WINE & VITICULTURE JOURNAL - 30th Anniversary Special - May/June 2016 by Provincial Press Group

MAY/JUNE 2016 Â· Volume 31 Number 3

30th ANNIVERSARY ISSUE

Craft. Knowledge. Evolution.

Classic Oak Products offers a prestigious selection of quality French, Hungarian and American oak barrels through our complete range of François Frères, Demptos and Brive barrels. For almost two centuries we’ve been crafting barrels, assisting some of history’s most lauded and favourite wine brands. Through the original research into the interaction of wine, oxygen and oak, emanating from the Demptos Research Centre, at the University of Bordeaux, this rich tradition has intersected with modern science. This knowledge has enabled our cooperages to evolve and innovate ensuring we are able to meet today’s needs and future aspirations.

PART OF THE

(02) 9479 4700 sales@classicoakproducts.com www.classicoakproducts.com

The Complete Package. • • • • • • •

10 ultra-premium bottles European Collection luxury glass Extensive glass decoration Australian held stock Closures and capsules Gift boxes Premium cartons and shippers

NSW, VIC, TAS, ACT, QLD: Kevin Griffith – 0404 933 143 SA: Kearon Custance – 0419 641 348 WA: Freya Hohnen – 0427 572 397 Administration – Karen Martin – 0476 830 732 sales@cpak.com.au • www.cpak.com.au

Then and Now: Della Toffola advertisement from Issue 1 of the Wine Industry Journal in 1986 (Above) and today (right)

Proven solutions using crossflow filtration with ceramic membranes.

www.dtpacific.com | info@dtpacific.com | + 61 3 9924-4040 | @DellaToffolaPac

Established 1985 Published bi-monthly Publisher: Hartley Higgins

Sonya Logan, Editor

General Manager: Peter Muscet 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 Aparecida Conceiçao Boliani Bhaskar Bondada Anthony Borneman Darryl Catlin Paul Chambers Armando Corsi Angelica Crabb Roberta De Bei Anne Duncan Angus Forgan Sigfredo Fuentes Peter Godden Markus Herderich Cathy Howard José Ignacio Covarrubias Dan Johnson Andrew Kalleske Tony Keys Radka Kolouchova Larry Lockshin Jamie Marfell Gilmar Marodin Matt Patterson-Green Stuart Pym Adamo Domenico Rombolà Simon Schmidt Richard Smart Angela Sparrow Stephen Strachan Paola Tessarin Luke Warner Eric Wilkes Damien Wilson Geoff Woolcombe Advertising Manager: Dan Brannan Ph (08) 8369 9515 Fax (08) 8369 9529 Email d.brannan@winetitles.com.au Production and Design: Luke Westle Subscriptions One-year subscription (6 issues) Australia $77.00 (AUD) Two-year subscription (12 issues) Australia $144.00 (AUD) To subscribe and for overseas prices, visit: www.winetitles.com.au

he ‘80s have a lot to answer for. Many of them are depicted in this photo of yours truly celebrating her 14th birthday with a family gathering under the back verandah in May 1986 – unflattering baggy jeans, hot pink cable knit jumpers, woeful hairdos, cheap jewellery and baby poo Datsun Stanzas like the one in the background owned by my grandfather! I’m told that at least one of those things is quite the collector’s item these days (I’m talking about the Datsun Stanza just to avoid any confusion with me!). Also standing the test of time and proving good things did come out of the ‘80s is the very publication you hold – the Wine & Viticulture Journal – which came into being as the Australian Wine Industry Journal in May 1986. Little did I know as I blew out the 14 candles on my mum’s home-made sponge cake that the publication I would come to be editor of a couple of decades down the track was ‘hitting the streets’ for the first time. I have spent many hours looking back over previous issues of the Journal in preparation for producing this 30th anniversary issue, mostly those from its first decade which not only largely preceded my involvement in the industry in 1993 when I became a journalist for

its now sister publication Grapegrower & Winemaker, but also because the industry was in such a state of growth during this time that it made for particularly interesting reading. Special thanks must go to Peter Godden of the Australian Wine Research Institute, viticultural consultant and long-time Journal contributor Richard Smart, and Armando Corsi and Larry Lockshin from the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science at the University of South Australia for their contributions to our special feature marking our birthday which starts on page 7. I hope you enjoy their 30-year reflections on the Journal and the industry from the perspective of their special interests in winemaking, viticulture and wine marketing, respectively. And, of course, the many other articles that make up this issue of the Journal, which although has evolved in many ways in 30 years, it intrinsically remains true to the intentions of its founders, as stated by inaugural editor Michael Deves in Issue 1 of Volume 1: to act “as a source of technical information” for the wine industry, which although will “focus on the production of wine - viticulture and oenology” it will also cover “wine marketing, export, finance and industry politics”. So here’s to our 30th birthday!

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

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.

Editor Michael Deves introduces the inaugural May 1986 issue of the Wine Industry Journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter! www.facebook.com/WineAndVitiJournal @WineVitiJournal Cover design: Luke Westle REGULAR FEATURES

News 6 WFA 27 Wine Australia 28 Tony Keys 29

AWRI Report 47 Alternative Varieties 61 Varietal Report 74 Tasting 79

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

WIN E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

IN THIS ISSUE

JOURNAL TURNS 30

C O NN ET W E N S T S

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

7 Wine & Viticulture Journal marks 30 years (SONYA LOGAN) 11 Documenting 30 years of technological change in the Australian wine industry (PETER GODDEN) 18 What I have learned during 50 years in vineyards (RICHARD SMART) 24 1986-2016: Are we still playing the same (marketing) song? (ARMANDO CORSI, LARRY LOCKSHIN)

27 WFA (TONY BATTAGLENE): The future is in our hands 28 WINE AUSTRALIA (ANNE DUNCAN): Australian Wine Flavours Card now available 29 KEY FILES (TONY KEYS): American snakes and ladders - Part 2: Consolidation in the US distribution system – a case of the snake swallowing its tail- Part 1: China may be all the rage but reward for effort also awaits in the US

V I T I C U LT U R E W I N E M A K I N G

35 CATHY HOWARD: Basket pressing – the art of being different

40 New winemaking process conceived in a northern Tasmania pilot winery - the beginnings of ACE 43 The case for ACE - maceration trial continues 47 AWRI REPORT: Wine yeast: where are they from and where are we taking them?

50 TONY HOARE: Vineyard apps – Don’t leave home without them

53 Advances of the Vineyard of the Future initiative in viticultural, sensory science and technology development 58 Reduction in berry size induced by postveraison shoot trimming in Sangiovese grapevines loosens clusters without compromising fruit quality 61 ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES: Montepulciano

W I N E TA S T I N G

BUSINESS & MARKETING

63 Cellar door tastings – to charge or not to charge?

79 Australian and New Zealand $20+ Sauvignon Blanc

66 Vineyards, wineries and brands – a year in review 68 Sugar analysis - too many choices? 73 Impact of the ‘Brexit’ on Australian wine exports V3 1N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

N E W S

S N I P S

FEDERAL BUDGET BRINGS MIXED BAG FOR INDUSTRY Australia’s wine industry is awaiting the outcome of the nation’s Federal election on 2 July for details of the changes to the WET rebate announced in the 2016 Budget to be finalised. Prior to the election being called, the Turnbull Government committed to holding meetings in the nation’s wine regions to canvass industry’s views on aspects of the reforms. The reforms included: • the WET rebate cap being reduced from $500,000 to $350,000 from 1 July 2017 and to $290,000 from 1 July 2018 • tightened eligibility criteria to apply from 1 July 2019 under which a wine producer must own an interest in a winery and sell packaged, branded wine domestically • amendments to strengthen the associated producer rules in the WET legislation to stop multiple claims for the WET rebate by complex structures of associated businesses. The Government also announced it would provide $50 million over four years to the Australian Grape and Wine Authority (AGWA), also known as Wine Australia, to promote Australian wine overseas and wine tourism within Australia. The Winemakers’ Federation of Austrlia and Wine Grape Growers Australia (WGGA) welcomed the $50m in funding to grow demand and accelerate recovery of the nation’s grape and wine industry “With a more favourable exchangerate environment and the benefit of Free Trade Agreements with our major trading partners in Asia, the investment of $50 million over the forward estimates to grow markets could have a significant impact on demand,” said WFA president Tony D’Aloisio. WFA and WGGA also expressed their support for the amendments to remove access to the rebate from contrived arrangements and removal of the rebate for bulk and unbranded wine in line with the rebate’s original intent of supporting producers of branded product who have a stake in the wine industry. Both bodies urged these changes be brought into effect immediately. “The industry sees removing the claims for bulk and unbranded wine as important drivers to industry’s

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

restructure and we believe these changes need to happen now rather than later to assist in returning the industry to profitability,” D’Aloisio said. The Budget did not remove New Zealand producer eligibility from the WET rebate as WFA and WGGA had hoped. “It’s critically important for the incoming government to hear from the industry on what comprises a modern Australia wine-producing business and that’s what we’ll be encouraging as the peak bodies,” he said. The Turnbull Government said it would consult with industry after the Federal election to settle the final details on the tightened eligibility criteria, including the definition of a winery. Meanwhile, WFA and state wine industry associations are surveying their members to understand the extent of the effects of the reforms to present to whichever party wins the Federal election. The survey had already received 250 responses after the first day of its release on 23 May. SA WINE INDUSTRY CONFUSED BY FUNDING CUT The South Australian wine industry has expressed its confusion and disappointment over a decision to strip it of nearly $1 million annually. On 11 May the State Government announced it would replace the Cellar Door Liquor Subsidy Scheme (CDLSS), which returned around $2.7 million a year to eligible businesses, with a Wine Industry Development Scheme worth $1.8 million. “We’ve been waiting for a decision on the CDLSS for 10 months, and now that we’ve got it we’re trying to work out the thinking,” said SA Wine Industry Association chief executive Brian Smedley. “This will hurt the wineries that are vital to tourism in many regional areas and central to the development of the wine and food offering that is one of the Government’s strategic priorities. "Some may be out of pocket by up to $50,000 annually.” Smedley said it was not clear how the new Wine Industry Development Scheme would operate and who would benefit. “We understand that it is the government’s plan to establish a collaborative group to advise PIRSA, yet the scheme is due to commence on 1 July 2016,” he said. “There isn’t much

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L MAY/JUNE 2016

time and we are all rather in the dark about how and when any benefits will begin to flow.” FIVE-YEARLY SURVEY TO TRACK CHANGES IN VINEYARD AND WINERY PRACTICES The Australian Wine Research Institute will launch in August what is says is likely to be the largest ever survey of practices in the Australian wine sector. It will cover all key aspects of grapegrowing and winemaking. Simon Nordestgaard of the AWRI said the aggregated results would be a valuable resource for both producers and researchers. “The survey results will allow producers to benchmark their practices against regional and national averages and will influence research and development and extension projects,” he said. It is intended that the survey will be repeated every five years to track practice changes. Grapegrowers and winemakers are asked to sign up now to receive the survey in August by entering their contact details at: www.winesurvey.com.au. “The greater the coverage of the Australian wine industry that can be achieved, the more useful the survey results will be – so growers and winemakers from businesses of all sizes, types and locations are encouraged to take part,” Nordestgaard said. WINE AUSTRALIA INVESTS $8.5 MILLION IN 12 NEW PROJECTS Wine Australia will invest $8.5 million over the next four years in 12 new research and development projects aimed at increasing demand and the premium paid for Australian wine and boosting the grape and wine sector’s competitiveness. “The knowledge developed through these research projects will provide tangible evidence to support our fine wine claims, contribute to objective measures of quality, help manage the effects of climate change and provide practical tools to support informed decision making,” said Wine Australia chair Brian Walsh. Exact details about the 12 projects can be found by visiting: research. wineaustralia.com/wine-australiainvests-8-5-million-in-12-new-projects WVJ

V31N3

JOURNAL TURNS 30

Wine & Viticulture Journal marks 30 years By Sonya Logan Editor, Wine & Viticulture Journal “The Australian Wine Industry Journal is a new periodical for the wine industry designed to suit the needs of the industry and to reflect the views and opinions of the industry.”

ith those rather solemn words, editor Michael Deves introduced the first issue of what would eventually become the Wine & Viticulture Journal, which celebrates 30 years of continuous publishing with this May-June issue. Published by Australian Industrial Publishers - who had five issues of the Australian Wine Industry Directory under its belt at the time - the first issue of what was then known as the Australian Wine Industry Journal was launched as a quarterly. In his introduction to the inaugural May 1986 issue, Deves said the Journal was, “intended to act as a source of technical information for the industry at large. A high level of technical competence will be maintained, and wherever possible articles will be gathered from people working in the industry – those who understand the industry and will be able to write for their colleagues.” As editor of today’s Wine & Viticulture Journal, I can confidently say we have stayed true to this intent. As we have with the commitment to, “look at the whole industry, publishing articles not only on viticulture and oenology, but on wine marketing, export, finance and industry politics.” The Australian Wine Industry Journal’s technical director was Kevin O’Brien, a graduate of South Australia’s renowned Roseworthy Agricultural College, and a practising oenologist – now proprietor and winemaker for Kangarilla Road in McLaren Vale. Technical advisors were also brought in by the third issue – November 1986 – comprising Peter Dry, then senior lecturer at Roseworthy, for viticultural input and Paul Monk, from the Australian Wine Research Institute, on microbiology. To this day, the

V3 1N 3

Journal ensures its technical standards are maintained with help of a team of industry practitioners who make up our editorial advisory panel (as always, their names can be found on page 4). We are pleased that Peter Dry is among the panel’s current membership and we thank him and members past and present in assisting to guide the content of the Journal and ensuring it remains relevant to its readership – practitioners within the Australian wine industry. Not only did the third issue of the Journal bring in technical advisors, it also marked the introduction of “more scientific papers”. Noted Deves, “Comments from readers have indicated that people are pleased with the Journal, but there is a demand for a means of reporting more of the important research work that is undertaken in Australia and New Zealand.” As current readers will know, the Journal remains a vehicle for delivering scientific papers by researchers from around the world on topics of interest to industry relating to viticulture, oenology, wine marketing or wine business, ensuring readers are kept up-to-date about the latest findings. The launch of the Australian Wine Industry Journal was preceded by a parliamentary debate over the restructure of the Australian Wine & Brandy Corporation. While this is interesting not only given the recent restructure of the AWBC’s current configuration known as Wine Australia and the ongoing industry discussions about its future structure, the debate also served to guide the Journal’s inaugural editors. As Michael Deves explained, “two important themes were consistently emphasised by speakers. Firstly, Australian wine is a high-quality product equal to its overseas counterparts, and something that Australians should be proud of. Its high standards must be upheld and the pursuit of excellence sustained. Secondly, to continue the impetus and to capitalise on the potential

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

HISTORY OF THE WINE & VITICULTURE JOURNAL May 1986 The Australian Wine Industry Journal launched as a quarterly with its May issue by Australian Industrial Publishers August 1986 Name change to The Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Journal in recognition of the “enthusiastic reception” given to the Journal across the Tasman, and advancing plans to cover New Zealand formally. May 1989 The Journal becomes the official publication of the Australian Society of Viticulture & Oenology, with the introduction of a section for ASVO news and information on the day-today work of the society. August 1990 The Journal becomes the endorsed publication of the New Zealand Society of Viticulture & Oenology February 1992 Paul Clancy purchases the Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Journal and the Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Directory and the publishing business of Winetitles, a division of Australian Industrial Publishers; Michael Deves remains in editor’s chair. February 1994 Peter Fuller appointed editor, Michael Deves named publishing editor. November 1995 Michael Major appointed editor with Peter Fuller to remain a writer and Michael Deves as publishing editor August 1997 Winetitles launches Australian Viticulture with Tony Clancy appointed editor January/February 1999 The Journal becomes bi-monthly March 2000 Anthony Madigan appointed editor July 2004 Winetitles is acquired by the Provincial Press Group November 2004 Lauren Jones appointed editor of the Wine Industry Journal and Australian Viticulture December 2004 Sonya Logan named editor or Australian Viiculture November 2010 Australian Viticulture is merged into the Wine Industry Journal to become the Wine & Viticulture Journal and Sonya Logan appointed editor

www.winetitles. com . au

JOURNAL TURNS 30

for the country as a whole, export markets must be developed. These two broad aims could not be bettered as the guiding philosophy of the Australian Wine Industry Journal. We hope to provide a service that will assist in the attainment of these goals and we hope that you will help us by maintaining a dialogue and contribution articles and comment.” I thought it would make interesting reading to reflect on some of the nationally-significant events that occurred in the Australian wine industry and the names of those leading the industry during the first 10 years of the Journal’s existence as documented in its pages – a period of rapid change in the Australian wine industry. As Confucius apparently said, “Study the past if you would define the future.” Here’s your chance, in a nutshell.

AUSTRALIA & THE AUSTRALIAN WINE INDUSTRY - THEN & NOW 1986

2016

Vineyard bearing area

61,423ha

132,436ha

Winegrape crush

520,320 tonnes

1,669,564 tonnes*

Wine production

45,970kl

149,472kl**

Wine exports

$10.8 million (value)

$1.89 billion (value)

11.9 million litres

731 million litres

Number of wineries

596

2468

Inflation rate

9.05%

1.3%

Australian wine consumption

22 litres

23.9 litres***

Australian dollar

0.7166 (USD)

0.7191 (USD)

0.4821 (GBP)

0.4965 (GBP)

Unemployment rate

7.9%

5.7%

Population

16.02 million

24.17 million

*2015 latest stat

**2013 latest

***2013 latest stat

Wine industry stats sourced from ‘Growth and Cycles in Australia’s wine industry - A Statistical Compendium, 1843 to 2013’ (available freely at http://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/titles/austwine/) and www.winetitles.com. au

1986-1996: industry highlights as told by the Journal 1986 NOVEMBER ISSUE AWBC appointments George Mackey is appointed the new chair of the restructured Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, replacing Robert Hesketh. 1987 FEBRUARY ISSUE AWBC manager appointed Richard Warland is appointed general manager of the Australian Wine & Brandy Corporation. Exports break records The AWBC projects that by April wine exports for the preceding 12-month period will exceed 20 million litres, outstripping the record level set 50 years ago in 1939-40 when Australia exported 16.43 million litres of wine. 1989 FEBRUARY ISSUE Landmark annual meeting of AWBC The second annual general meeting of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation passes two important motions: to increase grape levy payments on a more equitable basis with no ceiling on payments and a lowering of the threshold to 10 tonnes of grapes crushed; and to introduce a label integrity program. AUGUST ISSUE Charles Sturt University formed Charles Sturt University is born following the amalgamation of RiverinaMurray Institute of Higher Education,

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

Wagga Wagga, and Mitchel College of Advanced Education, Bathurst. Dr Brian Freeman is appointed director, Rodney Hooper winemaker. NOVEMBER ISSUE ‘Peak’ wine organisation formed The formation of a new national organisation to represent the wine industry within Australia and on international markets is announced called the Federation of Australian Winemaker Associations. The body will involve the three existing national organisations – the Australian Wine & Brandy Producers Association, the Australian Winemakers Forum and the Wine & Brandy Cooperative Producers Association of Australia. 1990 FEBRUARY ISSUE Australian wine industry elects new president The Federation of Australian Winemaker Associations elects Ian Mackley as new president. Obituary: George Mackey 1925-1990 The chairman of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, George Mackey, dies after heart surgery in Sydney. Record production for 1988-89 A record 634,000 tonnes of grapes is used for wine production in Australia in the 12 months to June 1989. MAY ISSUE Federation appoints chief executive The Federation of Australian Winemaker W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L MAY/JUNE 2016

Associations appoints Ian Sutton to the position of inaugural chief executive. AUGUST ISSUE Aggressive international marketing of Australian wines shows rewards Figures released by the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation show export approvals for the month of June 1990 reached a record 4.9 million litres, up 37% on June 1989. Chairman of Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation announced George Paciullo is named chairman of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation following the death of George Mackey. NOVEMBER ISSUE Grape and Wine Research Development Corporation The Federation of Australian Winemaker Associations and the Winegrape Growers’ Council of Australia submit a proposal to the Department for Primary Industries and Energy to form an independent Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation. 1991 FEBRUARY ISSUE Concern over growers leaving industry The newly-elected chairman of The Vales Wine Company in McLaren Vale, Michael von Berg, expresses concern that some of Australia’s grapegrowers will get out of the business because of low grape ▶ prices. V31N3

JOURNAL TURNS 30

AUGUST ISSUE GWRDC appointments James McWilliam becomes inaugural chair of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation which came into being on 2 July 1991. WFA elect new president South Australian winemaker Brian Croser is elected president of the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia, the new name for the Federation of Australian Winemaker Associations. NOVEMBER ISSUE Wine industry welcomes research grant The Australian wine industry welcomes the Federal Government’s decision to support the industry’s Cooperative Research Centre proposal, worth up to $18 million over the next seven years. Peter Hayes inaugural director of GWRDC The Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation selects Peter Hayes as its first executive director. 1992 FEBRUARY ISSUE New export body The Australian Wine Export Council (AWEC) is launched in Adelaide, joining the expertise of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation with the chief executives of 16 of Australia’s wine exporters . “The formation of the Australian Wine Export Council is a most significant step in taking our wine exports from the current $202 million to $1 billion over the next five years,” said AWBC chair George Paciullo. 1993 FEBRUARY ISSUE Australia/EC wine agreement A bilateral agreement offering Australian wine greater access to the European community is negotiated by the Australian Government with the support of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia and the Australian Wine Research Institute. The EC agrees to recognise Australian geographical regions and to make concessions towards Australian winemaking practices and, in return, Australia agrees to phase out European place names in nomenclature. Record wine exports Australia’s wine exports in 1992 soared to $259 million, an increase of 36.7% on last year’s record performance.

