then I have problems with the coorelation to heat. I assume it has to do with the amount of photosynthesis that takes place within the same available light. I have read that above a certain amount of light (lumens?) extra light really adds nothing and I know that photosynthesis stops above and below certain temperature levels so I assume that it is a function of photosythesis efficiency in that more sugar is produced within the same light levels at higher temperatures (up to the point where the grape vine shuts down).

I'm no expert, but photosynthesis, as the word says (= synhtesis of light), is only about light, and will happen in the absence of heat. I believe it impacts every constituent of the vine, not just the leaves, though the leaves are designed for maximum light capture.

Photosynthesis is indeed the light-induced conversion of atmospheric CO2 to sugar, which occurs in the leaves of the vines. Light is also important for the development of color in the skins of the grapes and may lead to the greater development of flavor, too. The role of heat is a more complicated one, as it involves the ripening process in fruit. As heat increases, the metabolic processes increase, including ripening. Ripening involves phytohormones, most especially ethylene, and is still not a well-understood process on the biochemical level. One of the features of ripening is the loss of acidity (malic and tartaric acids are used as energy storage forms in grapes), which is reduced by cooler temperatures at night, hence the preference for diurnal temperature variation.

Here's a reasonable discussion of the issues in non-technical terms:

http://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=get ... taId=50089

Mark Lipton

http://www.winepros.com.au/jsp/cda/reference/oxford_entry.jsp?entry_id=2409
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/4/753

Took a few minutes to check myself and the URLs above are the best general reference I could find. It appears that photosynthesis is impacted by temperature extremes (above 30C and below 15C) but not stopped as I stated previously.

many growers/wineries make a big issue on having low vineyard yields, which is accomplished by removing buds early in the growing season. It seems to me that if they allowed a higher yield in "hot" areas, then proper sugar levels could be attained with seed and skin maturity.

This is what I got from perhaps Brazil's finest garagiste, with compliments on your question:

Higher yields generate fruit that is less complex and has less phenolic concentration. It may have more freshness, better balance between alcohol and acidity, but less flavor, complexity and structure. The wines will be "thin." And, once again, we are going around in circles, thinking of Europe, where it is possible to produce less grapes per vine and ripen slowly.

To complicate things further, removing buds is not enough. It is necessary that the vineyard/climate/soil itself be conducive to low vigor, as one sees with old vines and with certain regions. That's why some of the more radical biodynamic growers won't allow thinning the clusters or removing the buds because they see it as an aggression against the plant, that will respond by increasing its vigor the following year, creating a vicious circle.

[David M. Bueker]

many growers/wineries make a big issue on having low vineyard yields, which is accomplished by removing buds early in the growing season. It seems to me that if they allowed a higher yield in "hot" areas, then proper sugar levels could be attained with seed and skin maturity.

This is what I got from perhaps Brazil's finest garagiste, with compliments on your question:

Higher yields generate fruit that is less complex and has less phenolic concentration. It may have more freshness, better balance between alcohol and acidity, but less flavor, complexity and structure. The wines will be "thin." And, once again, we are going around in circles, thinking of Europe, where it is possible to produce less grapes per vine and ripen slowly.

To complicate things further, removing buds is not enough. It is necessary that the vineyard/climate/soil itself be conducive to low vigor, as one sees with old vines and with certain regions. That's why some of the more radical biodynamic growers won't allow thinning the clusters or removing the buds because they see it as an aggression against the plant, that will respond by increasing its vigor the following year, creating a vicious circle.

The question of yields is indeed very interesting. How many hectoliters per hectare/tons per acre constitute high yields? This is the quesiton that can never be answered. Harkening back to 1997, when the Nahe in Germany received terrible hail early in the year, Donnhoff made wine from yields around 15 hl/ha from what are already low vigor sites (lots of rocky, slate soils). Comparing those wines to wines from years like 2001, 2002 & 2005 where yields were twice as high there is not discernable increase in wine quality. Even Donnhoff himself has said that one can "make great wine at 15 hl/ha and from 30 hl/ha, but at 30 hl/ha you get twice as much great wine."

I would certainly never advocate the industrial yields of some cooperatives, or even the allowable maximums of some of the world's great wine regions, but where that line of yields is drawn has always been rather fuzzy. Consider a Bordeaux estate like Sociando-Mallet that makes very traditional wine from suprisingly high yields (they reportedly do not green harvest). I don't know of anyone but the most devoted gob-o-phile who would consider Sociando to be a thin wine..

As for any radical biodynamic growers (realizing that not all those who practice biodynamics are quite so fanatical), I wonder if even picking the grapes is also an aggression against the vine After all the grape vine does not grow the berries for us to make wine. It grows them to propagate to the next generation. Any harvest is an interference in the natural cycle of life.