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

CRC chief appointed Professor David Chalmers is appointed director of the CRC for Viticulture based at the Waite campus of the University of Adelaide, CSIRO and AWRI. Winemakers target $1 billion in exports A panel discussion held during the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia’s annual meeting poses: ‘$1 billion in exports by the year 2000: fact or fiction’. The panel is chaired by BRL Hardy chairman John Pendrigh and includes Ian Mackley of the Penfolds Wine Group, Perry Gunner of Orlando Wyndham Group, Alister Purbrick of Chateau Tahbilk Wines, and Brian Croser of Petaluma and president of the WFA. NOVEMBER ISSUE Gunner new president of WFA Chief executive of the Orlando Wyndham Group, Perry Gunner, takes over from Brian Croser as president of the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia. 1994 MAY ISSUE High speed bottling line boosts export potential Orlando Wyndham officially opens $3 million bottling line in the Barossa Valley as part of a $10 million expansion of the winery largely prompted by the international success of Jacob’s Creek. ACI Glass launches expansion plan BTR Nylex announces $90 million expansion plan of its glass bottling facilities at West Croyden in Adelaide, including a new furnace, following the rapid growth in the Australian wine industry putting increased demand on the company’s production. AUGUST ISSUE Industry Inquiry releases Issues Paper A paper outlining the issues that the Wine Grape and Wine Industry Inquiry will investigate is released. The inquiry was announced in October 1993 following the proposed sales tax increases in the August 1993 Federal Budget. Wine Industry Outlook Conference The first national Wine Industry Outlook Conference is to be convened in Canberra in November by the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia. NOVEMBER ISSUE Southcorp breaks $100 million barrier Southcorp Wines becomes the first

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

Australian wine company to break through $100 million per annum in export sales. Major export drive by BRL Hardy BRL Hardy embarks on an ambitious export expansion program that will see export sales almost treble in the next five years. New general manager for AWBC Sam Tolley is appointed general manager of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. 1995 FEBRUARY ISSUE GIC Committee confirms first zone names The Geographical Indications Committee commences the approval process for the first wine zones in Australia, including Gippsland, Central Victoria, North East Victoria, North West Victoria, Port Phillip and South-Eastern Australia. New wine industry leader Stephen Shelmerdine is appointed president of the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia, replacing Perry Gunner. MAY ISSUE Wine Australia launch Wine Australia ’96, hailed as the biggest and most significant wine and food showcase ever held in the Southern Hemisphere, is launched in Sydney. $14 million sparkling wine plant for Southcorp Southcorp Wines officially opens a new sparkling wine facility on its Seppelt site at Great Western, Victoria, with company chief executive Bruce Kemp saying Southcorp had invested $14 million to consolidate all its sparkling wine production at Great Western. AUGUST ISSUE No increase in tax on wine The Federal Government responds to the Industry Commission Report announcing it will not increase the 26% wholesales tax rate that has applied to wine since 1 July 1995 . 1996 MAY ISSUE Southcorp Wines reaches $150m in international sales Southcorp Wines achieves record annual international sale of $150 million – a 23% increase on the previous 12 months. WVJ

V31N3

J O U R NN A LE TWU S RNS 30

Documenting 30 years of technological change in the Australian wine industry By Peter Godden Manager – Industry Engagement and Application, The Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, South Australia

To mark the Wine & Viticulture Journal’s 30th anniversary issue, we asked Peter to review the technologies used to make wine in Australia when the Journal was first published in 1986, using the articles published during its first three years in particular as a reference, and comment on their significance both then and now.

he last 30 years has been a period of unparalleled technological change in the Australian wine industry. This has been uniquely documented by the Wine & Viticulture Journal and its forerunners, The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal and The Australian Wine Industry Journal. The AWRI congratulates the publishers, editors and staff of the Journal on reaching the 30-year milestone, and on the resulting body of work that has been an essential reference source for generations of winemakers, viticulturists, marketers, students, suppliers and academics. On a personal note, I have found the Journal to be an incredibly valuable resource during my career in the wine industry. The early volumes were a crucial part of my oenology and viticulture studies at Roseworthy, commencing in 1989, and later, as the manager of problem solving and extension services at the AWRI,

V3 1N 3

Journal articles were a major component of the literature provided to industry as part of those services. The past 30 years of extraordinary technological change have been captured in the Journal’s particular editorial and visual style, which is as recognisable in the first issue as it is in the current edition. The Journal has been as successful in capturing the cultural evolution of our industry as it has in charting the development of technology. An important aspect of this has been the breadth and depth of contributing authors and their readiness to share information for the benefit of the whole industry, with the editorial of the first issue noting “those who understand the industry … will be able to write for their colleagues”. The personalities, industry politics, success stories, controversies, booms and busts, are all documented; it has certainly been ▶ an eventful 30 years.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

The very first article in the first issue of the Journal discussed the use of dried wine yeast - a new technology for the time that is now taken for granted.

www.winetitles. com . au

JOURNAL TURNS 30

FROM 1986 TO 2016 A comprehensive review of the technological changes that have taken place over the last 30 years is beyond the scope of this article. Instead, this paper examines technologies being used to make Australian wine when the Journal was first published in 1986, mainly with reference to papers published in the first three years of the Journal’s life, in order to provide a snapshot of the time. Many technologies examined in early Journal articles now form the core of Australian winemaking, and have had an incalculable positive effect on wine quality and winemaking efficiency. However, in the mid-1980s, many of those technologies were either in their early stages of development, or perhaps more commonly, were merely very new to Australia. Therefore, while the early volumes of the Journal provide the impression that this was a period of rapid development of hardware and new processes, further investigation demonstrates that many of the technologies examined were already well established in other parts of the world. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Journal was an important vehicle by which information on those developments was communicated and spread through our industry, fostering the uptake of the technologies. This was surely a factor in igniting and supporting the industry boom that was to begin a few years later. A large number of AWRI staff members, past and present, have made a prominent contribution to the Journal over its 30-year history, and the very first article in the first issue was authored by Paul Monk, who was then leader of the AWRI’s microbiology

group (Monk 1986a). As with so many of the papers that appeared during the first years of the Journal, the article discusses a new technology which is now absolutely taken for granted: the use of dried wine yeast. This was a very new technology in 1986, with the article noting that, “The acceptance of dried wine yeast has grown over the last three years.” Thus, the use of yeast slopes, many of which were supplied by the AWRI, remained the dominant yeast propagation technology in 1986. PROFILING TECHNOLOGIES AND PRACTICES As well as documenting new technologies, the first issue contained the first of what were to become regular ‘Technological Reports’, titled 'Barrel fermentation – an ancient technique becomes modern technology’ (Anon 1986a). With contributions from Geoff Schahinger (Schahinger coopers), Adam Wynn (Mountadam), Mark Turnbull (Saltram) and Chester Osborn (d’Arenberg), it is apparent from the article that widespread recognition and appreciation of barrel-fermented Chardonnay in particular was a relatively new phenomenon. While the first Australian Chardonnay wines fermented in small European oak had been made by Tyrrells in 1973 (French Oak), (Fowler pers. comm. 2016, Spinaze pers. comm. 2016), and Wynns Coonawarra in 1981 (German oak), (Hodder pers. comm. 2016), the ‘Chardonnay boom’ began in earnest in the mid-1980s. Notably, Sauvignon Blanc was the subject of the ‘Varietal Report’ in the first issue; at this time a ‘new variety’ to many, with the first and ground-breaking Cloudy Bay Sauvignon Blanc having been released a year earlier.

Then and Now: Liquid Air's advertisement from Issue 1 of the Wine Industry Journal in 1986 (Above) and today (right)

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 2016

V31N3

JOURNAL TURNS 30

This article, from the second issue of the Journal, discussed the potential use of protease enzymes for the protein stabilisation of wines - written more than 20 years before the Aspergillopepsin 1 and 2 enzymes were demonstrated to be effective for protein stabilisation by the AWRI.

The Technological Report in the second issue of the Journal addressed stabilisation and clarification (Anon 1986b), a topic that has been periodically revisited over the life of the publication. This feature contained articles on several technologies that again were new to Australia at the time: the contact process for tartrate removal (Bott 1986), Silica Sol as a fining agent (Bearzatto 1986) and the use of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) for the inhibition of tartrate crystallisation (O’Brien 1986). This was very new technology with important implications for winemaking worldwide, with the first systematic study having been reported in a German publication in 1984 (Wucherpfennig et al. 1984). Australian trials commenced in January 1985 (O’Brien 1985, O’Brien 1986), and as an indication of the grape varieties that were of importance for bulk wine production at the time, those trials were conducted on Muscat Gordo Blanco, Sultana and Shiraz. Another article in the second issue of particular interest was written by Richard Gibson, who was then the quality control manager for Penfolds Wines and an AWRI council member (Gibson 1986a). The article discusses the potential use of protease enzymes for the protein stabilisation of wines, and was written more than 20 years before the Aspergillopepsin 1 and 2 enzymes were demonstrated to be effective for protein stabilisation by the AWRI. The article speculates that 'flash heating' might be a necessary part of a protease-induced stabilisation process, “as it may … uncoil globular protein, making the protein more susceptible for enzyme degradation”, which later proved to be the case. Another notable but brief article in the second issue of the Journal concerns the formation of the AWRI’s first online library database (Benjamin and Baldwin 1986). This was cutting-edge technology in its own right, being well before the availability of the internet, and even email in Australia for all but a small number of staff of some universities, as illustrated by a heading in the article ‘What is a computerised database?’ The database, which was established with the support of the Thomas Walter Hardy Memorial Bequest, was hosted on the CSIRO’s AUSTRALIS public access network, and the search costs of $1 per minute of ‘logged-on’ time were estimated to be between $15 and $30 for an average search, a considerable sum in 1986. The article noted that the database would “eventually incorporate the holdings of

V3 1N 3

Wine Solutions: gas, equipment & services

your needs: Improving wine quality, achieving repeatable results, respecting the environment, implementing efficient solutions: Your needs are numerous; Air Liquide solutions are diverse.

our solutions: Quality, safety, innovation, efficiency: We offer comprehensive solutions for gas, equipment and services, tailored to your needs with the help of our global expertise and technical experts.

our value creation: Air Liquide solutions assist you in your operations, maintaining quality, providing economical performance and sustainable development. A new wine technical reference book, “Paths to the peak” is available now. It covers technology associated with the management of dissolved oxygen and CO2 in the wine process

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

Head Office Melbourne Sydney Adelaide Brisbane Perth Tasmania New Zealand

(03) 9697 9888 (03) 9290 1100 (02) 9892 9777 (08) 8209 3600 (07) 3246 6363 (08) 9494 9600 (03) 6334 9666 +64 9 622 3880

www.winetitles. com . au

JOURNAL TURNS 30

the John Fornachon Memorial Library”, which is now the case, including the first 30 years of the Wine & Viticulture Journal. PACKAGING TRENDS From the very first issue the Journal included articles on packaging, with advances in packaging technology charted over its 30-year history. Notably, however, the only article related to packaging technology, as opposed to packaging design, in the first year of the Journal concerned the introduction of the now ubiquitous pressure-sensitive labels, as an alternative to the ‘wet glue’ technology that was still predominant in 1986. Articles on closures did not appear in the early years of the Journal, and perusal of the advertising in early issues and in its sister publication Australian Wine Industry Directory, leaves no doubt that cork (including technical cork) was the dominant closure and the four-litre wine cask was an entrenched packaging option. However, while the initial introduction of screwcaps in the late 1970s had been abandoned by several leading companies by the mid-1980s, the 1986 edition of the Australian Wine Industry Directory does carry a full-page colour advertisement for screwcaps, which displays a number of leading brand names of the time. The first of what became many AWRI articles related to cork-related taints and other problems did not appear until the February 1989 edition (Amon et al. 1989), despite Lee at al. (1983) having discussed the formation of 2,4,6-TCA and subsequent tainting of wine in a review presented at the Fifth Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference, and a comprehensive review of “cork related problems” (Amon and Simpson 1986) having been published in the April 1986 issue of the Australian Grapegrower & Winemaker – which would become a sister publication to the Journal in the mid-2000s. That paper was referenced in a Wine Industry Journal article in the sixth edition in August 1987, which discussed taints in barrel-matured wine (Amon et al. 1987). WINERY CRUSHERS, PRESSES AND FERMENTERS The subject of the Technological Report in the third issue of the Journal (November 1986) was another recurring theme over its history: Crushing and pressing (Anon 1986c). Much of the article is dedicated to descriptions of what are implicitly recently installed continuous-presses in large wineries, with Buronga Hill being described as “a newly established winery”. The nature of the article suggests that membrane-press technology was a new concept for many Australian winemakers, despite the Willmes company having introduced the first horizontal rubber-bladder press in 1951, and the first air-pressurised membrane press in 1974 (Nordestgaard 2015). The August 1988 edition of the Journal noted, “The membrane press was developed by the German manufacturer Josef Willmes as a logical refinement to their airbag press” (Anon 1988b). The same issue included a report on the first Australian-made tank-press, being built by F. Miller and Company for the 1989 vintage (Anon 1988a). An associated article (Anon 1988b) suggests that the first Australian winemaker to install a membrane press was Brian Croser, who installed a Willmes TP4 at Petaluma in 1981. The article reports that Ralph Fowler had installed a Diemme rubber-bladder water press at Hungerford Hill in 1984, and states that Fowler considered the extra cost of air-pressurisation was not justified. The article then lists other winemakers who had installed air-bag presses as

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

John Middleton at Mount Mary in 1986 and Nigel Catt and Andrew Garrett at Andrew Garrett wines, and also Andrew Mitchell of Mitchell Cellars in 1987. The article discusses the cost of membrane presses having been the limiting factor in their uptake to that point, but states that the increased yield of high quality juice being achieved by many producers meant the payback period was comparatively short, with Andrew Mitchell estimating that it was less than one year. The November 1986 edition also contained other notable technical articles such as 'Quantifying the effect of pH and sulphur dioxide on young red wine colour' (Iland and Bruer 1986), and 'The Vinimatic Rotary Vessel: A new tool for the Australian winemaker' (Woodland 1986), which stated that these fermenters had already been installed in the Hunter Valley, Mudgee, the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, south-east Victoria, Coonawarra and McLaren Vale. However, as with membrane presses, the horizontal rotary red-fermenter was not a new concept, with Rankine (1986) stating, “The first rototanks (revolving horizontal red-wine fermenters) were installed at the Hermitage Hunter Valley winery in 1973”, and the classic French text Traité d’oenologie Sciences et Techniques du vin published in 1977 including diagrams of various rotary-fermenters, including what would now be recognised as a ‘Vinimatic’ (Ribéreau-Gayon et al. 1977). WINE MICROBIOLOGY Several of the most in-depth technical papers in the first year of the Journal examined wine microbiology, and usually approached their subject from an avoidance of spoilage perspective; as was the case in the third issue, with reviews of ‘hydrogen sulphide formation, utilisation and excretion’ (Monk 1986b) and acetic acid bacteria (Drysdale and Fleet 1986). While these topics continue to be of relevance for each new generation of winemakers, the degree of spoilage caused by them is now undoubtedly far lower than in previous years, with the information provided by the Journal over three decades likely to have contributed substantially to winemaker education and the downward trends. A similar stance is taken in the fourth issue, with a Research Report on yeast ‘killer factors’ (Heard and Fleet 1987), and an article on ‘Yeast and bacteria’ (Anon 1987a) which notes, “Selection of yeast strain is at this stage more important in avoiding poor quality than in enhancing wine. Points to consider are the avoidance of the production of nuisance compounds, such as hydrogen sulphide and acetic acid.” The article contains only two short paragraphs in relation to bacteria; however, the following issue contained a four-page Technological Report on malolactic fermentation (Anon 1987b). That article refers to ‘freeze dried’ ‘commercially available cultures’ of malolactic bacteria, but was published seven years before the first directinoculation malolactic bacteria, Viniflora Oenos, was released in 1993, the USA patent for that preparation having been granted in December 1991. Beelman and Duke (1984) had described a method for producing freeze-dried cultures of malolactic bacteria, which was the basis of the techniques used to produce the freeze dried commercial cultures referred to in Anon (1987b). However, the 1991 patent application claims, “The reactivation of those strains takes at least 24 hours and up to several days and requires special facilities in the winery”. It further claims,

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

JOURNAL TURNS 30

The fourth issue of the Journal, February 1987, contained a number of articles on the use of crossflow filtration for wine. The technology was revisited by the Journal three issues later, and again in the second issue of 1988. While the articles were all enthusiastic about the technology, its widespread uptake did not apparently occur for approximately another 20 years. “(previous) attempts have been made to inoculate wine directly with lyophilized malolactic bacteria …. However, this resulted in quite a lengthy lag phase (where no malic acid was converted) …. and reactivation of the cultures was therefore recommended”. While those assertions might be challenged by some of the producers or users of those early freeze-dried preparations, the availability of reliable direct-inoculation malolactic bacteria can be considered an important advancement on the methods being used in 1986. WINE ANALYSIS The technology of wine analysis has also developed greatly over the last 30 years, and the AWRI has been a leader in that development. The fourth issue of the Journal contains a short

article (Anon 1987c) regarding the AWRI’s purchase of its first automated analysis instrument, a SCALAR seven-channel segmented flow analyser. It was reported that as a result of this purchase, the cost of VI-1 analysis, which was required for export to much of Europe, had been reduced from $150 to $100. At that time, the AWRI’s Analytical Service laboratory was possibly the only NATA-certified laboratory for VI-1 analysis, although Lindeman’s’ NATA certification was transferred from its Sydney laboratory to its newly completed Karadoc winery at about the same time (Goad pers. comm. 2016). The Journal article (Anon 1987c) noted that the SCALAR instrument included “a computer with an 80Mb hard disk for storage of data which will provide a database of analytical information concerning the composition of Australian wines”. That database of results of analysis of commercial wines has been maintained and built on since the mid-1980s, and is periodically mined in order to produce information on the composition of Australian wines. The most recent publication (Godden et al. 2015) plots the evolution of Australia’s wine offering between 1984 and 2014, neatly coinciding with the 30-year life of the Wine & Viticulture Journal. FILTRATION The fourth issue of the Journal (February 1987) is notable because the Technological Report contains a number of articles concerning the use of cross-flow filtration for wine (Anon 1987d, Forbes 1987, Luedemann and Reeves 1987). As with protease treatment for protein stability, Penfolds Wines QC manager and AWRI council member Richard Gibson was at the forefront of the investigation of this technology, stating in Anon (1987d) “the time has come where winemakers are looking closely at the total filtration process, which can run to D.E., two grades of pad, a membrane pre-filter and a final membrane. There is now available one technique which can replace all of these steps, especially for white wine production. It is crossflow microfiltration”. The previous year, Gibson had also authored another paper on crossflow filtration in another publication (Gibson 1986b). Anon (1987d) notes, “Crossflow microfiltration

Also manufacturers of

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

AUSTRALIAN MADE PRUNERS

For further information visit our website S G Pruner Vineyard & Orchard Sweepers • Single and double sided • Full electric over hydraulic controls at www.spagnolo.com.au or contact: • Spring-loaded head enables it to from your tractor seat glide around posts and vine trunks. adjustable for different cordon spacings Ph (03) 5021 1933 Fax (03) 5021 5233 •• Totally • Optional hydraulic lift, tilt and Spur prunes between vine cordons side shift cylinders. • Prunes single cordon in VSP trellis Email sales@spagnolo.com.au • Ideal for cleaning up uneven terrain • SG Pruner patent app no. • Durable powdercoated finish AUS 780431 U.S.A 6,523,337 Mildura Victoria Australia V3 1N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

J O U R NNA L E T WUSR N S 3 0

systems have been commercially available for only 2-3 years, but with several wine companies having now successfully trialled systems, they are set to take off. If European experience is any guide, they could become standard equipment in about five years for white wine filtration”. This technology was revisited by the Journal three issues later (Tarring 1987), and again by Richard Gibson in the second issue of 1988, where, in an article titled, ‘Crossflow microfiltration – four years on’, he reviews trials performed around the world (Gibson 1988). However, while all of these articles are enthusiastic about the technology, its widespread uptake did not apparently occur for approximately another 20 years. CONCLUSIONS To conclude, most of the technologies reviewed in this paper originate overseas, and it is their introduction and development in Australia which is charted by the Journal. However, the final technical article in the fourth edition of the Journal, which marked the conclusion of its first year, concerned a new piece of Australian winemaking technology that has seen near complete worldwide uptake: the silicone barrel bung (Anon 1987e). While the first line of the article states, “Some of the greatest inventions are also some of the most simple”, the five-piece bung described in the article was later simplified to the single piece of silicone that is nearly ubiquitous in cellars worldwide today. While this invention was certainly simple compared with many of the other technologies discussed here, its advantages compared with what it replaced could be seen to symbolise the degree of change that has taken place in our industry over the life of the Journal. When the first edition of the Wine & Viticulture Journal was published, wooden shives were the norm for sealing barrels. These were circular, tapered pieces of wood that were hammered into the bung-hole, and made airtight with the aid of strips of hessian or calico, with the addition of ‘bung putty’. We have certainly come a long way in 30 years. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the time and assistance of the many industry personnel who provided their knowledge and recollections during the preparation of this article, as well as the help of Simon Nordestgaard and Michael Downie of the AWRI. REFERENCES Amon, J. M. and Simpson, R. F. (1986). Wine corks: a review on the incidence of cork related problems and the means for their avoidance. Australian Grapegrower & Winemaker (286):63-80. Amon, J. M.; Simpson, R.F. and Vandepeer, J.M. (1987) A taint in woodmatured wine attributable to microbial contamination of the oak barrel. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 2 (2):35-37. Amon, J. M.; Vandepeer, J.M. and Simpson, R.F. (1989) Compounds responsible for cork taint in wine. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 3(4):62-69. Anon (1986a) Barrel Fermentation - An ancient technique becomes modern technology. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(1):10 -13.

Anon (1987b) Malolactic fermentation. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 2(1):39- 42. Anon (1987c) AWRI analysis fees to be reduced. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(4):27. Anon (1987d) Filtration: new technology could revolutionize filtration. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(4):33-35). Anon (1987e) Filtration: hiving off shives, or cask sealing made simple. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(4):83. Anon (1988a) An Australian-made tankpress – the Miller membrane press is ready for the 1989 vintage. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 3(2):10-11. Anon (1988b) Membrane presses. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 3(2):12-16. Bearzatto, G. (1986) Wine fining with Silica Sol. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(2):39-40. Beelman, R.B. and Duke, G.R. (1984) The development and utilization of freeze-dried malolactic bacteria cultures for inoculation of wine. Malolactic Fermentation. Proceedings of Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology seminar, Melbourne. Lee, T. H., ed. Benjamin, J. and Baldwin, G. (1986) The Australian Wine Industry Database. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(2):65. Bott, E. (1986) Centrifugal separation of tartrate from wines stabilised by the contact process. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(2):35-38. Drysdale, G. and Fleet, G. (1986) Acetic acid bacteria in wines. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(3):44-47. Forbes, M. (1987) Crossflow microfiltration – simultaneous clarification and sterilization. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(4):43-45. Gibson, R. (1986a) Protease enzymes for protein stabilisation. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(2):41-42. Gibson, R. (1986b) Cross flow membrane technology for the wine industry. The Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 286:17-23. Gibson, R. (1988) Crossflow microfiltration – four years on. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 3(1):31-35. Godden, P.; Wilkes, E. and Johnson, D. (2015) Trends in the composition of Australian wine 1984-2014. Aust. Journal of Grape and Wine Research 21(S1):741-753. Heard, G M. and Fleet, G.H. (1987) The occurrence of killer character in yeasts during the fermentation of Australian wines. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(4):68-70. Iland, P. and Bruer, D. (1986) Quantifying the effect of pH and sulphur dioxide on young red wine colour. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(3):48-51. Lee, T.H.; Simpson, R.F.; Vandepeer, J.M.; Fleet, G.H.; Davis, C.R.; Daly, N.M. and Yap, A.S.J. (1983) Microbiology of wine corks. Advances in Viticulture and Oenology for Economic Gain. Proceedings of the fifth Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference. Lee, T.H. and Somers, T. C.,, eds. Luedemann, A. and Reeves, G. (1987) Wine Clarification by Crossflow Microfiltration. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(4):47-51. Monk, P. R. (1986 a) Rehydration and propagation of active dry wine yeast. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(1):3-5. Monk, P. R. (1986 b) Formation, utilisation and excretion of hydrogen sulphidde by wine yeast. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(3):10-16. Nordestgaard, S. (2015) The history of wine presses. Part 1: batch presses. Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker 619:64-71. O’Brien, K. J. (1985) Inhibition of tartrate crystallization in wine with carboxymethylcellulose. physical stability of wine. Proceedings of Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology seminar, Reynella, South Australia. Lee, T. H. ed. O’Brien, K. (1986) Carboxymethylcellulose and Inhibition of Tartrate Crystallisation. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(2):43-45. Rankine, B.C. (1986) Oenological research and technical development in Australia. Proceedings of the sixth Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference. Lee, T. H., ed. Ribéreau-Gayon, J.; Peynaud, E.; Ribéreau-Gayon, P. and Sudraud, P. (1977) Traité d’oenologie Sciences et Techniques du vin published, volume four; 554. Bordas, Paris. Tarring, S. (1987) Crossflow microfiltration in wine clarification. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 2(3):25-29.

Anon (1986c) Crushing and pressing. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(3): 33-43.

Wucherpfennig, K.; Dietrich, H.; Goetz, W. and Roetz, S. (1984) Einfluß von Kolloiden auf die Weinsteinkristallisation unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Weinsteinstabilisierung durch Carboxymethylcellulose. (Influence of colloids on tartrate crystallization with special consideration to tartrate stabilization using carboxymethylcellulose). Die Weinwirtschaft Technik 1(13):13-23. Translated to the English by T. Henick-Kling, The Australian Wine Research Institute.

Anon (1987a) Yeast and bacteria. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(4):24- 27.

Woodland, P. (1986) The Vinimatic rotary vessel: a new tool for the Australian WVJ winemaker. The Australian Wine Industry Journal 1(3):53-54.

Anon (1986b) Stabilisation and clarification: ‘Turbid or not turbid...’. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 1(2):27-34.

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 2016

V31N3

16/

NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION WINERY ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION

WINERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT = SUSTAINABILITY • Energy efﬁciency & solar power generation • Understanding the new “Health & Safety at Work” act • Water usage & savings • Refrigeration design & efﬁciency • Alternative hot water generation • Oak reclamation & alternative oak maturation application • Asset improvement & optimisation

J U LY 2 1 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 BLENHEIM, NZ

VISIT WWW.WEA.ORG.AU FOR MORE INFORMATION

J O U R NNA L E T WUSR N S 3 0

What I have learned during 50 years in vineyards By Richard Smart, Smart Viticulture, Newlyn, Cornwall, UK

Australian viticultural consultant Richard Smart and the Wine & Viticulture Journal are both celebrating important milestones this year – while the Journal is turning 30, Richard has notched up his 50th year in vineyards. As a long-time contributor to the Journal, we asked Richard to comment on what he believes has changed and what has stayed the same during his five decades in the industry. INTRODUCTION

n January 2016 I celebrated 50 years in vineyards. This is a personal account of some of my experiences. I hope it does not appear self-indugent and may be of interest to some readers. It does not pretend to be a 50-year review of viticultural practices, though many are mentioned. My first appointment was as a research viticulturist, after graduating in Agricultural Science from Sydney University. Now I am an active vineyard consultant operating from Cornwall, UK; I have clients in many countries of the world but I am particularly working in Europe and China. I had no childhood experiences in agriculture, let alone in viticulture, although I did grow up in a rural environment. I was fortunate to win a traineeship to study at Sydney University from what was the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. The Department’s viticulture specialist, Graham Gregory, was responsible for my career choice. He told me in 1964 of some of the advantages he saw in a career in viticulture. He said, “(You) will have a very enjoyable and interesting career, meet lots of nice people in the wine business, are likely to travel a lot and visit some of the more beautiful places in the world”. As an impressionable 20-year-old this sounded compelling, so I signed up. The prediction has been remarkably accurate!

to Israel relating to drip irrigation, and also completed a Masters degree at Macquarie University, studying sunlight use in vineyards. The latter has remained a dominant interest. I undertook graduate studies at Cornell University, USA, until 1974, completing a PhD under the supervision of Professor Nelson Shaulis, regarded as the ‘godfather’ of grapevine canopy management. I then taught at Roseworthy Agricultural College, and developed a small-scale winemaking facility studying vineyard effects on wine quality. My next appointment was from 1982 to 1990, as national viticultural scientist with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, based at Ruakura Research Centre, in Hamilton, New Zealand. This was a particularly productive period of my career, and I was involved in all aspects of viticulture for the developing NZ cool climate wine sector. From 1990 to the present, I have been involved with consulting based at Port Macquarie, in New South Wales, then Launceston, Tasmania, and more recently in the UK. I have visited more

than 40 countries to present seminars or to consult, including many of the world’s wine regions. During this period, I have supervised two PhD students in Tasmania, and continue research in UK vineyards and elsewhere. My viticulture experience has encompassed a wide range of climates, from the ‘very hot’ at Griffith, NSW, to ‘cool’ in New Zealand and to ‘cold’ in the UK, and a corresponding range of winegrape varieties. I have written a lot in my career, and I think it important. Technical publications have included more than 400 both in scientific and industry journals, conference proceedings, book chapters and a book, Sunlight into Wine. A major effort was as viticulture editor and major contributor to four editions of the Oxford Companion to Wine, by Jancis Robinson. WHAT I HAVE LEARNED OVER 50 YEARS What has been apparent is that some things have changed, like the technology of grape production. Others, like human nature, have not changed at all. This has implications for technology uptake.

MY CAREER IN VITICULTURE The early part of my career from 1966 involved 24 years of research and teaching. Since then I have had 26 years of full-time consulting and I am still engaged in it. My principal work at Griffith was to study the irrigation response of grapevines which included the very new system of drip irrigation, as it was then. During the five years to 1971 I had a study tour

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

A younger Richard Smart demonstrating yellow, shaded leaves in a dense canopy somewhere in California around 1986.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

J O U R NNA L E T WUSR N S 3 0

Some areas of vineyard technology that have changed dramatically over 50 years One of the most profound has been the global adoption of drip irrigation, bringing water to many sites where it was not previously possible, and allowing efficient use. Another has been the widespread use of herbicides. The ability to monitor the vineyard’s environment as well as the vines has dramatically increased, using onsite and aerial detection. The recognition of vineyard variability is an important advance, although it is not always easy to manage. Inter-row cover crops are now widely used, part of the conceptual ‘greening’ of viticulture, sadly without due regard to moisture and nutrient competition to vines, nor its remediation. I do not regard biodynamic farming as part of environmental awareness, rather, it is in my opinion an invasion of the occult. Advances in mechanisation over this period have been conspicuous, especially for harvesting and pruning, but not for shoot positioning. Similarly, little has changed for cultivation, and there is still much off-target vineyard spraying, although the chemicals applied continue to change. Shoot positioning is a low priority in Australian vineyards. In many countries including Australia, commercial vineyards have generally become larger and more corporatised. There are more people with formal viticultural education in vineyard management. There are fewer regional research and extension centres than there were previously, and there is an increased emphasis on the centralisation of research funding, and concomitant financial insecurity of early-career scientists. The mantra of ‘cost cutting’ dominates the thinking of Australia’s vineyard managers more so than considerations for vineyard health, profitability and wine quality. This preoccupation with low-cost production seems appropriate for bulk wine production, which has become the international marketplace where the majority of the Australian wine is sold. This is a regrettable reputation. What has not changed? To date there are no rational systems for grape quality assessment. The most meaningful measurement made for payment continues to be based on the weight of a grape lot, rather than a measure relating to their fitness for purpose. I do not pretend that there might

V3 1N 3

Richard Smart presents a grapevine to Pope John Paul II, in Auckland, New Zealand, in 1986. The vine was planted on Futuna Island in 1837 by the first Catholic missionaries to the Pacific. be one quality payment system that would apply to all varieties and in all regions, but development of such systems should be a research priority. Spray application in vineyards is still haphazard, as much of the product does not cover target only. The lack of use of covered, recycling sprayers is quite regrettable in an age of increased environmental awareness. Similarly, there appears to be little regard for soil compaction; much of the machinery introduced in this period, especially harvesters, are heavy and wheel-driven. The technology exists to convert wheels to half-tracks, yet one hardly ever sees this system used in vineyards. Sir Edmund Hillary drove Ferguson tractors on halftracks to the South Pole in 1958! The wine sector continues to be dominated by myths, many of which are European in origin, yet widely quoted. The wine press is a principle source of such mythology. I recommend the recent book by Mark Mathews, Terroir and other myths of winegrowing (2015). The term ‘winemaker’ is an English word that has become globally adopted, and is I think less appropriate than the term ‘oenologist’. ‘Viticulturists’ are not ‘grapemakers’. The term ‘winemaker’ assumes that activities within the cellar, under human control, are paramount in affecting wine style and quality outcome. Some, myself included, would argue with this, instead suggesting the important role of vineyards. I have described this phenomenon as the ‘cult of the winemaker’.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

Why are some technologies adopted more rapidly than others? I am sure that specialists in agricultural extension have written definitive articles about this topic. Here I would like to offer my limited experiences. Drip irrigation I was closely involved in the 1960s with the application of drip irrigation to vineyards. It was difficult for us to imagine that the large canopies of grapevines in Griffith might be supplied with enough water through a thin black tube and attached capillaries, given the knowledge that vines had previously been flood irrigated. The vine root system quickly adapted to having several zones that were small yet frequently wet, and they survived well. Early problems with water filtration were overcome, partly due to technology I had seen in Israel and introduced to Australia. The provision of drip irrigation equipment and services quickly became an important industry, providing momentum for rapid technology adoption. As a result, sales people were promoting drip irrigation; scientists were not required. Mechanical pruning Another technology with which I was involved in the late 1970s was the mechanical pruning of grapevines. While at Roseworthy College I received Australian Wine Board funding for research. Once again, there was a psychological barrier to be overcome to adopt this technology: Imagine the reaction of traditional vinegrowers contemplating the replacement of detailed hand-pruning by two circular saws mounted in front of

www.winetitles. com . au

IS YOUR RIESLING UP TO THE CHALLENGE? 17

THE HYATT HOTEL CANBERRA AND ALBERT HALL CANBERRA

10-15 OCTOBER 2016 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 internationallyâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;recognised wine show, and is the largest event of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere.

HOSTED BY CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY

The 17th 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. Ken Helm, AM Chairman Canberra International Riesling Challenge

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

SEMINAR ON RIESLING EXCELLENCE Friday 14 October 2016 Hyatt Hotel Canberra

RIESLING MASTER CLASS Friday 14 October 2016 Hyatt Hotel Canberra

EXHIBITORS AND COMSUMER TASTING Saturday 15 October 2016 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 14 OCTOBER 2016

J O U R NNA L E T WUSR N S 3 0

the tractor. At that time there were large corporate vineyards in the Coonawarra, and company accountants had a big impact on vineyard activities. I recall one vineyard manager telling me that his company accountant was flabbergasted to learn that vines had to be pruned every year! Meanwhile, there were parallel developments with minimal pruning options being instigated at CSIRO, Merbein. Objections by oenologists were overcome and large areas of vineyard were converted to mechanical and minimal pruning in Australia, particularly in inland irrigated areas but sadly also in cool premium areas like Coonawarra. Mechanical pruning also became used in low vigour areas such as the Barossa Valley. Cost-cutting benefits were seen to outweigh any other consideration. In retrospect, this was not a sustainable viticultural practice. Some oenologists despaired at the loss of quality; perhaps more importantly, vineyard health began to decline under the influence of trunk diseases, due to many unprotected pruning wounds. Canopy management Canopy management has always been my pet subject. I even wrote a book about it. Many years of my research, and of others, have convinced me that the yield, fruit composition, wine quality, and disease reduction benefits of astute canopy management make it an option worthy of serious commercial adoption. Yet, apart from a few notable exceptions, the adoption of canopy management has been limited. Probably, there is greater adoption of canopy management options in California than anywhere else, although more recently it has been promoted widely in South Africa. The uptake in Australia and New Zealand has been limited. Concerns regarding labour, skill requirements and cost have been barriers considered too substantial to overcome. Also many just don’t want to change. Should I question my beliefs? But for the action of one significant client, I may have forever wondered. I began consulting with the Delegat Wine Group of New Zealand in 2009. It produces the commercially successful super-premium Oyster Bay brand; its Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc is Australia’s number one selling white wine. My early consulting trips identified canopy shading problems associated with vigorous vines on a VSP trellis.

V3 1N 3

Delegat is a forward-thinking and viticulturally-oriented company. There was initially some scepticism amongst the vineyard managers when I suggested changing to a divided canopy, such as the Scott Henry. Some comments were: “Is it (Scott Henry training) too expensive?” “Will it require too much labour?” “It may not work here and workers may not be capable of doing the job”. I had heard such responses many times around the globe. My challenge to the managers was, “Don’t tell me I’m wrong, show me I am wrong”. I was supported by the company viticulturist, and so the managers were obliged to begin trials. Now the great majority of the company’s New Zealand vineyard holdings of 2000ha are converted to the Scott Henry system. The viticulturists have noticed an improvement in vineyard yields, with little cost change. The company winemakers have noted an improvement in wine quality. Most importantly, the company has noticed an improvement in vineyard profitability. Delegat is now applying the same procedures in its Barossa Valley Estate vineyard, much to the amusement of the locals. “Hand cane pruning, absurd! We did that 30 years ago,” they say. “And way too much fruit exposure." At present, many Barossa vines are machine prepruned or only machine pruned. Despite irrigation in many vineyards, a lack of vine vigour is common, and the average district yield of Shiraz is a dreadfully low 4t/ha. Trunk disease is widespread. Scott Henry trained vines produce more than twice the average yield and are more profitable, with improved quality. SOME ISSUES FROM THE PAST THAT WE KNOW WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE Grapevine diseases It is almost 170 years since powdery mildew (Oidium) first appeared in France, and is still important. Other invaders from America in the 19th century were downy mildew and then phylloxera. The mildews can be controlled to a greater or lesser extent by fungicide sprays. Devastation caused by phylloxera has been overcome by grafting to resistant rootstocks, giving rise to the enormous worldwide grapevine nursery industry. One might imagine that with today’s technology there is not much opportunity for new grapevine diseases to occur. However, with the increased ease of

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

travel and transport the introduction of new pests, weeds and diseases are unfortunately quite common. Pierce’s Disease As ever, America potentially remains the point of origin for some diseases. Possibly one of the worst grapevine and perennial fruit crop diseases is Pierce’s Disease (PD) caused by a bacterium spread by sap-sucking insects. Some clever plant breeding at the University of California has recently produced PD-resistant cultivars, effectively very similar to the Vinifera varieties used as parents. PD has not escaped the Americas, although one of its more important vectors, the glassy winged sharpshooter, has now spread across the Pacific. PD-affected olives have recently appeared in Italy. Red Blotch virus Another disease of significance is the so-called Red Blotch virus now spreading in California, other US states and contiguous countries by infected nursery material and locally in California by an insect. The virus may well have originated in the USA and has dramatic effects on fruit ripening. Grapevine trunk diseases Another problem is a small group of fungi causing the so-called trunk diseases, which are widespread around the world. They are more of a problem in older vineyards and can result in the need for vineyards to be replaced at an early age, say, 20 years, due to low productivity. The disease complex known as ‘Esca’ is widespread in Europe where it causes much damage. Other diseases such as Botryosphaeria, Eutypa and Petri disease can be found in most, even all, grapegrowing countries of the world. The situation is serious because the disease is being spread by infected grafted nursery stock, making it a worldwide problem. Presently, my major activity is to demonstrate how trunk disease can be controlled or even cured by trunk renewal and pruning wound protection. Climate by variety interaction An overriding feature of the global wine sector is the importance of grapevine variety by climate interaction. This is an issue that confronts me frequently during my travels. As any student of wine can tell you, it is this interaction that has led to the creation of wine maps, with regions often demarcated by different varieties, especially in the Old World; France is a ▶ particularly good example.

www.winetitles. com . au

J O U R NNA L E T WUSR N S 3 0

An important part of my consulting business has been to find locations, especially in the New World, where certain varieties are likely to perform well from a wine style and quality point of view. I use climate data to locate regions with temperature conditions similar to the famous region to be copied, so-called temperature homoclimes. Also of significance has been the emergence over the last half-century or so of the so-called international varieties. These are mostly French in origin and are planted in vineyards around the world and generally irrespective of the climate. Such a process is encouraged by another recent development, that of varietal labelling where wines are labelled prominently with a variety name replacing, in some instances, region of origin. (I recently saw Burgundy wines labelled Pinot Noir in a French supermarket). Good examples occur in Australia with the red varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and also Shiraz planted in hot inland regions. Several groups and individuals around the world encourage the use of more ‘alternative’ varieties, and I offer my hearty support. I call the alternative, a tendency to use fewer and fewer international varieties, the ‘Coca Cola-isation of wine’. If this situation were not disturbing enough, consider the implications of climate change. I was one of the first to raise this issue for viticulture, and presented to the OIV Congress in 1989 the implications for appellation. Increasing global temperatures are now reported month after month. It is important to understand that the difference in mean temperature between many of the world’s grapegrowing regions may be more or less 1°C, even within one country. There were predictions of increases of 2°C by the end of this century, so the present varietal adaptations to wine region will be inappropriate. The million-dollar question in the climate change issue for the wine sector is literally: will we change regions, or will we change varieties? To my mind the answer is quite obvious, to change varieties. This will be especially important for well-established wine regions that cannot afford to lose the present infrastructure. Those regions that are currently classed as ‘cold’ and ‘cool’ wine regions can accommodate change easily, but ‘warm’ and ‘hot’ regions will find it

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

more difficult. I believe that there should be a new international breeding program for varieties adapted to hotter conditions. Australia’s CSIRO has made a substantial development in this regard. Wine regions’ fortunes rise and fall The majority of my career has been spent working in and for the Australian wine sector. I very much regret its present situation, including for growers in Griffith where I began my career. Australia was the bright New World star in the early 1990s, but it is now languishing and, in fact, suffering competition from other New World countries who entered the international market following Australia’s early success. I think poor industry strategic planning and organisation must take a good share of the blame. In my travels, I see that both Chile and New Zealand are much better organised than Australia; Chile has recently surpassed Australia in exports, and New Zealand may yet do that soon on a dollar-for-dollar basis, despite having many fewer vineyards. Part of the solution, I suggest, should be planting of more genuinely cool climate vineyards, and also more regional promotion and specialisation in varieties. And Australia should forget the cost minimisation mantra. HAS IT BEEN FUN? Of course it has, or why keep doing it for so long? I have met and befriended many wonderful grape and wine people, and been to many beautiful places, as predicted. Friends and colleagues tell me I am lucky with my career and the life I still lead. I agree. If I have had success I credit it to many mentors, beginning with scientists at CSIRO Griffith and Merbein, and including many others like Cornell professors and colleagues. One of the personal interests I have followed has been in history, and grapes and wine offer so many opportunities. I report on a couple of the more unusual ones here. Few people are aware that Charles Darwin studied grapevines, among many other life forms. He was fascinated by plants, especially those that could move and climb, and wrote a paper on the subject in 1865, his second publication after the Origin of Species in 1859. I have visited Darwin’s Down House,

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

south of London, and the glasshouse where he did his experiments still stands. There he rubbed grapevine tendrils to see their response, and observed their movement by tracing against the glass, recording, “on a very hot day, one made two elliptical revolutions at an average rate of two hours, 15 minutes” (Darwin 1865). Darwin was fascinated by the grapevine, with shoots containing both inflorescences and tendrils (and intermediate forms), the former to produce fruit and seeds for reproduction, and the latter for climbing. He wrote, “organs fitted for widely different functions may be observed on the same individual plant as...the common vine. These cases illustrate in a striking manner the principle of the gradual evolution of species”. My second occasion was more recent, and also more exotic. In New Zealand I searched for pre-phylloxera imports as a source of potentially virus-free varieties (Smart 2003). This led me in 1983 to Futuna Island, in the Pacific, where French missionaries planted vines in 1837 that were subsequently planted in New Zealand, but were lost. The variety was not French but from Chile, where the missionaries had taken on supplies, and can be traced backed to seedlings brought from Spain by the Conquistadors. Want to try the wine? Contact Jim Mobbs, at Broken Bago, Hastings, NSW, www.bago.com.au CONCLUSION And that is what my career has been all about, trying the wine. Sharing a glass of wine in good company has been a pleasant accompaniment to 50 years in vineyards. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to acknowledge useful comments to the manuscript from Angela Sparrow and Wine & Viticulture Journal editor Sonya Logan. LITERATURE CITED Darwin, C. (1865) The movements and habits of climbing plants (Linnean Society paper, published as a book 1875). Mathews, M. (2015) Terroir and other myths of winegrowing. University of California Press. Smart, R. (2003) A saint, two popes and a grapevine. Aust. New Zealand. Wine Industry J. Wine Industry Journal 19 (2):43-46. WVJ

V31N3

From Paddock to Freight

Delivering all the right connections The Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference & Trade Exhibition | 24 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 28 July 2016, Adelaide Convention Centre Meet and make all the right connections with leading Australian and international suppliers. Find niche solutions for increased productivity and product innovation. Stay abreast of key issues while gaining relevant education to grow your business at the Australian Wine Industry Technical

Conference, and network with your peers at the Maurice Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Shea Award Dinner. The Australian Wine Industry Trade Exhibition allows you to see, touch, feel and experience live working machinery all in one place at one time. AWITE 2016 covers Paddock to Freight and everything in between.

Entry for the trade exhibition is free. Register at www.awite.com.au Organised by:

+61 2 9452 7575

info@fairevents.com.au

Presented by:

J O U R NNA L E T WUSR N S 3 0

1986-2016: Are we still playing the same (marketing) song? By Armando Maria Corsi and Larry Lockshin Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia. Email: Armando.Corsi@unisa.edu.au

Wine marketing - what has changed in 30 years and what should wineries aim for in the next 30? “…marketing is not merely a sales push once the wine has been made, but part of an overall attitude to getting the best product to suit current tastes of consumers…”

his is what Seppelt fine wines manager Brian Miller wrote exactly 30 years ago in an article published in the Australian Wine Industry Journal, as this publication was then known, about the role of wine marketing. Now that three decades have gone by, we thought it would be nice to ask ourselves what has changed about our knowledge of wine marketing and what principles we believe should be guiding wine stakeholders at all levels of the supply chain. The first consideration we would like to share is that the basic principles of marketing have not changed much. We still have two main schools of thoughts (Kotler versus Ehrenberg), whose fundamental principles – the ‘roots’ – are still taught by the believers of each school. The differences between these approaches would take a much longer essay to discuss, but the key ones are illustrated in Table 1. In particular, if you, like us, believe the Ehrenberg model, you should be aware of the fact that buying things does not cognitively engage people. Indeed, people tend to: • base their purchases on past learned behaviour • purchase several brands in a category over time, even though they usually have ‘favourite’ brands • use ‘rules of thumb’ to make decisions rather than deep comparative thinking

• are influenced slightly to change behaviour and buy different brands through the weak force of advertising and other communications. Interestingly enough, while Ehrenberg’s principles all derive from the observation and analysis of actual purchase data, the Kotler’s model is based on theories, which often contradict sales. This tells us something about a die-hard attitude in the marketing discipline, that is the diffidence towards a scientific approach to marketing. We use science in virtually all aspects of wine production, from viticulture to oenology, from microbiology to supply chain management, but, somehow, when it comes to marketing, science doesn’t seem to be required for many wineries. “We know better,” we often hear marketing managers say. The third consideration is that we expanded our knowledge about the ‘branches’, the ‘corollaries’ of the fundamental marketing principles. For example, in the last 30 years we have learnt more about:

of a cognitive basis, and most people buy multiple brands in any single category. In wine, high involvement consumers buy a wider range of wines than low involvement ones.

PURCHASE BEHAVIOUR AND LOYALTY PATTERNS

EFFECTS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PACKAGING

Most buyers of consumer goods, including wine and other complex categories, learn by doing. They try different products based on their family, their friends, various communications from producers, and finding them on the shelf, wine list or website. Typically, their (purchase) behaviour precedes their attitude toward a product. We tend to try things based on prompts like those listed above and then decide whether we like it and would buy it again. Loyalty is really just repurchasing; it doesn’t have much

About 80 percent of all wine is purchased through retail stores or online. The packaging is the main identification in these circumstances. Wine producers need to create packaging that is distinctive but still fits with the price point and character of their wines. There should be identifiable colours, logos, brand names and fonts. Most wine purchase decision are made in about 40 seconds, so there is little time for consumers to think about their choices or read back labels. High involvement consumers will

CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR IN DIFFERENT PURCHASING SITUATIONS The same consumer buys different wines for different occasions, which is why it is difficult to segment consumers. More important and more formal consumption situations require more scrutiny of the wine purchased. So, buyers move up in price for these occasions, but their starting point is their ‘normal’ purchase. If the normal purchase is a $10-12 bottle, then the special occasion might be $18-20 bottle. If regular purchasing is around $15-20, then the special occasion price might move to $25-30. Of course, higher involvement buyers and very special occasions can result in purchases at much higher price points, but the evidence is that the same factors, including learned behaviour, influence these purchases too.

Table 1. The Kotler model vs. the Ehrenberg model. Kotler Model

Attitudes drive behaviour

Brand loyals and switchers

Deeply committed buyers

Involvement

Rational involved viewers

Ehrenberg Model

Behaviour drives attitude

Loyal switchers

Cognitive misers

Heuristics

Emotional distracted viewers

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 2016

V31N3

J O U R NNA L E T WUSR N S 3 0

them. Some countries, like Germany and regions like Scandinavia, have slightly larger segments than markets like Australia, the US, the UK, and China. Most consumers already view wine as a natural product and don’t respond to information touting the special production methods.