Agreed. The existence of counter examples for just about everything one says about wine is part of what makes it so elusive and fascinating, but the existence of such counter examples doesn't negate the usefulness of certain very general rules or guidelines, arrived at heuristically (since, in wine, logic is useless and empirism limited), at best circling the caravans of truth, such as statements about yields and optimal picking times.

Maybe I'm missing something, Brian, but this sounds like corroboration. With less leaf surface, the grapes got more light than they would otherwise have received, so the seeds continued to mature, while the sugar level was stalled, presumably because of insufficient heat (were temperatures in August/Sep 2008 lower than normal)?

Looking back at this thread I realized I never answered the part of the question in bold. Temps were not lower in 2008 than normal. Temps were lower in 2009 and the same grapes reached 22.5 brix in 2009.

The question of yields is indeed very interesting. How many hectoliters per hectare/tons per acre constitute high yields? This is the quesiton that can never be answered.

I agree it can't be answered but I am not even sure how it should asked or what form of measurement used. The product per land mass you use is what is most commonly reported but that takes into account a lot of variables. How exactly is that computed? If one makes 15 hectoliters of wine from a one hectare vineyard but sells of some grapes from the same vineyard to another producer what is the resulting yield? Pounds per vine or better yet clusters per vine with average cluster weight are better for looking at yields at a per vine basis but are meaningless without knowing planting density. 12 clusters per vine at 4 oz per cluster average on a meter by meter planted vineyard would be fine but be meager on a 8 ft by 10 ft planted vineyard where there could be 60 clusters at 5 oz average. Pounds per linear foot of trellis provides a measure that somewht compensates for vine density but is totally meaningless to most of the wine consumers of the world.

Consider a Bordeaux estate like Sociando-Mallet that makes very traditional wine from suprisingly high yields (they reportedly do not green harvest). I don't know of anyone but the most devoted gob-o-phile who would consider Sociando to be a thin wine..

I have heard Bordelais claims that their yield figures look high because of their high density of plantation. They say that production per vine would be a better criterion than production/hectare. Dense plantation apparently has the quality benefit of making the vines struggle and their roots plunger deeper as well as the economic benefit of securing more revenue/hectare. I do not know whether dense plantation applies to Sociando-Mallet.

Interesting thread, Oswaldo.

Consider a Bordeaux estate like Sociando-Mallet that makes very traditional wine from suprisingly high yields (they reportedly do not green harvest). I don't know of anyone but the most devoted gob-o-phile who would consider Sociando to be a thin wine..

I have heard Bordelais claims that their yield figures look high because of their high density of plantation. They say that production per vine would be a better criterion than production/hectare. Dense plantation apparently has the quality benefit of making the vines struggle and their roots plunger deeper as well as the economic benefit of securing more revenue/hectare. I do not know whether dense plantation applies to Sociando-Mallet.

Interesting thread, Oswaldo.

Tim, a winery I worked for in Northern California discarded the notion of yield per acre (or hectare) as a valid measure years ago. They prefer the yield per vine as a much better gauge. It follows the Richard Smart theory of the balanced vine, and paying attention to yield per vine takes into account the differences within a vineyard. Provides for better husbandry.

And that has become pretty standard practice for many of the better growers in California.

There has been quite a bit of experimentation on vine density within the past thirty years too. Lots of theories going back and forth. Many California vineyards that were originally planted in then-standard densities ended up with totally different regimes once the phylloxera problem resulted in having to rip and replant.

As with any other agricultural enterprise, the growers are constantly learning and developing.

First of all, many growers/wineries make a big issue on having low vineyard yields, which is accomplished by removing buds early in the growing season. It seems to me that if they allowed a higher yield in "hot" areas, then proper sugar levels could be attained with seed and skin maturity.

Howie, this is an obvious point of debate but there is work that has been done in Virginia (I think by Zoecklein at Virginia Tech) that concluded that one could use divided canopies and increase yields by about 66% without impact to wine quality and some results point to increased wine quality. Without dividied canopies there are problems with increasing yields. With optimum leaves to cluster ratio and the need to have thin canopies for light penetration and the ability to get air to circulate for mildew resistance, leaving more bunches quickly turns into losing situation. Generally I look for 4-5 shoots per linear foot of trellis which should yield between 1 and 1.5 pounds per the same measure. More than that you get crowed. Less than that and the canopy never slows its growth at verasion.

I think this is the basic argument of Smart's 'Sunshine into Wine.' He makes a convincing case, at least in the New World.

(Ooops, Hoke, just noticed you got there first. Great minds think alike, or as my mother used to say, 'fools seldom differ.')