An article on wine marketing from the first issue of the Australian Wine Industry Journal, May, 1986. use more information on the package, including cues like the region of origin and the vintage. These should be in large enough print to be seen on the shelf. Packaging should only be changed if it is clear that this is causing poor sales, otherwise consumers who have purchased previously will find it hard to identify the new packaging. EFFECT OF PRICING/PROMOTIONS In the wine category consumers view prices as indications of quality. Higher involved consumers, who use more information to make purchase decisions, are often willing to pay lower prices for a wine they consider a bargain, and higher prices for a wine they prize, compared with low involvement consumers. Price discounting lowers the expectation of quality and, over time, sets a lower standard for the wine. At the same time, price discounts usually promote stocking up by already existing customers and fail to engage very many new customers. Retailers push wine producers to offer discounts, but the evidence shows wineries are better off to avoid discounting whenever possible. ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS ORGANIC/SUSTAINABLE WINES There is a small segment of consumers who actively seek out organic, biodynamic, and sustainably made wines and are willing to pay a slight premium to buy

V3 1N 3

ROLE OF REGIONALITY In the New World, grape variety and brand name are the key drivers of purchase for wines under $15. Above this point, a well-known region can enhance the probability of sale. In the Old World, of course, wines are identified by region and not grape variety. For small wineries, it is often more effective to work together with others in the region to build the identity and quality perceptions associated with the region, than to focus solely on the proprietary brand name. Research shows that building a region and grape variety specialisation is paramount to creating a strong regional identity for all wines produced in the area. ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA Social media offers another channel to create awareness and link to buyers (consumers and trade). However, research shows it cannot operate well without attention paid to all aspects of communication. Social media is good at reminding existing consumers about the winery, but it is not very good at finding new buyers who have never tried the brand. Social media also takes a regular and programmed time commitment to use it to advantage. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARKETING AND SENSORY SCIENCE Many winemakers consider the sensory aspects of their wine to be paramount. Research shows consumers’ purchase decisions are based more on the packaging and price than on the characteristics of the wine. Most cannot distinguish top wines from average wines without prices and labels. This does not mean winemakers need to ignore quality, far from it actually. However, show medals, wine scores, and recommendations are important cues consumers use in their purchasing to verify quality. ROLE OF DIRECT SALES It is not a secret that wineries producing less than 20,000 cases should

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

be trying to sell as much of their wine directly as possible. Cellar door visitations are generally perceived as very positive, and end up with three out of four visitors spending an average of $90 on wine and non-wine items. More importantly, cellar door visitations are critical for future repurchase, with approximately 50% of those who visit cellar doors likely to buy wines again in the following three months. WINE AND SOCIETY Thirty years ago we were at the dawn of the golden era of wine, which changed from being a beverage to a status symbol. We are now witnessing the same dynamics applying to craft beers. We should, however, work to prevent wine ending up with the same media meat-grinder, which sees alcohol as the source of all the problems of mankind. Studies are actually showing the opposite, if we only read and communicate the results properly. Now that we have shed some light about what happened in the last 30 years, what should we aim for in the next 30 years? EMBRACE THE IDEA OF MARKETING AS A SCIENCE, AND NOT JUST AS AN ACT OF CREATIVITY BASED ON UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS How many discoveries have been made in virtually every area of wine production, from vineyard management to bottling, from oenology to sensory analysis? All these little bricks of knowledge allow us to make better wines than we used to 30 years ago. And, more often than not, this advancement in technical knowledge has been the result of multiple studies conducted under various conditions and repeated several times to ensure the results were valid and reliable. Why shouldn’t it be the case when it comes to marketing? Would a winemaker change yeast strains from one day to the next, simply because of ‘gut feeling’? Would a grapegrower plant new vines, and then not care about the way they are growing? If you have answered ‘no’ to these questions, then, by the same token, why would you change wine labels so easily? Why would you send your wines to a foreign market, and then not care where and how they are sold? Marketing is (must be) scientific, so, work with marketing advisors who can give you a scientific reason for why you should engage in certain marketing ▶ activities.

www.winetitles. com . au

J O U R NNA L E T WUSR N S 3 0

AIM FOR A HOLISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE BUSINESS OF WINE The majority of marketing studies have looked at only one group of stakeholders at a time – consumers, retailers, distributors, communicators, producers, etc. This was a necessary step to build the foundation of marketing knowledge, but it is now time to move beyond this ‘silo’ approach. We need to be brave enough to explore a more holistic and simultaneous understanding of the needs and wants of the various stakeholders, to generate that minimum common denominator of factors, which will ultimately lead to brand growth. IMPROVE OUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DYNAMICS LEADING TO THE PRODUCTION AND COMMERCIALISATION OF PREMIUM WINES As hard as it might be to accept it, the world is demanding better wines, not more wines, so, unless something changes so dramatically that is beyond any forecast we have seen so far, we should really focus on understanding how to improve the image of Australian wines both domestically and internationally,

and convince customers to pay a higher premium for our wines. The good news is that extant literature suggests that the same underlying principles governing brand growth for regular products also apply in the premium space. This is good as it means we are not starting from zero. The bad news is to convince stakeholders that this is actually the case. We have all been brought up with a very romantic, and somehow poetic vision that premium wines don’t fight the same battles regular wines have to face to land on a supermarket or wine shop shelf. Are we ready to accept that there are similarities in the way we market premium wines to the way we market fast-movingconsumer-goods wines? If we do, then the results might be that premium wines are indeed different, but we would then know it based on scientific findings, not intuition. INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE INTERACTION BETWEEN WINERIES AND CONSUMERS IN THE DIGITAL SPACE In the beginning, webpages were essentially a space for uploading information about the story and

characteristics of a winery. Online sales closely followed, making it easier but not necessarily cheaper for consumers to buy wines. We are now in the third era of the digital revolution, where the internet should be embraced as space where wineries can interact more directly with customers. Each winery can transform its digital platforms into a 24/7 front desk, which can be visited by every person around the world connected to the internet. This may be the most relevant marketing innovation we have ever witnessed, as it will allow even the smallest winery with appropriate and welldesigned digital platforms to potentially reach the same number of customers as large corporations. Reach helps penetration, which is the base of brand growth. It will be fun, and utterly scary, to read this article in 30 years time, and see how much of what we have written actually happened. In the meanwhile, we have stored the file in a time capsule, and uploaded to the cloud. WVJ

Want the latest wine business information at your fingertips?

NEW 2016!

Contract Winemakers Comprehensive and up-to-date grape and wine industry resource Includes report of the industry thorough annual statistical overview Trusted resource for over 30 years. Now available in PRINT and ONLINE! If you’re involved with any facet of the industry, The Directory is an essential reference for sourcing information To order your copy: Ph: +618 8369 9522 E: orders@winetitles.com.au Visit: www.winetitles.com.au

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 2016

V31N3

W FA

The future is in our hands By Tony Battaglene, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Winemakers’ Federation of Australia

here has been a lot of talk recently about the ongoing reform and development our industry needs drive to ensure future structures are able to provide the necessary services and play a meaningful role in improving profitability across the Australian grape and wine sector. It is timely to look at what has been happening in this area as our many organisations begin in earnest to look at the possibilities and benefits the future could hold. BACKGROUND In my time in the industry there have been at least four attempts to combine/ merge or reform industry bodies. Most of these attempts have been resounding failures. They have not worked for numerous reasons, including the fact they did not undertake a wide enough, open and detailed consultation or demonstrate they were listening to what the wider industry had to say. Or, simply, they did not identify and explain the improved value likely to flow on to individuals, regions and organisations from any changes, either in the form of better services, improved outputs or even lower costs. However, there is one striking example of reform success that we should refer to and that was the amalgamation of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation and the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation to form what we have today – the Australian Grape and Wine Authority (AGWA), or Wine Australia as it is better known. The formation of AGWA on 1 July 2014 immediately created cost savings reported to be more than $1 million dollars in its first year of operation and, additionally, gave it a sharpened focus on marketing. When AGWA was created it was always the intention that sometime into the future, the wine sector would seek to move to an industry-owned company with a board of directors directly elected by levy-payers and with greater accountability back to the sector. It has also been the intention of both Wine Grape Growers Australia (WGGA) and Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA)

V3 1N 3

to work more closely together than we have previously, primarily to provide a stronger, united front on policy development and political advocacy to government. THE CASE FOR CHANGE The last few years have clearly shown us that without a united position to government, the wine sector struggles to gain traction and change becomes more difficult than it otherwise could be. This must be improved, either through structural or functional alignment between grapegrowers and winemakers. In addition, the financial viability of representative bodies has proven difficult with the industry going through a tough time economically. Unless the representative bodies can demonstrate their worth – for example, by nationally advocating politically to improve market access, opposing draconian government regulation in response to a powerful health lobby, ensuring R&D spending is well targeted, and supporting and influencing market development activities conducted by AGWA – then organisations will struggle to retain members in the years ahead. The membership is also questioning the value it gets from belonging to many different associations and the roles and responsibilities undertaken by each require some clarification. WHAT’S HAPPENED TO DATE? In late August 2015 around 40 representatives from across Australia gathered in Adelaide to discuss how representative bodies could play an active role in assisting the industry return to profitability. The group, representing all sectors and states, acknowledged that the structure and relationships between the various wine industry representative organisations were one of the mechanisms that could contribute to better outcomes and help move the industry towards a more sustainable and profitable footing. It was agreed a strong collective voice from industry was an important part of the solution. On 1 December 2015, the group reconvened to discuss possible pathways

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

to delivering better outcomes for all industry participants. At this meeting, the participants agreed there was a need: • to establish unity of purpose, strategy and execution across all levels of representation • to improve the services and capacities of the industry organisations • align how levies are spent and industry regulation is shaped and implemented. One possible solution was seen to be the single, industry-owned service organisation I mentioned earlier. For example, this organisation may assume responsibilities including the current research, development and extension, marketing, regulatory and other functions provided through AGWA, along with a suite of services and industry representation we would usually see provided by national and state wine representative organisations. It was not agreed that such a body was necessarily the desired model or that it should include all the state and regional organisations. However, these remain possibilities despite some obvious political obstacles if and when the necessary research and industry feedback highlights the benefits outweigh any challenges and risks. The meeting also recognised there are significant hurdles involved in transitioning to such a unitary governance model. To help identify and better understand some of these, a working group has been meeting with a consultant to explore different models and the potential benefits, risks and costs that could be involved. While these are early days in this wider but essential scoping review, it is important that industry has come together to start to consider what we want, the benefits we need to see, costs that could be involved and the important feedback we need to listen to from the wider industry before any future models are put on the table for debate. Once the detailed research and analysis has been completed hopefully by mid-year, it will be considered by the larger industry body of some 40 organisational representatives and it will be critical to ensure we have in place a broad and comprehensive consultation process to share this work and gather ▶ industry’s views.

www.winetitles. com . au

WINE AUSTRALIA

As we know from the formation of AGWA, the process of examining and then successfully transitioning to any new structure is contingent upon the commitment of all industry stakeholders. Both WFA and WGGA are committed to this forward-looking process. These are, of course, still very early days and

we recognise any proposals to come out of the analytical and research work will need to be supported by solid business cases and demonstrated efficiencies and improvements in the delivery of services and advocacy to government to win industry’s support. We’ll also be keeping industry informed and you’ll hear shortly

about industry representatives available to discuss these important issues and to listen to what you have to say.

WVJ

Australian Wine Flavours Card now available By Anne Duncan Global Knowledge and People Development, Wine Australia

ine Australia’s new Australian Wine Flavours Card provides wine companies with a new tool to engage with their Chinese-speaking customers in China and in Australia using the sensory terms identified by Chinese wine consumers. Building on extensive research done with Chinese wine consumers in China, the card helps wine businesses use descriptors for Australian wine that are more easily understood by Chinese wine customers. Currently, wine is predominantly described using English

Manage Brettanomyces bruxellensis in-house

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

Results in

HOURS

Talk to AMSL Scientific today about BRETT risk management. P 02 9882 3666

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

W www.amsl.com.au

sensory terms that may lack meaning for Chinese customers, particularly when the customer is unfamiliar with the food that is being used to create the analogy. For example, an Australian Cabernet Sauvignon might be described as having hints of blackberry preserve. The card shows that a Chinese customer would connect this flavour with dried Chinese hawthorn. At a tasting, you could then suggest this to the consumer to build understanding and better engagement with the wine. The Australian Wine Flavours Card is a one-page tool that links the English language terms used by Chinese consumers to describe Australian wine with the Chinese language terms used by Chinese consumers to describe the same wine. The descriptors are the result of a Wine Australia-funded research project led by the University of South Australia that identified the terms that Chinese consumers themselves use when describing Australian wine. The card brings the descriptors from the project together in a simple format and can be used by Australian wineries at their cellar door, by retail wine outlets and restaurants, and at events where there is engagement with Chinese wine customers. If you are a winemaker or exporter who is already in the Chinese market or if you’re thinking about entering the market, the Australian Wine Flavours Card will be a valuable tool to help you to engage with Chinese customers about your wine. Since its release in March, we have seen huge interest in the card from the Australian wine community – with a second print run organised to fulfill demand. We have also received great feedback from those in our community who have used the card with their Chinese customers. One winery noted that, with the card, their guests were able to immediately identify the subtleties and nuances of wine flavours in their wines. For more information about the research behind the Australian Wine Flavours Card, including the final project report, visit research.wineaustralia.com and search ‘Chinese Lexicon’. Australian wine businesses can register their interest to receive a copy of the Australian Wine Flavours Card at www.research. WVJ wineaustralia.com.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

K E Y

F I L E S

American snakes and ladders - Part 2 Consolidation in the US distribution system – a case of the snake swallowing its tail By Tony Keys

Tony continues his indepth analysis of the present and future of Australian wine in the US market. Following his first article in the March-April issue of the Journal, now Tony briefly reviews the US’s three-tier distribution system, discusses the consolidation going on within it, presents some feedback from those in the market on how it works for producers, what to look for in a distributor and what opportunities the direct-to-consumer channel offers.

appreciate most reading this article will understand how the three-tier system operates in the US, but here’s a brief recap. The three-tier system came into operation after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (21st Amendment). Keeping it simple, it is a chain beginning (domestic) with producers. The producer starts the journey to the consumer via a distributor, who services retailers and, hence, consumers. The overseas producer exporting wine to the US needs an importer, who then goes through a distributor. In a nutshell: • distillers, vintners and brewers are jointly known as the first tier • wholesalers and distributors are the second tier • individual and/or chain retailers, bars and restaurants are branded together as the third tier. As this article unfolds, readers will see how simplicity is becoming complex, and how the three tiers are re-creating themselves as the classic ouroboros (snake swallowing its tail). Is the US three-tier system as bad as some report for Australian wine producers, or are there any good points? Matt Kramer, writing in The Wine Spector on 19 January 2016, said, “The significant consolidation occurring in the wine distribution business mirrors the ever-larger expansions of big producers such as Constellation Brands, Gallo and Jackson Family Wines. Big wine feet need equally big distribution shoes in which to race to the cash register.” This implies the big producer needs the big distributor, but does that mean the small producer has to lose out? Not according to Kramer. “Along came the game-changing Granholm v. Heald decision of the US

V3 1N 3

Supreme Court. This 2005 ruling declared that laws in New York and Michigan permitting in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers but prohibiting outof-state wineries the same privilege were unconstitutional.

Against my liberal instincts, I have to say that the system is good for us - and certainly much better than the UK model where retailers (usually supermarkets) have zero commitment to one’s brand. - ROBERT JOSEPH

“That opened the national floodgates for direct-to-consumer shipping. Although America’s wine-shipping regulations still are a bizarre patchwork, the number of states that permit direct-to-consumer shipping by wineries has risen from 27 in 2005 to 42 at last count.” Direct-to-consumer plays an increasing role in American wine-buying culture and we will return to it, but for now let’s concentrate on various opinions on the three-tier-system. Matt Lane, who caretakers Torbreck Wines in the United States, thinks it not bad, just “very difficult to manage and navigate within”. He says it is challenging to get face time with management and show them how Torbreck Wines will benefit their business. He admits it is archaic and “very political”. Gordon Little (Little Peacock Wines) agrees in part, saying it is the product of old laws written by distributor lobbyists.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

He points out it is cumbersome, the reason being every state is different, offering this example: “Brand registration in Rhode Island is US$42 (A$54.70) and done by email, plus I get an approval overnight. In Virginia, they require physical printing of labels, sent by mail, which takes two to three weeks and costs US$20.” It’s interesting Little mentions Virginia, as the Virginian government is extremely helpful to its own state wine industry. It allows each winery to self-distribute up to 3000 cases annually within the state, enabling them to cut out the distributor margin. The state also issues remote licences liberally. These allow wineries to sell wine at farmers’ markets or off-site events direct to consumers. It’s a form of protectionism, ironically, that in the ideology of free trade Americans say they believe in, proves maybe they believe more in the theory but not the practice. Damien Wilson PhD, Hamel Family Chair in Wine Business, Associate Professor of Marketing at the School of Business and Economics at Sonoma State University, says there are less appreciated benefits to the three-tiersystem and it makes sense for some producers. He says, “First, there’s the capacity to increase margins at the winery for those who distribute through the system, given the forced nature of following a process of utilising a prescribed series of layers in the distribution channel. Consequently, for producers to support the channel, they cannot undercut retail prices in the market, and can improve margin and cashflow at the cellar door as a result.” Jo Bernard, a partner in New Jerseybased Screwtop Imports, is in agreement with Wilson. Bernard is American, and his

www.winetitles. com . au

K E Y

F I L E S

business partner and brother-in-law Mark Lightfoot an Australian. Together they represent Killerby and Ferngrove wineries from Western Australia, plus the brands Plan B and the A List, also from WA. His view is the three-tier system is consistent and makes everyone play by the same rules, so while it may build in an extra layer, it doesn’t give anyone an advantage. Lane says there are ways to work the system and persistence will get face time but, “you just have to have wine that fits channels of trade, fits a gap in their [distributor] book and, most of all, market support that will run circles around others in the same field.” Robert Joseph, UK-based consultant and writer, is also part owner of Le Grand Noir, Greener Planet and Manyana brands. Total production is around 142,000 cases and 40 percent of sales are in the US. Their distributor is Prestige/Johnston Bros, which is national in the sense it covers 22 of the most important states for wine sales. Joseph comments, “Against my liberal instincts, I have to say that the system is good for us - and certainly

much better than the UK model where retailers (usually supermarkets) have zero commitment to one’s brand. In the US, everybody, at every stage up to the final retailer, has a financial incentive to build the brand: they don’t want to keep introducing new ones and enthusing their customers to take on something with which they are unfamiliar.” Joseph concedes the brands might have done better with state-by-state local distribution, but on balance, he and his partners are happy with the deal they have. He equates the US distribution system’s consolidation with the consolidation ongoing in the UK, pointing out Enotria, Bibendum and Liberty have grown while others have disappeared. The outcome for Joseph is, “The only option is to do more of the work oneself, which I have no problem with. It’s our brand after all.” One can understand the worry distributor consolidation brings having shurnk from around 3000 in the 1990s to around 750 today, but consider the growth of US wineries which has quadrupled from around 2000 in the mid-1990s to around 9000 today.

Bringing it closer to home, many Australian wineries berate the dominance of Coles and Woolworths which are said to control between 60 and 70 percent of retail liquor sales, including wine. It is often the wineries that cry because of supermarket dominance they cannot get a listing. Rarely, if ever, does one hear them say maybe part of the reason could be there were 596 wineries in 1986 and 2468 in 2016 (source Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Directory). In the same period there has also been a consolidation of larger wine producers. In 2006, the Directory recorded 23 Australian wine producers crushing 20,000 tonnes or more. The 2016 figure is 10. Returning to the American market, an article by Dr Liz Thach, MW, Professor of Management and Wine Business, Sonoma State University, on 6 February 2016 (Figure 1) breaks down the market to: • total cases shipped: estimated 383 million, 2 percent increase on 2014 • percentage from California; 60 percent, 230 million cases

Metals detection – beyond manganese and copper You can’t see metals in your glass of wine, but that doesn’t mean they’re not having an impact. Metals affect wine flavour and texture and can have a major influence on how long a wine will last in the bottle. Understanding the metal levels in your juice and wine allows informed winemaking decisions on additions, processing and packaging. It can also help ensure a trouble-free wine export process. AWRI Commercial Services is now using the latest ICP-MS technology to provide a rapid and affordable measurement of over 20 different metals at once. To send in your wines for some metals detection visit: www.awri.com.au/commercial_services, email commercialservices@awri.com.au or phone 08 8313 6600.

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 2016

V31N3

K E Y

F I L E S

US Wine Shipments 2015

Percentage of total cases shipped by source US Wine Shipments 2015 Percentage of total cases shipped by source

Other States Other States 9%9% Imports

Imports31% 31%

California 60% California

60%

Figure 1. US wine shipments in 2015. Source: Dr Liz Thach, Sonoma State University • percentage from other states; 9 percent, 36 million cases • percentage from imports: 31 percent, 117 million cases (21 million in bulk). Australian wine producers not only have to be aware of fellow Australian

competition, the consolidation of American distributors and American domestic competition, but also global rivalry. As Wilson says, “The increasingly fragmented, small volume production

model of supply is going to pass the ‘tipping point’ in the route to market capacity soon (if we’re not there already).” Kramer points out the big producer needs the big distributor; they are not going to bother with “some ma-andpa outfit that services just one or two states”. The recent union of Southern Wine & Spirits of America Inc. and Glazer’s Inc. to form Southern Glazer’s Wine & Spirits LLC has unsettled many importers and producers who fear they will lose out in a company portfolio with a turnover topping US$15 billion ($19.4 billion). Media releases from both companies termed it a ‘merger’, but that has an artificial ring to it as Southern’s turnover is in the region of US$12 billion versus Glazer’s US$3.7 billion. It’s estimated the new Southern Glazer’s will have around a third of the US spirits and wine market in value. It appears all powerful, given it has representation in 41 states, employing around 20,000 people with a portfolio of more than 5000 brands from 1500 ▶ suppliers.

Reedcomm CS118

V3 1N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

K E Y

F I L E S

There is a paradox here. Logic says that such a powerful distributor can cover most of the US states and, practically, those that matter. Kramer puts forward the figure that the giant will cover an area that is home to 90 percent of the US population of legal drinking age. The added bonus is it also has representation in Canada and the Caribbean. It appears this will benefit a company such as Casella Family Brands which, from an Australian perspective, floods the US market with Yellow Tail. Its US importer Deutsch Family Wine & Spirits issued a media release saying it has restructured its sales organisation to better align itself with Southern Glazer’s. Southern Glazer’s will now account for distributing 60 percent of Deutsch’s national volume. The views of Matt Tallentire, Casella Family Brands market manager - the Americas, broadly coincide with Little’s above. It’s about making the right choice from having a clear perspective of achievement, but not being unrealistic about goals. Clearly the volume and price Yellow Tail commands ties in with its importer Deutsch and wholesaler Southern Glazer’s. There again, are there other opportunities? It’s often the case, the giant can be sluggish mainly due to its own rulebook. Will this be the case with Southern Glazer’s? Tallentire says, “Small volume-sized brands will struggle to get national retail exposure based on their own supply, but with a focussed approach and being channel and state specific, it can make for great success in the US.” Again, there are similarities with Lane’s view of the market, so large and small are in a way united. Lane says his expectations of managing them are, “Once you [importer] settle on what you really want in the eyes of pure market reality (not something you as an importer thinks or wants to do) - does that distributor fit your brand? Does that distributor have the capacity, culture and sales force and core competencies to sell your wine? It really is like putting a jigsaw together that was written in a foreign language. It will take time, patience and much fortitude. But it can be done, that should be firmly noted.” There is an account in the Wine Australia Export Report to the end of

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

December 2015 from Brothers in Arms, of Langhorne Creek, that joined a Wine Australia Market Entry Program. Managing director Guy Adams said: “Once we had identified the right partner it took a further seven months before any stocks went out. Patience and persistence is the key, as well as having access to a consistent supply of quality product at the right price point.” Australian wine is really at a crossroads. Not only does it have to fight local and international competition, it has in the main lost swathes of reputation. The success of Yellow Tail is not to be dismissed, as it suits a certain cohort. Penfolds Grange does much the same, although its cohort is a great deal smaller

You have to have good relationships with every part of the chain, importer, distributor, retailer/restaurant/sommelier, and end customer. It’s not rocket science, it’s just hard work. - GORDON LITTLE, LITTLE PEACOCK WINES

and probably, it’s safe to say, a great deal richer. Treasury Wine Estates (TWE) is different from other Australian producers in having a large US sector in Beringer Wine Estates. The company declined an interview request, using the bedding down of recent acquisition Diageo Chateau & Estates business as the reason. Accolade Wines, Australia’s largest wine producer by volume if not by revenue, was more direct, saying its recently installed chief executive Paul Schaafsma did not wish to comment on the US market at this time. Apart from the Casella/Deutsch arrangement, it looks as if two of Australia’s largest wine companies are still sorting out distribution in the US, maybe sorting out a lot more than distribution. Having said that, TWE should do well with the Southern Glazer’s merger it is already using both as distributers. But TWE is large and, like

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

Casella, can align with the new company. It’s those smaller in size that will suffer. Australian wine success in the US followed the success in the UK. With the luxury of hindsight we can say the US is not the UK, and it required a different approach from day one. The third time could be lucky, as so far it appears the Australian approach to China is based on what China needs, not what went well in other regions. Large or small, what should a winery or brand look for in any US distributor? Robert Joseph sees the distributor as a DHL or UPS, a delivery mechanism, saying, “It’s up to the brand owner to create demand. Movie producers and spirits brands don’t rely on middlemen to create all the buzz for their products.” A common theme came out of these interviews. As Joseph says, it’s up to the brand owner or winery to create demand. He also says smaller importers and distributors can offer direct contact to targeted customers, saying, “If I were selling Georgian wine, I’d want someone who could get my product in front of sommeliers who understand it.” Lane says small distributors offer wines that are small batch and fit a certain under-served channel of trade that the big guys can’t control nor play in. He adds relationship building, customer service and a personal touch are necessary, but warns, “It’s a hard road, though.” He gets passionate with these words, “Unique wines from a world-class region is another way, for example, Wendouree and Clare Valley Shiraz would be a wonderful offering.” Michael Twelftree, proprietor and managing director of Barossa Valleybased Two Hands Wines, is in agreement. Admitting he was lucky when he started because Australian wine was popular in the US, he advises, “You’ve got to do it face to face, look people in the eye, shake their hand, that’s how you build a brand.” Twelftree sells around 30 percent of his production to the US and has made 57 trips there over the past 12 years. He points out the brand has ridden the currency see-saw from 0.49c to $1.07 and all points in between. Gordon Little says wine is an industry built on relationships. “You have to have good relationships with every part of the chain, importer, distributor, retailer/restaurant/sommelier, and

V31N3

K E Y

end customer,” he says, adding, “It’s not rocket science, it’s just hard work.” Little emphasises this crucial piece often gets left out of the equation, “in favour of just making wine available and it will definitely sell itself strategy.” Lane suggests looking to the secondary markets such as Minnesota, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wyoming. Less distributors do make getting one difficult, but that is not the first priority for an Australian winery. The first priority is getting an importer, one that will pound the pavements, engage with sommeliers and small independent retailers, not just get the brand listed with a distributor and leave it at that. With a large distributor it is the sales force commission that is the driver. Spending time selling an unknown brand that doesn’t generate money for the salesperson or company is time wasted. This makes importers like Gordon Little and Jo Bernard important for the small producer. Bernard: “The challenge for new imports or smaller players is getting

V3 1N 3

interest from distributors/sales people. The sales forces of the big distributors are commission based, so they spend their time to maximise their profit. While that makes room for smaller players, it doesn’t make it any easier to make money. That’s the real challenge. How do you make bringing in a container that will take six months to a year to sell appealing? The math often doesn’t work.” At the end of the day, it is the math that counts and, for Australian producers, the math is not good in the short term, therefore investment has to be considered long term. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to chase the next big buck promise, in this case China, and ignore harder but maybe more certain markets such as the US. Little provides some basic math to consider: • costs to freight a case (nine litre) from Melbourne to New York is around $4 • to truck a case from California to New York costs about $6. The lesson here is, “Warehousing in California, while it seems easy, isn’t more cost-effective for a distributor on

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

F I L E S

the east coast who wants to do volume.” Little also says, “Wineries need to better account for importer margin (1825 percent) on top of international import costs; then some internal transport costs to get to distributor, state tax, etc. (say $6-10); and then a distributor margin (30-35 percent). Then a retail mark-up on top of that.” Is direct to consumer (DTC) the way forward? It certainly offers good opportunity for domestic wineries, says Damien Wilson (Sonoma State University). “There are efforts to investigate the option of DTC, and a genuine interest in doing so. Wine businesses are initiating and investing in their DTC programs. The uptake and volume is slow, but steady. And the reality is the number of wineries using this model is increasing, as is the volume of wine being sold in this manner.” Kramer believes despite distributor consolidation, the serious American wine consumer has never had a greater choice. He ends his article: “A paradox of our time is that despite the many predictions of a wine market

www.winetitles. com . au

K E Y

F I L E S

throttled by big distribution and big wine, the fact is that more wines from more small producers are closer to us today than ever before. Go figure.” Lane (Torbreck) says DTC is a strange and unspoken part of the relationship between American wineries and their wholesalers, especially wholesalers in the big wine-producing states of California, Washington and Oregon. “They [wholesalers] know it openly happens, but also know it’s a losing battle if they fight this channel of trade. Wineries in these states have very big DTC business and are very open about it. Wineries say they control these relationships at a wholesale level, trade and end consumer angle via ‘channel management’, an ambiguous title for sure. As an example, certain wines are aimed at customer mailing lists only, while others may be for on-trade only and they swear these wines will not go into direct wholesale, while this is true to an extent...” Lane believes if US wineries had their way, particularly those with around 5000 to 35,000 case production, they would be DTC only but the reality is in the longerterm, they would not survive. He says, “The distributors will eventually have their say, they always do.” Wilson adds, “DTC is not the panacea, but given the modest uptake in this distribution option compared with channel retail, it suggests a big opportunity for any producer investing time and energy in developing this distribution option as a part of their strategy.” But can DTC work for imported wine? With difficulty. There are less than 10 states where Torbreck could be sold DTC. Freight forwarding companies need specific licenses to carry wine. California is the most advanced state for DTC but still there are issues. Torbreck has two sister wineries in Sonoma, but Torbreck wines cannot be sold via its cellar doors due to an ancient bylaw. “Yet, I could go to a restaurant anywhere in California, host a dinner and sell all I want with no issues…” Lane sees potential in DTC, but Little provides a warning. “A lot of wineries want to bypass one step in the program and go direct-to-consumer. This is okay, but I don’t think it’s a long-term growth strategy. It could be a first step just to get some cashflow in the early years,

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

but it doesn’t result in hugely wide brand recognition, mainly because it doesn’t hit restaurants, and you have nobody on the ground physically passionate about your wine who wants to sell it. The big online DTC guys have no brand loyalty, they’re just after deals. This year a wine works, next year they’ll say they need it cheaper or it doesn’t have points, and then it’s done for.”

I see Australian winery after winery trying to enter the US market spending all their money, pouring wine after wine at the Wine Australia Market Entry Tastings, racking up travel bills, flying all over America. They are building excitement and potential in their own eyes, but all along missing the major point, which is who they should be engaging and trying to win the hearts and minds of. That is the distributors. - MATT LANE, TORBRECK

Figures of DTC sales to the end of March 2016 show a 12 percent increase over last year and are valued at US$283 million, which brings the 12-month total to more than $1 billion, a 10 percent increase. The rumour is that those that are perusing DTC aggressively are being forced out of the three-tier system. How do small importers successfully operate in the US? Lane says he could write pages on this subject, but boils it down to having a bulletproof, concise and patient business model. Lane offers this advice: “I see Australian winery after winery trying to enter the US market spending all their money, pouring wine after wine at the Wine Australia Market Entry Tastings, racking up travel bills, flying all over America. They are building excitement and potential in their own eyes, but all along missing the major point, which is who they should be

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

engaging and trying to win the hearts and minds of. “That is the distributors. A small importer really has to find, let’s say five distributors in five states, engage with them, go and see them, find the key players in that distributor portfolio, provide them with a concise market plan, growth goals, margins, expectations, prove to them why your wine will help them, etc. And how you as an importer will help them build the brand and distribution.” Lane reckons this approach will result in a better than 80 percent chance of being picked up on the spot. Gordon Little is in agreement. “There’s room for all of us. As you know, it really comes down to the importer/distributor actually caring about the wine and the winery and actively selling it, and finding like-minded customers. A small distributor can do great stuff with a tiny but focused sales team. Big distributors are pulled in all sorts of directions. “Too many Aussies see the US as one big dollar sign. It’s extremely competitive and there’s no silver bullet. Like my last point, it’s hard slog, financial investment and connecting with your end customers. It’s hard to justify in terms of a small winery’s budget in the one to five years for many wineries, but it’s absolutely necessary.” Wilson says, “If they aren’t positioning themselves as a service-oriented, valueadded option, they’re in trouble.” It may appear Southern Glazer’s is too large to fail, but its size also leaves gaps and opportunities. It will be the ability of Australian wineries to capitalise on the advice offered not only above, but from Wine Australia and as many other sources as they can track down. A slower, new, more respectful approach will herald a renaissance of individual wines with character that Americans will grow to respect and enjoy.

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: www.thekeyreport.com.au

WVJ

V31N3

GRAPE & WINE HANDLING

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

Basket pressing – the art of being different By Cathy Howard

Cathy puts the squeeze on three Australian wineries currently making use of basket presses to find out what quality enhancements the machines are delivering over their more modern counterparts, then puts the screws on two local basket press suppliers to hear their side of the story.

s a small wine producer, we would be very typical of the winery size that would utilise a basket press rather than a tank press for pressing our reds. For the majority of our white crush, we use a local contract winemaking facility to crush and press our whites. At Whicher Ridge, we have a relatively small annual crush of around 60-80 tonnes in total, and about two-thirds of this is red. Each vintage, our red crush is made up of many small batches of different varieties and different sections of certain vineyard blocks, as well as a few small volume project wines, so a basket press really is ideal for us due to our crush size and our batch sizes. It consistently gives us the wine quality, particularly the tannin structure, we are seeking in our red wine styles. However, its one main drawback is the amount of hard physical labour involved with the shovelling. Shovelling to dig the skins out of open fermenters into the basket press, then more shovelling (or forking) to remove the cake into the tractor bucket which then is tipped onto our compost heap. We do use a basket press for our 1.5 tonnes of Viognier each year and pressing a white presents extra challenges not experienced with pressing reds. The press cycle is slow and lengthy, with skins squirting out through the wooden slats at higher pressures as the cake compresses, and an extraction rate that makes you cry! The upside is that the combination of aeration while pressing, reduced phenolics and lower solids yield a finer-structured, far better balanced and less coarse wine - a huge bonus from a wine quality point of view, especially for Viognier. Wooden structures utilising large beams, capstans and windlasses to exert pressure to press grapes were first used by the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the design continued to evolve over the following centuries with wooden presses being widely used in the 17th and 18th centuries. According to Nordestgaard (2015), around the 1830s the central iron spindle vertical basket press we are all familiar with today was introduced, and by the late 19th century they were the predominant style of press. Interestingly, two of the wineries I spoke to are still using basket presses made in the 1890s.

Radford is not entirely sure how their extraction rates compare with a tank press. “Typically we are achieving 700L/t for Shiraz, 720-730L/t for Grenache and Mataro. We manually control our press cycles, slowly increasing the pressure over an hour or so, depending on flow rates, with a press cycle lasting for four to five hours as a minimum. We leave both the hand-cranked and hydraulic presses at the highest pressures overnight.” Rockford does not use mats or stalks within the press, and only uses boards on top of the handcranked 1890s press. “We keep pressings separate and blend back in later as required.” Radford continues, “There are manual handling issues with the presses, mainly due to our equipment and our site. We shovel into the crusher, then we shovel again out of our open fermenters which vary in size from 4.5, 2.5 and 1.0 tonne fermenters, into the basket presses. The press cake is then forked into the marc truck. I shovelled 100 tonnes this vintage myself!” Rockfords do lift the basket press cages off with a forklift using chains. Its winery area is fairly restricted for space due to its set-up amidst old farm buildings that are also quite open and very visible to the public, and this does limit staff as to how much can be altered to reduce the amount of manual handling undertaken to work with their current equipment.▶

BEN RADFORD, MANAGING DIRECTOR/WINEMAKER ROCKFORD WINES, BAROSSA VALLEY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Rockford has three basket presses, one of which is an 1890s hand-cranked press, while the other two are hydraulic Hypac wooden basket presses. All of its reds go through the basket presses with the whites and roses tank pressed at its sister winery, Barossa Vintners. Ben Radford states that the Rockford philosophy is to preserve traditional winemaking techniques which is why it routinely uses traditional processing equipment such as its 1912 petrol-driven destemmer as well as a 1890s basket press. This philosophy creates a real point of difference for Rockfords. It also defines the Rockford style and ensures that the signature red wine styles are consistent.

V3 1N 3

Rockford Wines, in South Australia’s Barossa Valley, has three basket presses. One is an 1890s hand-cranked press (top), while the other two are hydraulic wooden basket presses.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

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

GRAPE & WINE HANDLING

d’Arenberg is the only winery in Australia to basket press all its whites and reds. They have two wooden basket presses, one of which was imported in the late 19th century (pictured above with d’Arry and Chester Osborn) and seven stainless steel basket presses. With regard to cleaning, Radford said, “Having wooden cages on all three basket presses means that there is a substantial waxing work pre-vintage with removing and rewaxing the wooden slats. Regular cleaning between press cycles starts with thoroughly hosing down, followed by using a metal plate to slide through and clear skins and seeds from between the slats.” TOBY PORTER & ROB HUMPHREYS, WINEMAKERS D’ARENBERG WINES, MCLAREN VALE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA d’Arenberg is the only winery in Australia to basket press all its whites as well as all its reds. Toby Porter begins, “In the older part of the winery, there are 17 older concrete open red fermenters and two wooden basket presses with capacities to hold around two tonnes of skins each. One of these presses was imported in the late 19th century. In this part of the winery we shovel out of the open fermenters, after draining, directly into the basket presses. In the newer part of the winery, there are seven stainless steel basket presses each having approximately a two-tonne capacity, and five of these are used exclusively for processing our whites.’ Rob Humphreys continues, “We basket press all of our whites. It’s all part of the art of being different. We find it a useful tool for a number of reasons: "Basket presses certainly allow us to process fruit as soon as it hits the weighbridge. Rather than waiting for a specified tonnage to fill a bag press, we can process a bin of fruit straight away, crushing and pressing and getting the juice into tank. This allows us to chill fruit/juice immediately under CO2 protection and adjust SO2 levels as needed.

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

"We find that the gentle extraction afforded by slow and controlled basket pressing allows for exact phenolic extraction. The juice passing through the grape mass has a filtering effect allowing us to ultimately minimise finings. "This filtering effect also has the added benefit of minimising the volume of lees present. “We have a press area dedicated to whites only,” Humphreys continues. “This comprises five hydraulic presses and we use stainless steel baskets for pressing whites. The baskets are surrounded by thick, clear plastic sheeting and have CO2 hoses inserted in them. Extraction rates do vary for different varieties, some of that due to winemaker specifications, but we do find that our extraction rates are reasonably consistent from vintage to vintage. To give you a few examples, our sparkling bases (Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Pinot Meunier) have a free run extraction of around 450 litres per tonne, and Riesling for our Dry Dam Riesling is around 500 litres per tonne free run. All of the press cuts are tasted to ensure we are maximising fruit character with minimal phenolics. Some varieties such as Viognier, Roussanne and Marsanne have higher free run rates as they are varieties that can complement a greater phenolic expression. We allow some varieties (Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc) extra time on skins. We crush these to a Potter [fermenter], allowing a period of skin contact, and then drain and load the skins directly from the Potter into the press basket. We don’t use stalks to assist with the pressing process, neither do we use whole bunches.” Humphrey concludes, “The white varieties we process here are Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc, Chardonnay, Viognier, Marsanne, Roussanne, Chenin Blanc and Petit Manseng.” Porter continues, “In our red fermentation area, we have 140, five-tonne stainless steel open fermenters. We use a rotating forklift to tip these fermenters into a specially-designed hopper that funnels the skins into the basket. Each basket load is double pressed. For each of these five-tonne fermenters, two baskets are filled from the hopper, and pressed. Then the two cakes are combined by tipping them with the forklift back into the hopper, then funnelling the skins this time into one basket that is then pressed a second time. We combine the free run and pressings during the pressing process. Once the second pressing is complete, the cage is lifted again and the cake is tipped into the hopper using a forklift, then fed into a screw press to extract the heavy pressings, resulting in a very dry marc.” Similar to Rockford, d’Arenberg doesn’t use PLC programs on any of its presses, preferring instead to manually increase pressures as flow rates dictate. Porter says, “The main reasons why we use basket presses can be summed up in two words – style and tradition. The gentler pressing yields gentler, softer tannins that are now part of the d’Arenberg style. d’Arenberg wants to maintain traditional winemaking techniques, which also creates a point of difference for the company. There is a lot of hard, physical work involved in using basket presses, and increased costs but we are making wines in the styles that we want and will continue to make. Using basket presses certainly does also have a side benefit in marketing as it creates a point of difference, and with our whites it is a major bonus!” Cleaning the cages is fairly straightforward using a high pressure cleaner, followed by a caustic and citric wash, and sometimes a sanitiser rinse. Porter and Humphrey and d’Arenberg will continue to use basket presses into the future, as they are part of the story and fabric of the winery and the d’Arenberg wine styles.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

GRAPE & WINE HANDLING

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

VIRGINIA WILLCOCK – CHIEF WINEMAKER VASSE FELIX WINES, MARGARET RIVER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA Vasse Felix currently has one Vaslin Bucher JLB12 basket press, with a capacity of around one tonne of skins. Virginia Willcock is also currently weighing up the possibility of purchasing a larger version of the same press, a JLB20, to more quickly and efficiently handle the pressing of the winery's eight-tonne static red fermenters. Willcock explains, “All of the Vasse Felix reds, apart from the Classic and Filius ranges, are pressed through the basket press, including our Vasse Felix Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon, Heytsebury Range reds and our special project wines. These wines are all fermented in a mix of one-tonne open fermenters, oak vats and static fermenters ranging in size from three to eight tonnes. “The main reasons for using a basket press is that the process is so simple. There is no pumping and macerating of skins involved with pressing our reds. The one-tonne fermenters and oak vats are drained first, then tipped into the basket press using a rotating head forklift. The static fermenters are drained, then the skins raked directly down into the basket press as the statics are positioned at a height that suits both the height of the basket press and our aerative pump-over tanks. The three-tonne statics are a one basket press load, with the eight-tonne statics taking two to three loads to press out. All of these reds are pressed directly to barrel, so free run and pressings are kept separate. To empty the basket press, the cage lifts up in its own frame, and the cake is then lifted out and tipped using the forklift into our marc pit.” Vasse Felix does use a PLC program on the JLB12 but it is one of the basic ones. Willcock continues, “We find that this basket press is very efficient, with a press cycle that is about 1.5 hours producing a very dry cake. Many of our Cabernet ferments we hold for an extended period of time on skins post fermentation, so the skins are fairly well broken down by the time they are ready to press.” When comparing the extraction rate to other red ferments pressed through one of its tank presses, Willcock states, “It is hard to truly gauge and compare the difference as many of the batches pressed through the basket press have smaller berries which would naturally have a lower extraction rate anyway.” Vasse Felix doesn’t use mats.

V3 1N 3

Vasse Felix currently has one Vaslin Bucher stainless steel basket press, with a capacity of around one tonne of skins, and is weighing up purchasing a larger version of the same press to more quickly and efficiently handle the pressing of their eight-tonne static red fermenters. All of the winery’s reds, excluding the Classic and Filius ranges, are pressed through the basket press. Willcock summarises, “Our basket press is a critical part of our system which we will be continuing to use. I believe that part of the secret to its success with our wines and our styles is not so much to do with the press itself, but how the press is loaded with no maceration of skins.” ROB MENZIES, SWAT TRADING, AGENT FOR VASLIN BUCHER, COWARAMUP, WESTERN AUSTRALIA “In the Margaret River region I would estimate that there would be 10 Vaslin Bucher basket presses, and another 20 or so wineries running the cheaper Italian basket presses,” Rob Menzies asserts. The Vaslin Bucher basket presses currently available in Australia are the JLB5 (approximate cost A$32,000), JLB12 (A$82,000) and the JLB20 (A$100,500). The most popular model is the JLB12, which has a 12HL capacity, or around three tonnes worth of macerated skins. Menzies has found sales of basket presses to be fairly steady over the past five years, and hasn’t experienced an

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

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

GRAPE & WINE HANDLING

increase in enquiries by wineries seeking to purchase one. “It’s predominately medium to large wineries purchasing a Vaslin Bucher JLB, with only a few smaller wineries purchasing one. Smaller wineries would generally purchase a basket press that does not run via a PLC, making it much cheaper,” Menzies says. He also doesn’t think that many wineries use a basket press for pressing whites, but adds, “I have seen interesting trials on whole bunch and destemmed Chardonnay. The main reasons why wineries are choosing a basket press is the wine quality achieved when pressing their top, premium red batches.” With regard to manual handling issues, Menzies states, “If you have a rotating forklift then there is no ‘muscle’ needed to fill or empty the press. The JLB presses also lift the cage up inside their frame, making it quite a simple operation to then remove and tip the cake.” When asked about extraction rates, Menzies replies, “Compared with a tank press when pressing reds, the extraction rate from a basket press maybe 5% less, but certainly not so good with whites, maybe 15% less.” He adds, “two or three mats are a must to assist with pressing”. From a winery maintenance viewpoint, Menzies says annual servicing costs for a basket press are much less (50%) than a tank press, “and there is no membrane to damage! Most basket presses are very simple and commonsense preventative maintenance will always help.” CRAIG BAINGER, GENERAL MANAGER KEMP DECK EQUIPMENT PTY LTD, LARGS NORTH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Kemp Deck Equipment now manufactures the Hypac range of products. Craig Bainger states, “Our Hypac presses are widely used around South Australia, including Two Hands Wines, Illaparra Winery, Langmeil, Greenock Creek Wines, Sevenhill Wines, Peter Lehmann Wines, Kay Brothers and Wirra Wirra. Our Hypac basket press prices range from around $35,000 up to $100,000.” Bainger continues, “Our smallest model is a BP08 with a basket capacity of 800 litres which is roughly equivalent to the skins from a 2.5 tonne ferment. Our largest is a BP30, a 3000-litre basket which can accommodate the skins from a 9.5 tonne ferment. The most popular sizes are the BP08, BP16 and BP21. An advantage of our basket press over others is that the long hydraulic cylinder stroke means a complete press can be achieved with a basket that is only partially full.”

Fruit is loaded into a Hypac press at Illaparra Winery, in the Barossa Valley.

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

A basket press is put to work at Whicher Ridge during vintage 2016. Bainger continues, “Sales have been steady for us over the last five or so years, and we have not seen an increase in enquiries by wineries seeking to purchase a basket press, mainly due to times having been tough for smaller wineries who make up the majority of the users of our presses. There tends to be two types of wineries that use our presses. These are generally the smaller, boutique wineries, owned by local families perhaps picking 30 to 200 tonnes per vintage. The other ‘typical’ customer will be pressing much larger volumes, with perhaps a tank press in tandem with one or a couple of basket presses. Generally speaking wines that are sold at a higher price point will be pressed in the basket press. “The main reasons wineries give me for using a basket press are that they are looking for gentle pressing to achieve a better quality output associated with other forms of pressing. While those that only have a basket accept this as the norm, those comparing it to their tank press are always impressed with the quality output of the basket press. The basket press offers simple but accurate control. By using a PLC controller an identical pressing cycle can be run again and again. At this stage we haven’t noticed an increase in demand for pressing whites, but many of our current users do use them for this process. Chances are, on any given day during vintage, it will be premium red wine flowing from the pan. “As with any basket press, the basket needs to be loaded and the marc removed. If the winery is fitted with raised fermenters, it’s possible to place the empty basket and pan under the outlet of the fermenter enabling the basket to be filled with minimal effort. All of the baskets and pans of our presses are intended for handling with a forklift with a rotating head. The smallest press, the BP08, can also be manufactured to suit a forward tipper. The larger presses need a 4.5 tonne fork, while the smaller presses only require a two-tonne. Some of our users have made hoppers that sit over the basket and pan to assist with loading. This enables ferments to be tipped directly into the baskets of the smaller models via forklift. Chains are used to lift and move the basket around as needed with the forklift. The chains clip onto the handles of the basket.” Bainger continues, “All our Hypac presses are hydraulic, so once pressing commences it’s just a matter of adjusting the pressure increments. We offer PLC control as an option on our basket presses. This gives the winemaker complete control over the pressures and times of the pressing cycle and automates the pressing cycle. The winemaker can add, remove and edit programs on the machine and a maximum of 30 programs can be stored. “Basket pressing is generally a slower process than pressing in a tank press. Many of our users have two baskets and pans for each

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

GRAPE & WINE HANDLING

press to keep the overall process as short as possible. Generally our users run pressing cycles between 2.5 hours extending up to 24 hours. Cycles between four and eight hours seem to be most common.” When asked about extraction rates, Bainger replies, “The extraction rate is entirely dependent on the pressure the winemakers will press to. Most of our users will press to extract every last drop possible. Some winemakers do use separating mats within the basket to assist with pressing. We consistently receive positive feedback on the output of the basket press. We haven’t received any feedback from users suggesting their marc is consistently too wet. Generally, if the press cycle is too fast, the marc in the centre of the press may still contain some wine/juice, but this is usually rectified by slightly extending the duration of the earlier part of the pressing cycle.” The cage and pan of Hypac presses are easily cleaned after pressing as they are all manufactured from 316 stainless steel, and the underside of the pressing head can also be stainless steel if this option is selected making cleaning relatively straightforward. Most users will hose down the basket and pan immediately after emptying, usually while still on the forklift. The new punched stainless baskets have minimal areas for skins to accumulate.

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

heritage, which again ties in with the business philosophy of many and creates a valuable marketing and PR tool to build on a point of difference. Using a basket press offers the opportunity to make wine that has a clear point of difference compared with those mass produced by the big companies. For others, it works well for their relatively small size, with the added bonus of yielding superior quality red wines. From a wine quality point of view, there are distinct advantages for using one for reds: less phenolics, particularly less bitter phenolics, less solids and a final wine with better balance and structure. For some wineries, the recent developments in basket press design has meant that much of the hard physical work that was previously involved in pressing grapes through traditional basket presses has been overcome by using forklifts. For other wineries like us (and Rockford), we will continue to use our basket presses to maintain our distinctive wine styles and our wine quality, and we will continue to shovel. For us at Whicher Ridge though, we will certainly be planning on some winery design modifications to our equipment in the future to make life less physically wearing, but ensuring that we retain our point of difference, our basket press. REFERENCES

CONCLUSIONS

Nordestgaard, Simon (2015) The history of wine presses Part 1: batch presses. Aust. & NZ Grapegrower & Winemaker 619:64-71.

The traditional concept of the basket press fits in well with many wineries’ winemaking philosophies and history. The basket press gives that age-old romantic image of winemaking and winemaking

Cathy Howard is 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

You can settle for what is available, or you can strive for what is possible. Enoplastic is Australia and New Zealand’s only manufacturer of hoods, polylam and PVC capsules, and we are in the business of delivering competitive advantage to all of our customers in today’s dynamic business environment. Our priority is understanding the detail that unlocks an ability to compete and stand-out in the market place, and most importantly, in the eyes of the consumer. At Enoplastic, these details are best expressed through our locally-produced, affordable and premium-crafted solutions.

Enoplastic – start at the top. V3 1N 3

Adelaide: +61 8 8347 0455 | Auckland: +64 9 83 64 974 www.enoplastic.com.au

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

ENO166633/WVJ-5

If you are looking for the ultimate in luxury design, we can help you capture that aspiration in terms of colour tones of black, gold, bronze and silver; crafted embossing and foiling; and an integrated finish that is rich in quality, texture and refinement.

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

GRAPE & WINE HANDLING

New winemaking process conceived in a northern Tasmania pilot winery - the beginnings of ACE By Richard Smart1 and Angela Sparrow2 1 Smart Viticulture, Newlyn, UK 2 Vinventive, Lanena, Tasmania, Australia

Richard Smart and Angela Sparrow describe the evolution of a new must processing method that attracted the attention of winemakers during vintage 2016 in trials conducted around the country. Angela then takes up the story on page 47, detailing the results from the first semi-commercial trial of the technique conducted in Tasmania ahead of its commercialisation. INTRODUCTION This article is about a series of events that led to the development of accentuated cut edges (ACE), a new must processing technique, that is currently creating interest among Australian and New Zealand winemakers. It is the story of the genesis of ACE, which had its origin in the creation of an experimental winery in a northern Tasmania vineyard, previously discussed in this journal (Smart 2009). The ACE process is currently being promoted by Angela Sparrow as a consequence of her PhD studies, and subsequent commercial evaluation promoted by Wine Australia. The ACE process involves a post-crushing and generally a pre-fermentation step that fragments the skins of crushed berries, importantly without damage to the seeds. It allows for more rapid extraction of skin compounds and reduced fermentation time on skins for red wines, allowing repeated use of red fermenters during vintage (Sparrow et al. 2014).

student. Fiona Kerslake (nee Chopping) and Reuben Wells were appointed in late 2005. A combined apple storage and shearing shed at Tamar Ridge was used for experimental winemaking in the 2005 vintage by Richard Smart and the Tamar Ridge staff. This was not an elaborate research outfit; it was funded out of less than $1000 petty cash. Fermenters were plastic buckets and donated Fowlers Vacola preserving jars. Fruit crushing was by feet in trays on plastic sheets on the concrete floor, and a secondhand refrigerator provided cooling. Wines were given phenolic analysis by Dr Bob Dambergs, of AWRI. The same facility was used by Kerslake and Wells for their first experimental harvest in 2006. Kerslakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thesis investigated the effect of vineyard management on Pinot Noir wine quality, and Wellsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; considered leaf health effects on grape and wine attributes. Their results are published elsewhere.

UPGRADING TO A PILOT WINERY AND MORE RESEARCH FUNDING The Tasmanian Department of Economic Development provided $125,000 in 2006 to upgrade the research facility in support of the Tasmanian wine sector. This led to installation of temperature controlled rooms, and interior fit-out for the laboratory, office, work area, storage area and some equipment. In 2007, Richard Smart coordinated a consortium to make a bid for $1.8 million worth of AusIndustry Industry Cooperative Innovation Program (ICIP) funding, which was led by Alison Williams, executive officer of Wine Industry Tasmania (now Wine Tasmania), and Tamar Ridge Estate, TIAR, AWRI and private companies Croplands and Flextank. The project title was ''Improving Australian Sparkling Wines and Pinot Noir'. The aim of the grant was to provide research and development in cool climates to facilitate the enhanced productivity, growth and development of the Australian wine sector for these wine types. This was

HOW AN APPLE COOL STORE AND SHEARING SHED BECAME A PILOT WINERY Launceston timber company Gunns purchased Tamar Ridge Estate in 2003, the second largest winery in Tasmania at the time. Gunns chief executive John Gay asked consultant Richard Smart how his company might make a gesture of support to the Tasmanian wine sector. A proposal was developed to support a PhD scholarship with the University of Tasmania (UTas) and Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research (TIAR) for vineyard studies at Tamar Ridge. When two quality applicants were received the university agreed to support a second

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

The first small-scale ferments at Tamar Ridge pilot winery in 2005, in plastic buckets and preserving jars. W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

GRAPE & WINE HANDLING

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

Reuben Wells preparing for crushing during the 2006 vintage in front of the apple storage shed.

Fiona Kerslake in the first laboratory, 2006. The blackboard reads ‘Chateau shearing shed, NO WINE SALES’.

to be achieved by research conducted in Tasmania, leading to the presentation of seminars and field days in Tasmania and elsewhere, as well as presentations to the Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference in 2010, and also scientific and trade industry publications. The grant also supported in part the presentation of the International Cool Climate Symposium in Hobart in 2012. The AusIndustry funding led to other significant developments. Important among these was the creation of an AWRI node at UTas, leading to the transfer of wine scientist Dr Bob Dambergs from Adelaide to Hobart. Another was the appointment of Angela Sparrow as research technician, to be located at the Tamar Ridge facility for the 2009 to 2011 harvests. Among the many research achievements from this facility, one of particular significance was to scale down the ferment size, since not all experiments warranted volumes required for sensory evaluation.

fragmented without damaging seeds? This possibility was discussed with Sparrow for her first vintage in 2009 at the pilot winery. Early experiments involved attempts to remove seeds from must in the early stages of fermentation, so that skins could be fragmented without seed damage. In 2009, Smart and Sparrow first carried out experiments in the Tamar Ridge main winery using a Pinot Noir fermenter with sloped floors and two plate valves in the drainage tube at the base. The aim was to separate seeds from the fermenting wine, but they found that most seeds descended after four days of fermentation, presumably only after pulp had broken down, which was later confirmed by Sparrow’s PhD experiments. They also conducted experiments in the pilot winery in 2010 using alternate methods of seed exclusion. These required the juice to be drained from the must and stored cold; meanwhile the skins, pulp and seeds were fermented with limited juice at 25˚C with double rates of

Originally, all ferments were conducted in 20 litre food grade buckets with lids, using 12-15L must. The volume was decreased to 1L using Bodum coffee plungers (Dambergs and Sparrow 2012). Further reduction was to 200mL or less by the pilot winery team, using 250mL screwcap jars with fitted PVC sleeve and fibreglass gauze (Smart et al. 2012). Both methods used submerged cap fermentation, found to be more consistent than daily punch down. The correlation of micro-scale to larger ferments was evaluated and published (Sparrow and Smart 2015). OUT OF THIS RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT EMERGES ACE The extraction of skin components are pivotal to red and white wine composition and quality. Smart had wondered if extraction might be encouraged by reducing crushed grape skins to smaller fragments, with a higher proportion of broken edge to surface area. But could skins in must be

The pilot winery, as at March 2007. The vineyard staff kindly planted a garden in front. The lean-to was a processing area, providing protection from rain and cold westerly winds. V3 1N 3

Dr Bob Dambergs, then of the AWRI, and Bodum submerged cap fermenters, aka coffee plungers.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

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

GRAPE & WINE HANDLING

The 250mL ultra-micro fermentation system, showing PVC spacer, fibreglass gauze, container and lid with submerged cap fermentation. yeast and pectolytic enzyme. After two days the stored juice was warmed and added, and the majority of seeds could be recovered from the base of the fermenter. The 2011 vintage was pivotal for ACE development. Sparrow began PhD studies at UTas with Damberg’s supervision while completing her position with ICIP. Sparrow and Smart undertook several experiments on skin fragmentation, which formed the basis of the 2016 American Journal of Enology and Viticulture (AJEV) paper ‘Skin particle size affects the phenolic attributes of Pinot Noir wine: proof of concept’ (Sparrow et al. 2016a). Subsequent studies have identified sensory benefits (Sparrow et al. 2016b). ACE, A MUST TREATMENT PROCESS ARISING FROM INTUITIVE CONCEPT The 2016 AJEV paper was significant for proving the ACE concept and its major findings are listed below: Components of the skin are extracted via two routes: the inner skin surface, although diffusion may be occluded by adhering pulp, or through the broken skin edges. Conventionally crushed grapes (by foot or crusher) form ‘deflated spheres’ where the amount of broken edge per berry is limited, and the two berry halves often remain joined. ACE relies on the concept that broken skin edges are particularly important for skin component extraction. As an example, wines made using a cutting technique that reduced grape skins to 6 percent of their original size (without damaging the seeds) were three-fold higher in tannin, 95% higher in stable pigment concentration, had 50% greater wine colour density and a 20% increase in blue-purple coloration (Sparrow et al. 2016a). Reducing skin particle size also had a greater effect than pectolytic enzymes on

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

Wines at six months bottle age using two different maceration techniques: (left) conventional maceration, (right) ACE maceration.

phenolic extraction. These early results suggested that extraction of skin compound from cut edges is substantial, but which size of fragment is effective? The impact of skin fragmentation was modelled in the 2016 AJEV paper using a simple index of fragmentation, the ratio of surface area (SA) to perimeter (P) of fragments (SA/P) with units of distance. Algebra shows the relationship to be: SA/P = 0.5r (π/n)0.5 where 'r' is the radius of the spherical berry and 'n' the fragment number. The paper presented that for ‘normal’ crushed berries of diameter 13.0mm the perimeter of broken skin edges was 28.0mm, so SA/P was 19.0mm. With ACE maceration into an average 24 fragments per berry the SA/P was 1.15mm, only 6% of control crushed berries. How do these results relate to historical grape crushing? Patrick McGovern shows the first archaeological evidence of grape crushing by feet to be around 6000 years old, but it could have been practised in the Neolithic period, 10,000 years BC (McGovern 2015). Machines to crush grapes were developed in the 19th century, and, as for crushing by feet, the spherical berries were literally compressed, creating a single although jagged line of rupture in the skin.

issue (see page 47), and the research is ongoing with Wine Australia support. The authors believe it will be seen to have many benefits in wine production, maybe even for white wine and especially aromatic varieties. Another important benefit can be from quicker turnaround of red fermenters during vintage, which can apply to many red varieties. The pilot winery has produced many other benefits, not emphasised here. There have been three PhDs completed using the facility with UTas. Further, and perhaps a legacy yet to be appreciated, improved clones of Pinot Noir have been identified by both vineyard measurement and winemaking, which are now being planted in Tasmania. Their benefits may be known in a decade or so.

CONCLUSION

Sparrow, A.M.; Smart, R.E.; Dambergs, R.G. and Close, D.C. (2016a) Skin particle size affects the phenolic attributes of Pinot Noir wine. Proof of concept. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 67:29-37.

The ACE concept arose from a simple idea. People often say to the authors, ‘Why did no-one think of it before?’ After all, grapes have been crushed for winemaking for a very long time, and wine has been scientifically studied for more than 100 years. Yet, the initial idea and proof of the concept was very much tied to the operation of the pilot winery at Tamar Ridge, the ‘little winery in the vineyards’. The benefits of ACE have been presented elsewhere, including in this

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

LITERATURE CITED Dambergs, R.G. and Sparrow, A.M. (2011) The Bodum French wine press. A simple reliable small-lot red wine fermentation method. In Proc. 14th Aust. Wine Industry Tech. Conf. Adel., SA 353. McGovern, P. (2015) Origins of viniculture. Oxford Companion to Wine. Robinson, J. and Harding, J. Eds 526-530. Sparrow, A.; Dambergs, B. and Close, D. (2014) Cutting edge Pinot. Reducing skin particle size early in fermentation is the key. Wine and Viticulture Journal 29(1):24. Sparrow, A.M. and Smart, R.E. (2015) Fermentation volume studies for red wine experimentation. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 36:343-346.

Sparrow, A.M.; Holt, H.E.; Pearson, W.; Dambergs, R.G. and Close, D.C. (2016b) Accentuated cut edges (ACE): Effects of skin fragmentation on the composition and sensory attributes of Pinot Noir wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 67:169-178. Smart, R. (2009) Success stories come from wine companies’ own research. Wine and Viticulture Journal 24:10-12. Smart, R.E.; Dambergs, R.G. and Sparrow, A.M. (2012) Mighty little fermenters: A procedure of ultra-small scale vinification for use in viticulture and oenology research. In: Proc. 8th International Cool Climate Symposium, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

WVJ

V31N3

GRAPE & JUICE HANDLING

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

The case for ACE maceration trial continues By Angela Sparrow, Vinventive, Tasmania. Email: angela@vinventive.com

n an earlier article titled ‘Cutting edge Pinot’ (Sparrow et al. 2014), I wrote about winery research trials in which grape skins were fragmented in the early stages of fermentation. I elaborate on these trials here and present additional information. These and earlier experiments have demonstrated that reducing the skin particle size brings substantial benefits to the phenolic profile of Pinot Noir grapes (Sparrow et al. 2016a). A second paper in that series has shown wine sensory benefits (Sparrow et al. 2016b). The technique in which grape skin size is reduced has more recently been referred to as ‘ACE’, an acronym for ‘accentuated cut edges’ because, simply stated, the small grape fragments made during the ACE process have more broken skin edges, allowing skin components to leak out. This compares with conventionally treated Pinot Noir grapes that are either destemmed then crushed to produce a large split in the berry, or simply de-stemmed, whereby the berries remain relatively intact. ACE maceration consequently induces extraction of chemical components from the skin more quickly than is possible by the usual process of gradual diffusion through the cell layers towards the inner side of the grape berry. I first took the ACE maceration concept to the commercial sector in 2013 and used a commercial grade stick blender for the purpose. Three commercial wineries in Tasmania participated in that trial, and the winemakers were unanimously intrigued with the ACE wines made in their own wineries. Results presented here are the average of the three winery trials. Each winery used Pinot Noir clone D4V12 harvested at 22 ± 0.5oBrix and the same culture of malolactic bacteria. The ferment sizes varied from 250kg to one tonne. The treatment was applied as soon as the pomace cap was afloat (36 hours from inoculation). The increased rate of extraction of red colour pigments (anthocyanins) was immediately apparent when the grape must was sampled post-ACE treatment (Figure 1). The concentration of anthocyanin measured was double the concentration of the control treatment just two days after the ACE treatment was applied (Figure 2). In addition to the anthocyanin pigments that can be clearly

seen, the liberation of other skin components that are unseen is also enhanced by fragmentation. The extraction of tannin and non-bleachable pigments were monitored using rapid analytical techniques available through the AWRI Grape and Wine Portal (Figure 3, see page 48). Together with anthocyanins, these components largely determine the colour density, colour stability, hue and mouthfeel of the wine. ACE application resulted in a tannin concentration that was five-fold higher than the control treatment after two days and fourfold higher by the end of an eight-day fermentation period (Figure 3a, page 48). Colour density of ACE treated wine was 30 percent higher than control treatment after three days and this proportional increase was maintained through to the end of fermentation (Figure 3b, page 48). Similarly, after three days the stable pigment concentration was 40% higher for the ACE treatment than for the control and by the end of fermentation it was 60% higher than the control (Figure 3c, page 48). Not only were the phenolic components more concentrated, but the hue of the ACE wine was slightly more blue (6%) than the control wine (Figure 3d, page 48). It is noteworthy that the treatment effect at one winery was much less than at the other two, which reduced the average for the three wineries. This may be as a consequence of the vineyard conditions such as water stress, which resulted in small berries and a comparatively large seed mass, thereby skewing the results in the direction of inferior seed derived tannins (Sparrow et al. 2015). By contrast with the water soluble anthocyanins, stable or ‘nonbleachable’ pigments are those that are resistant to bleaching by sulfur dioxide. They are formed either by polymerisation of grape tannin sub-units into complex structures in which anthocyanins are embedded (tannin-pigment complexes are red-brown in colour) or from condensation reactions of the anthocyanins themselves to form ‘anthocyanin stacks’ or pyranoanthocyanins which are bluepurple in colour. Both types of ‘non-bleachable’ pigment protect the coloured entity from oxidation (Somers 1971, Boulton 2001, Remy et al. 2000, Sacchi et al. 2005, Cheynier 2006). The proportion

Anthocyanin (g/L) 0.3

0.2 Control ACE

0.1

0.0

Figure 1. Must samples immediately post-ACE maceration treatment (control pictured on right). V3 1N 3

3 5 6 7 Days from ACE application

Figure 2. Anthocyanin extraction of control and ACE treated musts during eight-day fermentation.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

GRAPE & JUICE HANDLING

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

1.2 1.0 1.2

Tannin (g/L)

0.5

Tannin (g/L)

0.4 c 0.5

Control ACE Control

0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4

ACE 0

2 4 5 6 7 Days from ACE application 2 4 5 6 7 Days from ACE application

2.5 1.5 2.0 1.0

Stable pigment (AU)

1.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1

ACE 7

3 4 5 6 Days post ACE application

0.0

Control ACE Control

0.6

Days from ACE application

0.0

Control ACE Control

0.5

Control ACE Control ACE 2

Days post ACE application

of eachcof these non-bleachable that are(AU) present in the Stablepigments pigment 0.5 at the end of vinification have a significant impact on the wine ageing potential of the wine, with stable pigments derived from c found toStable 0.4tannins skin be superior pigment to those formed(AU) from seed0.5 derived tannins (Sparrow et al. 2015). A model showing proposed formation, sequence and consequences of tannin extraction from 0.3 0.4 skins and seeds is shown in Figure 4. Phenolic analyses at six and 12 months bottle age clearly 0.2 0.3 showed that over this time period the percentage of stable pigment Control in0.1 the wine had continued to increase (Figure 5). This indicated that ACEafter 0.2 the accelerated rate of phenolic extraction, observed shortly

Appearance

2 ID Wine

5 Control

6ACE 7

Days from ACE Intensity 1.71application 3.23

Blue colouration 2.34 3.56

Colour

applying ACE, not only included sufficient free anthocyanins to promote the formation of pyranoanthocyanins, but also comprised the particular tannins required to form stable tannin-pigment complexes; with both pigment types continuing to develop in the bottle as the wine aged. So, what did the wine taste like? After six months in the bottle, the wines were presented in unmarked glasses to a panel of six winemakers involved in the trial. The panel were asked to comment on the appearance, aroma, flavour, structure and mouthfeel of the wine. For each character, wines were scored on a sliding scale from

Control 0.0 0.1 Table 1. Sensory evaluation for two maceration treatments: Control (conventional) and ACE (Accentuated Cut Edges). 0 1 2 3 5 6 7ACE 8 Data are mean values for six tasters. Days from ACE application 0.0 Trt

Blue colouration

0.1 0.2

0.0

Blue colouration

0.5 d 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1

7 ACE8

Days from ACE application

1 2 3 4 Figure13 (a-d).2Phenolic of5control 3 extraction 4 6 and ACE 7 treated 8 musts during eight-day fermentation.

0.6

Stable pigment (AU)

0.1 0.2

Colour Density (AU)

3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 2.0

3 4 5 6 7 Days post ACE application

0.2 0.3

0.0 0.1

Colour Density (AU)

4.0

0.3 0.4

0.6 0.8

0.0

0.8 1.0

0.0 0.2

Days post ACE application

0.0

Taster

8 Control

ACE

Control

ACE

p-value

1.21

1.15

1.35

3.59

1.48

1.44

3.56

< 0.001 < 0.001

0.006

1.81

0.002

Nose

Intensity

2.15

2.19

0.91

1.50

2.21

2.78

0.009

Fruit

1.40

3.00

0.85

1.50

1.56

2.90

0.011

Floral

1.41

1.66

1.56

3.03

0.011

Palate

0.5 0.3

Acidity

1.41

2.50

2.44

2.19

2.88

2.79

0.021

0.032

Tannin

2.46

2.09

3.23

3.21

1.50

0.002

0.4 0.2

Fruit

1.60

2.34 Control 1.15

2.31

1.84

1.85

3.28

0.001

Body

1.55

1.34

1.75

2.00

3.53

0.001

0.019

0.3 0.1

Length

2.54

2.91 ACE

1.59

2.04

2.16

0.001

0.5

0.6 0.4

Blue colouration 2.06 1.98

Score/50

0.2 % Improvement 0.0

*Six Tasters; NS, Taster ID not significantly different.

0.1

44 0.0

2.65

Control16 ACE 7 8

Days post ACE application 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 2016

(Av. 32)

V31N3

GRAPE & JUICE HANDLING

W WI INNEE M M AAKKI NI G N G

(a) Physical response floating pomace cap

floating pomace cap

pomace cap sinks

skin skin tannin

anthocyanin pigment

seeds

pulp

seeds released pulp breaking down

seed tannin

(b) Chemical response seed tannin molecules skin tannin molecule

pigmented skin tannin

anthocyanin molecules

(stacks)

anthocyanin

pigmented skin tannin

(free)

anthocyanins form stacks or bind with large skin tannin polymers

early ferment

mid ferment

pigmented seed tannin anthocyanins bind with small seed tannin polymers

late ferment

Figure 4. Proposed formation of pigmented tannin (a) physical and (b) chemical responses during grape fermentation. Early in fermentation anthocyanin and tannin are released from the skins of the floating pomace. Mid-way through fermentation the pomace has lost colour, the pulp breaks down and free anthocyanin becomes co-pigmented or polymerises with large skin tannin polymers. Late in fermentation the seeds are released from the pulp, the floating pomace cap sinks and free anthocyanin polymerises with smaller seed tannin polymers. one to five with the range of attributes expected for Pinot Noir wines forming either end of the scale e.g. colour intensity ranged from pale to deep; floral attributes, from poor to rich; fruit, red to black; tannin, soft to astringent; palate length, short to long, and so on. A total of 10 characteristics were scored in this way and the values for each wine summed, with the total expressed relative to a total possible score of 50. When comparing control and ACE wines, there was a significant treatment effect for each of the wine characters assessed (Table 1). In summary, ACE wines were found to have twice the colour intensity, 85% more floral and fruit aroma, and significantly more dark fruit on the palate. ACE wines were also found to have more â&#x2013;ś body (65%) and greater palate length (25%) than the control wines.

% Stable Pigment LSD 0.05

20 6 months 12 months

0 control

For further information, please contact Kauri

ACE

Figure 5. Stable pigment development with bottle age for control and ACE treated wines. V3 1N 3

AUS Tel: 1800 127 611 AUS Fax: 1800 127 609 Email: winery@kauri.co.nz

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

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

www.winetitles. com . au

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

GRAPE & JUICE HANDLING

off skins, as with a white wine. Not only does this eliminate the need for subsequent cap management, but allows the latter stages of fermentation to take place in a smaller tank. As a consequence, the floral and fruity aroma characteristics for which Pinot Noir is renowned are retained (Hanson 2014). These characteristics are indeed the primary justification of the gentle approach to fruit processing described previously. Combining ‘press early’ with ‘ACE’ maceration produces PE-ACE, or PEACE wines! Early press off experiments were tried with substantial success in micro-vinification trials in 2014 and in two small-scale commercial trials during vintage 2015, thanks to funding from by Wine Australia. Encouraged by PEACE trials in the previous vintages, in January 2016 Wine Australia put out a call inviting participants to be involved in a nationwide trial, so that the ACE maceration technique could be tested in different wine regions, with a range of grape varieties and in wineries of different production capacities. During vintage 2016, I travelled from state to state working in wineries both large and small with a prototype ACE device. The trial included six wineries and five different red grape varieties with the majority of winemakers choosing to make PEACE wines, the technique being particularly relevant during the compressed 2016 vintage. We are all looking forward to tasting the PEACE wines! REFERENCES Boulton, R. (2001) The copigmentation of anthocyanins and its role in the colour of red wine: A critical review. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 52:67-87.

Figure 6. Pomace cap four days post-ACE maceration. Surface:volume ratio = 0.03. Control pictured above. ACE maceration appears counter-intuitive to the conventional wisdom associated with Pinot Noir wine production that recognises ‘gentle’ fruit processing as the desired practice. Often Pinot Noir fruit is destemmed but not crushed and, indeed, the inclusion of a proportion of whole bunches in the ferment is a widely accepted practice. The majority of these conventional practices for making Pinot Noir wines inherently avoid the extraction of seed tannins, but are time consuming. The ACE maceration technique has been specifically designed to facilitate extraction of grape skin components while leaving the seeds intact. As a consequence, ACE maceration presents a winemaking option that is significantly more energy and time efficient than cold soaking, thermo-vinification or extended maceration. It is so effective that there is no need to include pectinase enzymes in the must (Sparrow et al. 2016a). The small fragment size of the grape skins has the additional benefit of diminishing the structural integrity of the conventional pomace cap. In an ACE ferment the smaller grape skin fragments do not trap carbon dioxide as it is released from the fermenting must; rather, the small skin fragments tend to sink beneath the level of the liquid at the outset, leaving only uncut skins afloat. This makes daily punch down much easier and after just a few days the entire ‘cap’ sinks, making further punchdown unnecessary (Figure 6). Recognising that ACE maceration causes grape skin components to be released earlier than normal, it seemed natural that the next step would be to press the wine from the grape skins after a few days on skins and finish the fermentation

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

Cheynier, V.; Duenas-Paton, M.; Salas, E.; Maury, C.; Souquet, J-M.; SarniManchado, P. and Fulcrand, H. (2006) Structure and properties of wine pigments and tannins. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 57:298-305. Hanson, C. (2014) Winestate Magazine [Online]. JABA. [Accessed 7 July 2014]. Remy, S.; Fulcrand, H.; La Barbe, B.; Cheynier, V. and Moutounet, M. (2000) First confirmation in red wine of products resulting from direct anthocyanintannin reactions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 80:745-751. Sacchi, K.L.; Bisson, L.F. and Adams, D.O. (2005) A review of the effect of winemaking techniques on phenolic extraction in red wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 56:197-206. Somers, T.C. (1971) The polymeric nature of wine pigments. Phytochemistry 10:2175-2186. Sparrow, A.M.; Dambergs, R.G. and Close, D.C. (2014) ‘Cutting edge Pinot’. Wine & Viticulture Journal. 28(1):24. Sparrow, A.M.; Dambergs, R.G.; Bindon, K.A.; Smith, P.A. and Close, D.C. (2015) Interaction of grape skin, seed and pulp tissues on tannin and anthocyanin extraction in Pinot Noir wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 66(4):472-481. Sparrow, A.M.; Smart, R.E.; Dambergs, R.G. and Close, D.C. (2016a) Skin particle size impacts the phenolic attributes of Pinot Noir wine: Proof of concept. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 67:29-37. Sparrow, A.M.; Holt, H.E.; Pearson, W.; Dambergs, R.G. and Close, D.C. (2016b) Accentuated cut edges (ACE): Effects of skin fragmentation on the composition and sensory attributes of Pinot Noir wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 67:169178.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Wine Australia for awarding me a PhD scholarship for the work undertaken from 2011 to 2013 and subsequent post-doctoral research funding, 2014 to 2016. Thanks also to Brown Brother’s Tamar Ridge Estate vineyard for the donation of grapes for the 2013 trial. I would like to thank Dr Richard Smart for proposing the skin fragmentation concept and for his continued encouragement through some rigorous trials. Thanks are also due for his WVJ editorial input to this article.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

WAIWNREI MR E A PKOI RNT G

Wine yeast: where are they from and where are we taking them? By Anthony Borneman, Paul Chambers, Simon Schmidt, Angus Forgan, Radka Kolouchova, Markus Herderich and Dan Johnson The Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064

Managing director Dan Johnson

Advances in DNA sequencing have allowed analysis of the genomes of large numbers of wine yeast strains for the first time. Results show that wine yeast have low genetic variation compared with the overall genetic diversity of the species Saccharomyces cerevisiae (which also encompasses brewing, baking, sake and palm wine yeasts). This new understanding will be harnessed in future yeast breeding programs. WINE YEAST – FROM SPONTANEOUS FERMENTS TO PURE STARTER STRAINS Humans have been producing and consuming wine for more than 7000 years, making it one of the first processed agricultural products. Until the middle of the 20th century, wine fermentation relied on naturally occurring yeasts. However, spontaneous fermentations often had inconsistent results and, due to their long fermentation times, were vulnerable to spoilage. One of the most significant technological advances in winemaking was the introduction of pure starter strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the 1950s and 1960s. Many commercial wine fermentations are now inoculated with these commercial strains to ensure consistent, reliable and reproducible fermentations and there are now hundreds of commercial wine yeast starter cultures available. Using the latest DNA sequencing technologies, it is now possible to sequence the entire genome of an organism and because yeast genomes are relatively small (1/250th of a human genome), the task can be achieved in a reasonable timeframe. This has allowed scientists at the AWRI and in other laboratories around the world to sequence a large number of yeast strains and start to understand how genetic differences can translate into practical winemaking effects. Genome sequencing has shown that, in general, strains of S. cerevisiae isolated from vineyards and those used in winemaking form a closely related ‘family’ group (Borneman et al. 2011, Fay and Benavides 2005, Liti et al. 2009), which also contains yeast isolated from Mediterranean oaks. These latter yeasts

V3 1N 3

AT A GLANCE: • Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a species of yeast used by humans in baking, brewing, and winemaking for thousands of years • AWRI scientists have sequenced the genomes of 212 strains of Saccharomyces yeast, including 106 commercially available wine yeasts and 13 brewing strains • The wine yeast strains were found to have low genetic diversity and high levels of inbreeding • A number of commercially available yeast strains were found to be genetically identical • Yeast breeding programs will now be better informed when choosing strains from outside the wine yeast group to introduce greater diversity and novel winemaking characteristics into new wine yeast strains.

are thought to represent the historical ancestor of the ‘domesticated’ wine yeasts used by winemakers around the world (Almeida et al. 2015). If oak trees were indeed the original habitat of the organism that has evolved into S. cerevisiae wine yeasts, the part played by this tree in the history of winemaking is even more important than previously thought and began long before oak barrels were used to store wine. Interestingly, research has shown that strains of S. cerevisiae isolated from wineries or vineyards in countries outside of Europe are not related to those countries’ indigenous yeast strains, except those isolated from sites close to wineries (Hyma and Fay 2013). This suggests that European wine strains have accompanied the migration of winemaking around the globe and are now maintained as distinct populations (Clowers et al. 2015, Fay et al. 2004, Warringer et al. 2011). Intriguingly, despite their common geographic origins and roles in the production of alcoholic

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

beverages, wine strains are genetically distinct from the S. cerevisiae strains used for brewing or sake production (Borneman et al. 2011, Dunn et al. 2012). INVESTIGATING THE DIVERSITY OF WINE YEAST In order to investigate the genetic diversity that has been captured by more than 50 years of commercial wine yeast development, AWRI scientists sequenced the genomes of 212 strains of Saccharomyces yeast from the AWRI culture collection (Borneman et al. 2016). The strains included 106 commercially available wine yeasts from nine different yeast suppliers and 13 commercially available brewing strains. Despite sourcing a wide variety of wine yeast strains, nearly all were found to reside within a highly inbred group with relatively little genetic variation compared with the global pool of S. cerevisiae genetic diversity (Figure 1). The wine yeast group (shown in blue) was found to include a prominent sub-

www.winetitles. com . au

E PKOI RNTG WAIWNREI MR A

Figure 1. A yeast ‘family tree’. A relatedness tree for the 236 yeast strains sequenced, representing the genomic differences between strains by the distance between them in the tree. For example, the wine yeast strains (blue and green) are shown quite close together, representing their low genomic variation. In contrast, the sake and palm wine strains are shown a long way from the wine yeast strains, indicating that they are genetically quite different.

group that contains over a third of all wine strains and can be further divided into two distinct lines of descent. The largest of these is dominated by a family of champagne yeasts (shown in dark green) and the second is dominated by fructosefermenting strains and naturally occurring interspecific hybrids (light green). Data analysis revealed that many of the yeast strains sequenced, including some offered by different commercial suppliers, appeared genetically identical. In total, 69 strains could be divided into 23 distinct equivalence groups (with the

two largest carrying six strains each) and 13 groups contained at least two independent commercial isolates. A further key finding was that the genetic variation in wine yeast strains of S. cerevisiae is very limited. This means that breeding programs that draw only upon existing wine yeast strains are likely to be constrained in their attempts to develop new strains with novel and/or improved traits. Strain development efforts should be looking to introduce new variation from outside of the wine yeast grouping, to increase the genetic (and, therefore,

winemaking) diversity that can be employed by the wine industry. An ‘extreme’ example of this approach has been the development of interspecific non-genetically modified hybrid wine yeasts. These are developed by mating a S. cerevisiae wine yeast with an alternative Saccharomyces yeast such as Saccharomyces kudriavzevii. This brings into the wine yeast a genome that is very different from that of S. cerevisiae strains. As might be expected, the progeny from these crosses can introduce some interesting traits into the wines they

• Australia’s premium producer of Grape Juice and Concentrates • Supplying both Domestic and Export Wine and Beverage Industries

• Contract Processing Services via state of the art Equipment

Spinning Cone / Centritherm Evaporator / Thermal Vinification / Aseptic Filling

ENQUIRIES: info@austflavor.com.au WEBSITE: www.austflavor.com.au A DIVISION OF AUSTRALIAN VINTAGE LTD

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 2016

V31N3

WAIWNREI MR E A PKOI RNT G

produce, including novel aromas and positive mouthfeel characters. A drawback of interspecific hybrids is that they are sterile and, therefore, cannot be used in subsequent breeding programs. Analysing the genomes of S. cerevisiae strains from sources outside of the wine industry will allow the identification of strains from within the same species that are genetically distant from wine yeast. These strains will have the potential to bring new traits into the wine yeast gene pool when mated with existing wine yeast. The progeny from these crosses should be fertile and, therefore, able to be used in subsequent breeding programs to optimise the combination of traits in a single yeast strain. WHERE TO NEXT? Thanks to developments in DNA sequencing technologies, there is an exciting future in the field of wine yeast research and development. New yeast breeding programs will be developed based on in-depth knowledge of the S. cerevisiae gene pool. This knowledge will

enable the generation of wine yeast strains that are robust, reliable, and capable of imparting novel, desirable sensory attributes, without necessitating the use of genetic modification techniques. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by Australia’s grapegrowers and winemakers through their investment body Wine Australia, with matching funds from the Australian Government. The AWRI is a member of the Wine Innovation Cluster. Ella Robinson is thanked for her editorial assistance. REFERENCES Almeida, P.; Barbosa, R.; Zalar, P.; Imanishi, Y.; Shimizu, K.; Turchetti, B.; Legras, J.-L.; Serra, M.; Dequin, S.; Couloux, A.; Guy, J.; Bensasson, D.; Goncalves, P. and Sampaio, J.P. (2015) A population genomics insight into the Mediterranean origins of wine yeast domestication. Mol. Ecol. 24: 5412–5427. Borneman, A.R.; Forgan, A.H.; Kolouchova, R.; Fraser, J.A. and Schmidt, S.A. (2016) Whole genome comparison reveals high levels of inbreeding and strain redundancy across the spectrum of commercial wine strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. G3 6:957-971 Borneman, A.R.; Desany, B.A.; Riches, D.; Affourtit, J.P.; Forgan, A.H.; Pretorius, I.S.; Egholm, M. and Chambers, P.J. (2011) Whole-genome comparison

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

reveals novel genetic elements that characterise the genome of industrial strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet. 7: e1001287. Clowers, K.J.; Heilberger, J.; Piotrowski, J.S.; Will, J.L. and Gasch, A.P. (2015) Ecological and genetic barriers differentiate natural populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32:2317– 2327. Dunn, B.; Richter, C.; Kvitek, D.J.; Pugh, T. and Sherlock, G. (2012) Analysis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae pan-genome reveals a pool of copy number variants distributed in diverse yeast strains from differing industrial environments. Genome Res. 22:908–924. Fay, J.C. and Benavides, J.A. (2005) Evidence for domesticated and wild populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet. 1:66–71. Fay, J.C.; McCullough, H.L.; Sniegowski, P.D. and Eisen, M.B. (2004) Population genetic variation in gene expression is associated with phenotypic variation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genome Biol. 5:R26. Hyma, K.E. and Fay, J.C. (2013) Mixing of vineyard and oak-tree ecotypes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in North American vineyards. Mol. Ecol. 22:2917–2930. Liti, G.; Carter, D.M.; Moses, A.M.; Warringer, J.; Parts, L.; James, S.A.; Davey, R.P.; Roberts, I.N.; Burt, A.; Koufopanou, V.; Tsai, I.J.; Bergman, C.M.; Bensasson, D.; O’Kelly, M.J.; van Oudenaarden, A.; Barton, D.B.; Bailes, E.; Nguyen, A.N.; Jones, M.; Quail, M.A.; Goodhead, I.; Sims, S.; Smith, F.; Blomberg, A.; Durbin, R. and Louis, E.J. (2009) Population genomics of domestic and wild yeasts. Nature 458:337–341. Warringer, J.; Zörgö, E.; Cubillos, F.A.; Zia, A.; Gjuvsland, A.; Simpson, J.T.; Forsmark, A.; Durbin, R.; Omholt, S.W.; Louis, E.J.; Liti, G.; Moses, A. and Blomberg, A. (2011) Trait variation in yeast is defined by population history. PLoS Genet. 7:e1002111. 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 1N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

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

TONY HOARE

Vineyard apps – Don’t leave home without them By Tony Hoare Hoare Consulting, PO Box 1106, McLaren Flat 5171 South Australia Email: tony@hoareconsulting.com.au

t seems there is an app for everything it seems these days. Vineyards are not exempt. Viticultural apps have been emerging over the past few years to assist growers in their daily management operations. Apps allow growers to have the convenience of being able to make vineyard management decisions or collect data with the aid of a smartphone. Data is then in a ready-to-export format for sharing and record keeping is made easier and more accessible. The instant availability from online sources, especially specialised apps, allows growers to make decisions quickly based on accurate and up-to-date information. Many of the best apps are available for free and others are at a low cost considering their benefits. I have road tested a few of the currently available apps and discuss their benefits. BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY MOBILE WEATHER WEBSITE Although not an app per se, the BOM’s mobile weather website is nonetheless the best friend of winegrape growers. Rainfall activity can be accurately tracked to see where

rainfall is about to occur and estimate the intensity of that rainfall event. It’s also handy if you’re anticipating washing the car or hanging out the washing!

CLIMATE (ITUNES ONLY) This free app is a valuable tool for evaluating climate information. It allows the user to pinpoint their geographic location and then access both historical and predictive weather information for that location. The most relevant weather parameters are available for analysis as well as seasonal trends which is a great tool for making weatherreliant management decisions, particularly regarding irrigation or evaluating pest and disease pressure. This app allows the user to be an expert on local weather which will definitely assist in the timing of management decisions and allocation of resources.

Out and about with the AWRI Dog Book app.

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 2016

V31N3

MILES AHEAD

THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

Over 20 years of proven hands free growth straight to the wire, with quick and easy assembly using our Zip-Safe seal. It’s no wonder GroGuard is Australia’s biggest name in vine establishment technology. Designed and manufactured locally for Australian conditions, our legendary strength and reliability is backed by a 3-year guarantee. Contact your local rural store or

freecall 1800 644 259 www.groguard.com.au

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

TONY HOARE

DOG BOOK (ITUNES AND GOOGLE PLAY)

PEST GENIE (ITUNES AND GOOGLE PLAY)

The Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) booklet ‘Agrochemicals registered for use in Australian viticulture’ is available as a free app. The app replaces the need for the printed version released each year by the AWRI and advises winegrape growers of agrochemicals available for use in viticulture and their withholding periods. The app has made it easier to navigate around the guide, providing access to the information in a fast and convenient way. It is important to use the update prompt to check for changes and additions to the guide during the season.

Pest Genie has been around for some time and is now available as a mobile app via subscription. It provides a database of 7 million chemicals including their labels and safety data sheets (SDS). The benefit of this is that all compliance documents for vineyard chemical users can be found in one concise site. Additional features include a crop protection expert facility to select the most appropriate pest or disease control, spray diary and chemical inventory.

VITICANOPY (ITUNES ONLY) This free app allows the user to assess vineyard balance by measuring parameters that are associated with vine balance. Vine balance has been shown to have a direct correlation to wine quality. The parameters of vine balance, vine leaf area index, canopy porosity and canopy architecture can now be easily assessed in the field using a handheld device. This has replaced the previous assessment tools that were expensive, destructive and reliant on a high degree of expertise. Now anyone can assess their vine balance information to assist in management decisions to make adjustments during the season to maximise fruit quality. The android version is due for release later this year. SPRAYER CALIBRATION AND APPLICATION

PMAPP (ITUNES AND GOOGLE PLAY) MYPESTGUIDE GRAPES (ITUNES AND GOOGLE PLAY) This free app is a useful tool for identifying common pest and diseases of vineyards. Although developed by the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA) the identification component of the app is relevant to other Australian winegrape growing regions. It is a user-friendly app which has easy-to-follow prompts to identify an unknown pest or disease in vineyards. This is done by first identifying the damage caused to the vine or fruit and then narrowing it down to a number of pests or diseases that may be the cause. Detailed information is then available for each of the potential pests and diseases including a description, life cycle, damage and control options.

This free app is designed to assist in data collection for powdery mildew infection assessment. It is emphasised in the background information on the app that it is not a decision support tool. Developed as a collaboration between The University of Adelaide, the industry and Wine Australia, the app provides a field data collection template that replaces the need for the old-fashioned manual version. While the app has the disclaimer that it isn’t a decision support tool, it is by design a tool for assessing the incidence and severity of powdery mildew infection. This app is very relevent due to the widespread incidence of powdery mildew in vineyards and winery thresholds for low levels of infection.

EDITOR'S NOTE Keep an eye out for VitiApp, created by Sense-T, the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture and the University of Tasmania. A pre-commercial version of the app is currently being trailled, with commercial release planned by the end of the year. It will allow vineyard managers to monitor on-farm

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

There are numerous free apps for spray calibration and application available. The advent of apps has made many vineyard management decisions easier through having immediate access to information and the ability to store and analyse data. This convenience is matched by the cost with many of them free.

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 WVJ door, Beach Road Wines.

growing conditions and understand disease threats for better decision making. VitiApp includes access to real-time weather and forecasts, vine growth conditions and notifications of high risk situations like frost, wind and disease. For further information visit www.sense-t.org.au

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGY

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

Advances of the Vineyard of the Future initiative in viticultural, sensory science and technology development By Sigfredo Fuentes1 and Roberta De Bei2 1 Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville Campus, Victoria Email: sigfredo.fuentes@unimelb.edu.au 2 Plant Research Centre, The University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, Urbrae, South Australia

The Wine & Viticulture Journal has previously kept readers informed of some of the latest outcomes from the Vineyard of the Future (VoF) - a multinational project whose aims include testing new technologies and investigating the potential effects of climate change in trial vineyards. This article explores the latest successes from the VoF project – the development of an app that estimates leaf area index and canopy porosity, biological sensors for vineyards and wineries, modelling strategies using big data, robotic pourers, the use of unmanned aerial systems and remote sensing.

Challenges imposed by climate change have push forward a significant interest and investment in research areas around food science. This has been especially triggered by an impending population increase to 9.2 billion in 2050. This single pressure will require doubling the global food production in half of the arable land left due to resource depletion. This situation is similar, taking into consideration the scale of the issues, to what the world was confronted with after the Second War World, where food quality was more important than quality. Interestingly, at this stage in history, a new scientific branch related to food was formalised, the sensory science. In relation to the wine industry, global warming will directly impact the progression of the phenological stages of different grapevine cultivars and berry development by specifically compressing them and bringing harvests forward to the hottest months. Some researchers refer to the latter issue as the double warming effect. This will reduce the capacity to uncouple physiological effects such as berry cell death and berry shrivel in cultivars susceptible to water stress close to harvest, like Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. In effect, there is a reduction in berries and wine quality due to the degradation of colour, aroma and concentration of sugars in berries, which is directly linked to a higher alcohol content in wines. Specifically, in Australia, wine alcohol content is increasing at a rate of 1% every 10 years on average, according to the Australian Wine Research Institute. In order to be successful in overcoming the effects of climate change, and to remain competitive, there is a need for any wine-producing country to acknowledge the challenges and support research and application of developed technologies to overcome these issues. These technologies are fundamental in maintaining wine quality and style which directly affect national and international wine consumption and exports. In this regard, current research outcomes from the Vineyard of the Future (VoF) initiative have been very relevant

V3 1N 3

for industry in applying research directly into production strategies to obtain benefits and competitive advantages. This article explores the latest successes from the VoF related to the VitiCanopy app development, biological sensors in the vineyard and winery, modelling strategies using big data, robotic pourers and the use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) ▶ and remote sensing.

3.9% HORTICULTURE FINANCE OFFER* VISIT US AT AWITE 25-27 JULY 2016

QUANTUM MIST THE ULTIMATE PERFORMER IN GRAPES » Outstanding spray application and improved efficiencies » Superior Australian designed SARDI fans » High volume, turbulent, directional air » A range of tank sizes and row options to suit all vineyards Freecall 1800 999 162 Email sales@croplands.com.au

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

WineandViticultureJournal_90x130_2016.indd 1

*Terms and conditions apply

INTRODUCTION

www.croplands.com.au

www.winetitles. com . au

2/05/2016 11:30:27 AM

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

(a)

INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGY

(b)

Figure 1. The VitiCanopy app main screen (a) and output screen (b). This can be downloaded free of charge from: https:// itunes.apple.com/au/app/viticanopy/id1042914901?mt=8. VITICANOPY: A NEWLY-DEVELOPED SMARTPHONE AND TABLET/PC APP TO ESTIMATE LEAF AREA INDEX AND CANOPY POROSITY OF GRAPEVINES This app works on the basis of cover digital photography analysis from canopies to assess leaf area index, crown cover, canopy cover, porosity and clumping index (Figure 1). The image analysis method is based on computer vision algorithms to identify the size of gaps to obtain the relevant information. This work was possible through a collaboration between the VoF partners and associated research grants between The University of Adelaide (Dr Roberta De Bei and Dr Cassandra Collins) and The University of Melbourne (Dr Sigfredo Fuentes). The initial automated algorithms from the app were developed for eucalyptus trees (Fuentes et al. 2008) and later implemented to assess canopy architecture in grapevines (Fuentes et al. 2014), apple trees (Poblete-Echeverria et al. 2015) and cherry trees (Mora et al. 2016). The latter featured improved analysis algorithms to extract non-leaf material, such as trunks and branches automatically. The VitiCanopy app was launched in August 2015 and it is available to download free of charge from iTunes (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA. USA). The Android version will be released in 2016. The app has been validated for grapevines in trials in South Australia with the results published in the Sensors Journal in April 2016 (De Bei et al. 2016). Results from these trials showed very high correlations with the original Matlab cover photography method (Fuentes et al. 2008) and also with ground-truth measurements and indirect methods such as the LiCor 2000 (Plant canopy analyser, Li-Cor Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). The app has received considerable media attention since its launch. Specifically, it has been mentioned in numerous Australian and international industry newsletters, magazines, media releases and radio programs. In four months from its release, VitiCanopy was downloaded into 1250 devices with

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

50% of the downloads in the Asia Pacific, 30% in the USA and Canada, 16% in Europe and the remaining 4% in the rest of the world. Tests are currently being conducted to relate the parameters obtained from the app to quality parameters from berries, such as anthocyanin content and polyphenols for different cultivars. Similar studies using the app have been conducted in cocoa plantations in Queensland to relate canopy vigour, structure and porosity with cocoa content, chemometry of beans and aroma profiles. The use of dogs in the vineyard and winery: the use of biological sensors to detect pests and diseases or potential faults before wine ageing. Dog training has been conducted to detect different compounds of interest in viticulture and oenology based on the fact that dogs have around 100 million times more sensitive noses than humans (Figure 2). This work has been led by Sonja Needs, from The University of Melbourne. Ongoing training to detect phylloxera (Phylloxera vitifoliae) has encountered some difficulties due to quarantine issues related to managing the pest for trial purposes in Australia. However, trials could resume this year with some seed funding input. In the meantime, work has been done successfully in training dogs to detect Brettanomyces (Brett, Brettanomyces bruxellencis) which has the potential to reduce the use of contaminated barrels for the ageing process of wines.

Figure 2. Dog training using scent containers (left) and an artistic picture of dogs smelling wines to represent work done on barrels and detection of faults, such as Brett. MODELLING TECHNIQUES AND MONITORING USING BIG DATA TO ASSESS CHANGES IN THE STYLE OF WINES DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE New modelling strategies have been implemented to assess the effects of climate change on the quality attributes of berries using techniques developed within the VoF. For instance, research has shown the effect of elevated temperatures on berry cell death and the sensorial characteristics of Shiraz wines (Bondada et al. 2013a) and on berry shrivel in Shiraz and Chardonnay (Bondada et al. 2013b). Furthermore, new modelling strategies using big data obtained from weather, chemometry and wine quality traits have been implemented to assess changes in the rotundone content (peppery aroma) of Shiraz wines (Zhang et al. 2015), how this compound is distributed within bunches and berries (Zhang et al. 2015) and it evolves within a season in the berries (Zhang et al. 2016). Currently, our group is working on the creation of a rotundone concentration map of Australia using big data

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

ines Great Western, Bremerton Wines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Cas a Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vin ards, Delegats Wine Estate, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Fi ar Wines, Fowles Wine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jon ines, Henry’s Drive Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solution oward Park Wines, Hungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabb neyard, Jim Barry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Lt rinklewood Biodynamic Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes Austral cWilliam’s Wines Group, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie austral exthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarr antagenet Wines, Portavin Integrated Wine Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robe atley Vineyards, Rymill Coonawarra, Seville Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Fam y Wine Co, The Lane Vineyard, The Scotchmans Hill Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tinta inery, Tower Estate Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine Estates, Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrel ines, Vinpac International, Warburn Estate Pty Ltd, WebAware Pty Ltd, Wine and Vine Personnel Intern onal,Wines Overland, Wingara WIne Group,Wirra Wirra Vineyards, Zilzie Wines, Accolade Wines Austra Limited, Aravina Estate, Australian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beltunga, Bests Wines Great Wester remerton Wines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, C rmaster Group, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wi state, Delegat’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowl ine, Fuse Wine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Dri gnerons Pty Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wine ungerford Hill Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Bar ines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynam Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Win roup, Memstar, Mondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenot y Ltd, Options Wine Merchants, Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Wine ortavin Integrated Wine Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyard ymill Coonawarra, Seville Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Family Wine Co, T ane Vineyard, The Scotchmans Hill Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tintara Winery, Tow state Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine Estates, Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrell’s Wines, Vinp ternational, Warburn Estate Pty Ltd, WebAware Pty Ltd, Wine and Vine Personnel International,Win verland, Wingara WIne Group,Wirra Wirra Vineyards, Zilzie Wines, Accolade Wines Australia Limite ravina Estate, Australian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beltunga, Bests Wines Great Western, Bremert ines, Brown Brothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmast roup, Charles Melton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Estate, D at’s Wine Estate Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles Wine, Fu ine Services Pty Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Drive Vignero y Ltd, Hentley Farm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, Hungerfo ll Wines, Inglewood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Barry Wines, Ka Bindi, Kauri, Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynamic Vineyar Atelier by, Aramis Vineyards, Leeuwin Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Wines Group, Memsta ondo Consulting, Moppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Optio ine Merchants, Orlando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Wines, Portavin Int ated Wine Services, R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyards, Rymill Coon arra, Seville Estate, Stella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Family Wine Co, The Lane Vineyar he Scotchmans Hill Group Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tintara Winery, Tower Estate Pty Lt easury Wine Estates, Turkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrell’s Wines, Vinpac Internation arburn Estate Pty Ltd, WebAware Pty Ltd, Wine and Vine Personnel International,Wines Overland, Wi ra WIne Group,Wirra Wirra Vineyards, Zilzie Wines, Accolade Wines Australia Limited, Aravina Estat ustralian Vintage Ltd, Barwick Wines, Beltunga, Bests Wines Great Western, Bremerton Wines, Brow rothers Milawa Vineyard Pty Ltd, Campbells Wines, Casama Group Pty Ltd, Cellarmaster Group, Charl elton Wines, Clover Hill Wines, CMV Farms, Coriole Vineyards, Delegats Wine Estate, Delegat’s Wine E te Limited, DogRidge, Edgemill Group, Fanselow Bell, Five Star Wines, Fowles Wine, Fuse Wine Servic y Ltd, Gemtree Vineyards, Glenlofty Wines, Harry Jones Wines, Henry’s Drive Vignerons Pty Ltd, Hentl arm, Hope Estate, Hospitality Recruitment Solutions, Howard Park Wines, Hungerford Hill Wines, Ing ood Wines Pty Ltd, Innocent Bystander, Jack Rabbit Vineyard, Jim Barry Wines, KarriBindi, Kauri, Kin on Estate Wines Pty Ltd, Kirrihill Wines Pty Ltd, Krinklewood Biodynamic Vineyard, L’Atelier by, Aram & managed by neyards, Leeuwin created Estate, Make WInes Australia, McWilliam’s Wines Group, Memstar, Mondo Consultin oppity VIneyards, Moxon Oak, Nadalie australia, Nexthire, Oenotec Pty Ltd, Options Wine Merchan lando Wines, Ozpak Pty Ltd, Patrick of Coonawarra, Plantagenet Wines, Portavin Integrated Wine Serv , R&D VITICULTURAL SERVICES PTY LTD, Robert Oatley Vineyards, Rymill Coonawarra, Seville Estat ella Bella Wines, Streicker Wines, The Gilbert Family Wine Co, The Lane Vineyard, The Scotchmans H roup Pty Ltd, The Yalumba Wine Company, Tintara Winery, Tower Estate Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine Estate urkey Flat Vineyards, Two Hands Wines, Tyrrell’s Wines, Vinpac International, Warburn Estate Pty Lt

The Wine Industry’s Leading Online Job Site

Go with the site that leading wine industry companies use.

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

INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGY

(a)

from climate and soil and determining how these regions will change according to climate change scenarios in the future. The research scientists from this group are: Dr Pangzhen Zhang, Dr Kate Howell and Dr Sigfredo Fuentes, from The University of Melbourne. The same modelling techniques are currently being implemented in wineries in the Macedon Ranges region in Victoria to assess changes in the style of wines over nine vintages using climate, soil and vintage information. These strategies could offer important information to growers in helping them to assess changes in quality traits and controlling some of those changes through the application of other techniques developed within the VoF, such as the VitiCanopy app and canopy management and irrigation strategies.

(b)

DEVELOPMENT OF NOVEL ROBOTIC POURERS AND COMPUTER VISION TECHNIQUES TO ASSESS FOAMABILITY OF SPARKLING WINES AND BEER The VoF has achieved important advances in the development of robotic pourers and computer vision algorithms to assess the quality traits of sparkling wines and beer based on foamability and bubble dynamics (Conde et al. 2015, Conde et al. 2016). The latter study found a direct and significant relationship between the foamability and the total protein content of wines. The robots have been made using open hardware, smartphone cameras and affordable electronic sensors (Figure 3) to obtain parameters, within controlled conditions, such as: From computer vision analysis: • life time of foam • maximum volume • total life time of foam • bubble count within foam • distribution of bubbles between small, medium and big, colour of brewage • liquid colour in the RGB and CieLab colour maps. From remote sensing • alcohol content and pour release • CO2 content and pour release • infrared temperature of brewage. From these parameters and output gathered from different wines and beers, it is possible to generate artificial neural network (ANN) models to automatically classify sparkling wines and beers into specific types of fermentation or ageing processes (Gonzalez Viejo et al. 2016). The development of these techniques is very promising for growers to have a readily available, objective, affordable and reproducible method to assess the quality of sparkling brewages based on formability and bubble dynamics. UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS AND REMOTE SENSING FOR THE VINEYARD OF THE FUTURE A lot of progress has been achieved in the area of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and remote sensing in viticulture using either multicopters and fixed wing UAS. Our group has received a couple of seed grants from the Melbourne Networked Society Institute and from Horticultural Centre of Excellence. The main aims of this

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

Figure 3. FizzEye Robot for sparkling wine (a) and RoboBEER (b) used to assess foamability and bubble dynamics using computer vision.

Figure 4. 3D photogrammetry from the Curly Flat winery located in the Macedon Ranges in Victoria. research are to develop automation processes, produce a pipeline of analysis from data uptake to automated processing algorithms, and present the processed data in an app for smartphones and tablet PCs. Due to the growing interest from other research groups in the use of UAS, our group also received funding to form the Melbourne Unmanned Aerial System Integrated Platform (MUASIP), which will provide UAS services to internal and external clients in the areas of sensor networks and UAS data acquisition and analysis. An example of the work done in the Macedon Ranges in the Curly Flat winery can be seen in Figure 4, which presents a 3D render of the whole winery done using an eBee fixed wing drone over 42 hectares taking

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGY

a one hour flight. From the same site, it was possible to map plant water status and the growth of canopies using infrared thermography and multispectral imagery respectively (Nolan et al. 2015, Park et al. 2015). For more information about the advances of the Vineyard of The Future initiative, please visit our blog page: www. vineyardofthefuture.wordpress.com LITERATURE CITED Bonada, M.; Sadras, V.; Moran, M. and Fuentes, S. (2013) Elevated temperature and water stress advance shrivelling, mesocarp cell death and sensory traits in Shiraz berries. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 31(6):1317-1331.

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

field measurements of LAI. Functional Plant Biology 35:1070:1079. Mora, M.; Avila, F.; Carrasco-Benavides, M.; Maldonado, G.; Olguín-Cáceres, J. and Fuentes, S. (2016) Automated computation of leaf area index from fruit trees using improved image processing algorithms applied to canopy cover digital photograpies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. DOI:10.1016/j. compag.2016.02.011 Nolan, A.P.; Park, S.; O’Connell, M.; Fuentes, S.; Ryu, D. and Chung, H. (2015) Automated detection and segmentation of vine rows using high resolution UAS imagery in a commercial vineyard. MODSIM2015, 21st International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2015. Zhang, P.; Fuentes, S.; Siebert, T.; Krstic, M.; Herderich, M.; Barlow, E.W. and Howell, K. (2015) Terpene evolution during the development of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz grapes. Food Chemistry. DOI:10.1016/j. foodchem.2016.02.125

Bondada, M.; Sadras, V. and Fuentes, S. (2013) Effect of elevated temperature on the onset and rate of mesocarp cell death in berries of Shiraz and Chardonnay and its relationship with berry shrivel. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 19(1):87-94.

Park S., Nolan, A.; Ryu, D.; Fuentes, S.; Hernandez, E.; Chung, H. and O’Connell, M. (2015) Estimation of crop water stress in a nectarine orchard using high-resolution imagery from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). MODSIM2015, 21st International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2015.

Conde, B.C.; Peixoto, A.B.; Howell, K.; Xiao, D. and Fuentes, S. (2015) Assessment by image analysis of foamability and effervescence of sparkling wines during the prise de mousse and ageing process. Rev. Bras. Vitic. Enol. 7:92-98.

Poblete-Echeverría, C.; Fuentes, S.; Ortega-Farias, S.; González-Talice, S. and Yuri, J.A. (2015) Digital cover photography for estimating leaf area index (LAI) in apple trees using a variable light extinction coefficient Sensors Journal 15(2):2860-2872.

Viejo, C.G.; Fuentes, S.; Li, G.; Collmann, R.; Condé, B. and Torrico, D. (2015) A novel robotic pourer constructed with ubiquitous materials and open hardware to assess beer quality based on image analysis of foamability: RoboBEER. Food and Bioprocess Technologies Journal. Accepted.

Zhang, P.; Barlow, S.; Krstic, M.; Herderich, M.J.; Fuentes, S. and Howell, K. (2015) Within-vineyard, within-vine and within-bunch variability of rotundone concentration in berries of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz. Journal of Agricultural and Food chemistry. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b00590.

De Bei, R.; Fuentes, S.; Gilliham, M.; Tyerman, S.; Edwards, E.; Bianchini, N.; Smith, J. and Collins, C. (2016) A Free Computer App to Estimate Canopy Vigor and Porosity for Grapevine. Sensors. DOI:10.3390/s16040585

Zhang, P.; Howell, K.; Krstic, M.; Herderich, M.; Barlow, E.W.R; and Fuentes, S. (2015) Environmental factors and seasonality affect the concentration of rotundone in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz. PLOS ONE. DOI:10.1371/journal. pone.0133137.

Fuentes, S.; Poblete-Echeverria, C.; Ortega-Farias, S.; Tyerman, S.D. and De Bei, R. (2014) Automated estimation of leaf area index (LAI) from grapevine canopies using cover photography, video and computational analysis methods. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20(3): 465-473. Fuentes, S.; Palmer, A.R.; Taylor, D.; Zeppel, M.; Whitley, R. and Eamus, D. (2008) An automated procedure for estimating the leaf area index (LAI) of woodland ecosystems using digital imagery, Matlab® programming and its application to an examination of the relationship between remotely sensed and

V3 1N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

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

SHOOT TRIMMING

Reduction in berry size induced by postveraison shoot trimming in Sangiovese grapevines loosens clusters without compromising fruit quality By Bhaskar Bondada1*, José Ignacio Covarrubias2, Paola Tessarin1, Aparecida Conceiçao Boliani3, Gilmar Marodin4, Adamo Domenico Rombolà1 1 Department of Agricultural Sciences, School of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, University of Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy 2 Facultad de Ciencias Agronómicas, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11315, Santiago, Chile 3 Department of Phytotecnic, Food Sciences and Socio-Economy, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, State, University Paulista, CEP: 15385-000, Ilha Solteira, São Paulo, Brasil 4 Departamento de Horticultura e Silvicultura, Faculdade de Agronomia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brasil. * Corresponding author: bbondada@wsu.edu

The effect of post-veraison shoot trimming on vine performance is poorly understood. A recent Italian study has given some insight into the influence of the practice on vine growth, cluster compactness and yield with particular interest for organic growers.

he cultivar Sangiovese is Italy’s defining grape, used for making well-known Tuscan wines such as Brunello di Montalcino, Nobile di Montepulciano and Chianti. Although grown with both traditional and organic viticultural practices, organically-grown Sangiovese has been increasing in the last few years by growers believing it promotes the well-being of both the environment and consumers (Bondada et al. 2016). Having said that, making such quality wines in keeping with organic norms is not easy; it becomes a challenge to prevent fungal problems. Obviously, this stems from its cluster architecture, which irrespective of how the cultivar is grown tends to be relatively compact (Figure 1a). Needless to say tight clusters are often attacked by a host of fungal pathogens (e.g., powdery mildew, Figure 1b), especially during cool and wet growing seasons. Susceptibility to such diseases lies in the fact that the contact surfaces of berries in compact clusters lack the crystalline structure of wax platelets, consequently, the barrier properties of the cuticular surface is lost. Furthermore, in a compact cluster, the expanding berries squeeze against each other to the point of rupture, which in combination with reduced air circulation favours fungal attack. This applies to all

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

crops that produce compact reproductive structures. Other concerns include its tendency to overcrop due to the high fruitfulness of buds (primary or second ary buds, base buds) and vigorous trailing growth habit leading to dense canopies. Such growth characteristics negatively impact fruit quality, wood maturity, and vine size. Since the dawn of fungal infection in winegrapes, a suite of remedial measures have been designed to deal with mildew problems. These mostly involve fungicide sprays that are expensive and not very effective as the pathogens develop resistance over time. Conversely, if compactness can be reduced by (a)

altering the cluster architecture via cultural practices, then it reduces costs without harming the environment. These practices include cluster thinning, defoliation, cluster division and a range of irrigation and pruning strategies or a combination of both. All the aforementioned practices minimise fungal problems by improving the cluster microclimate. Although chemicals are allowed in organic viticulture, its principles dictate only limited use of certain certified chemicals. However, any canopy management practice is permissible in organic viticulture. An ideal practice for improving the fruit and yield of

(b)

Figure 1a and 1b. Grape clusters of the cultivar, Sangiovese healthy (left) and infected with powdery mildew (right). W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

SHOOT TRIMMING

Figure 2. Sangiovese, control vines. organically-grown Sangiovese would be shoot trimming as it is relatively simple and easy to perform. It involves pruning at different locations along the shoot. Although most of the shoot trimming is done before veraison, it can be performed after veraison to improve cluster architecture and the microclimate. However, there exists limited information on the consequences of post-veraison shoot trimming to organically-grown grapevines. Therefore, we conducted experiments with organically-grown Sangiovese vines to determine the effect of post-veraison shoot trimming on shoot growth characteristics and fruit quality attributes. The experiment was conducted over four years from 2008-2011 in a mature vineyard of cv Sangiovese (clone 12T) grafted onto Kober 5BB rootstock and planted in diverse sub-soils of alluvial deposits at a spacing of 1m x 2.8m (intra- and interrow). The vineyard is located in a hot, hilly area of the Emilia Romagna region in Italy (117m above sea level). Since 2007, this vineyard has been managed with organic viticulture

Figure 3. Lightly-trimmed Sangiovese vines. principles in accordance with Reg. EC 834/2007 (EC., 2007). Vines were trained to a cordon de Royat training system and spur-pruned during winter to two count nodes/buds equating to 12-14 buds per vine. The non-count shoots (shoots arising from the base buds of the spur) were removed at the beginning and the cluster number was adjusted by cluster thinning. Throughout the experiment, the vines were maintained without any irrigation and fertilisation. The treatments consisted of shoot trimming during post-veraison in a randomised block design with eight replications; each replication comprised six vines. Prior to imposing the treatments, first, vines were regularly (twice) trimmed to normalise a shoot length of 145cm in each year. Thereafter, three shoot trimming treatments were imposed when the soluble solids reached 15°Brix in August (40-45 days before expected harvest). These included an untrimmed control (CK 18 nodes) (Figure 2), light trimming (LT of 14 nodes) (Figure 3), and severe trimming (ST of 10 nodes) (Figure 4, see page 64). Shoot

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

An innovative solution for processing pruned canes from the vineyard floor

V3 1N 3

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

trimming was performed manually using large pruners. Following trimming, the shoot length in CK, LT and ST vines was 145, 102 and 64cm, respectively. The growth characteristics, yield and yield components, and fruit composition typically sought for winemaking were measured. Analysis of variance and comparison of means between treatments were done by using SAS 6.04 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Means were compared by the StudentNewman-Keuls test (P≤ 0.05). The post-veraison shoot trimming treatments were imposed on the same vines each year with the consequence that the treatment effects accumulated throughout the experiments resulted in alterations in growth and fruit quality attributes. This explains significant differences in berry weight during the final year of the experiment (Table 1, see page 64) indicating that a reduction in berry weight following shoot trimming is a cumulative process. On the other hand, bunch weight and productivity (yield per vine), total yield, and bunch compactness declined in response to

SUPERIOR HEDGING SYSTEMS

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

www.whitcovinquip.com.au

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

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

www.winetitles. com . au

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

SHOOT TRIMMING

shoot trimming (Table 1). These declines were interrelated in that the reduced berry size (weight) and bunch weight loosened the clusters by reducing yield per vine, which was expected as berry and bunch weights are a function of productivity. This trade-off is a highly sought after feature by practitioners of organic viticulture as loosened clusters by virtue of increased epicuticular wax load and cuticle thickness become less susceptible to bunch rots. Accompanying the loosened clusters were low Brix, pH, and yield (Table 1), which is a reflection of constrained ripening associated with reduced leaf area following shoot trimming. While the Brix, pH, and yield reduced, the anthocyanin profile and total anthocyanins, remained unaffected by shoot trimmings. This confirms that many of the precursors for anthocyanin development accumulate pre-veraison (Dokoozlian and Kliewer 1966) whereas the post-veraison anthocyanin accumulation is mediated by sugars inducing genes for encoding enzymes in the anthocyanin biosynthesis pathway (Dai et al. 2014). The sugars for accumulating anthocyanins in trimmed shoots came from reserves, which upon pruning get stimulated to hydrolyse into simple sugars for remobilisation into sinks of high activity. The titratable acidity analogous to anthocyanins was not affected either, which was expected as grape berries complete acid accumulation by synthesising most of it in situ not later than veraison. In contrast, the accumulation of nitrogen in the form of α-amino acids and ammonia contributing to the pool of YAN increases at the onset of veraison and requires continuous supply of photoassimilates. Hence, not surprisingly, the YAN levels declined with the removal of leaves due to shoot trimming. From a physiological perspective, the aforementioned alterations in growth, yield, and fruit composition resulted from source limitation caused by unexpected and accelerated senescence of the shoot system following shoot trimming (Poni et al. 2003). Other consequences of postveraison shoot trimming relate to an imbalanced (decreased) source:sink ratio resulting in a shift in sink strength. The Ravaz index (yield:pruning weight ratio), a measure of crop load and sourcesink relationship, points to roots having

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

Figure 4. Severely-trimmed Sangiovese vines. Table 1. Yield and fruit quality attributes as influenced by post-veraison shoot trimming in Sangiovese. Treatment

Yield and fruit characteristics Berry weight (g)

Yield (kg/vine)

Cluster compactness

Brix

Anthocyanins (mg/g)

2.1 b

2.5 b

7.3 b

25.6 a

0.59 a

1.9 a

2.2 b

5.5 a

25.4 a

0.56 a

1.8 a

5.6 a

25.3 a

0.57 a

Means within a column followed by different letter are significantly different according to the Student- NewmanKeuls test and Kruskal-Wallis test. CK, control vines; LT, lightly-trimmed vines; ST severely trimmed-vines.

heightened sink strength, not the berries, in the event of shoot trimming, which would limit partitioning into berries. The reduced sink strength of berries in the shoot-trimmed clusters is also a reflection of resistance to flow in the phloem pathway due to the plugging of sieve plates of the phloem sieve tubes with callose, a polymer of carbohydrate, which is synthesised naturally when vines go into dormancy. Its synthesis can also be induced by abiotic stress (Bondada 2014), hence, it is highly possible that the stress caused by trimming might have accelerated an early synthesis of callose thereby reducing sugar export into the berries. The fact that post-veraison berry expansion relies on phloem influx (Bondada et al. 2005), a resistant phloem will reduce berry size by reducing its sink strength. In conclusion, this study showed that post-veraison shoot trimming imposed positive effects on cluster morphology and fruit quality by reducing bunch compactness and sugar levels. Grapes with reduced sugar levels can be fermented into balanced wines of reduced alcohol content, which are highly desired in today’s market and by consumers.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

From an environmental perspective, such a practice enhances biodiversity and soil biological activity. Hence, post-veraison shoot trimming can be an effective production tool for organic grapegrowers for minimising fungal problems without compromising fruit and wine qualities. REFERENCES Bondada, B.R.; Matthews, M.A. and Shackel, K.A. (2005) Functional xylem in grapevine berries. J. Exp. Bot. 56:2949-2956. Bondada, B. (2014) Structural and compositional characterization of suppression of uniform ripening in grapevine: A paradoxical ripening disorder of grape berries with no known causative clues. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 139:567-581. Bondada, B., Covarrubias, J.I.; Tessarin, P.; Boliani, A.C.; Marodin, G.and Rombola, A.D. (2015) Post-veraison shoot trimming reduces cluster compactness without compromising fruit quality attributes in organically-grown Sangiovese grapevines. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 67:206-211. Dai, Z.W., Meddra, M.; Renaud, C.; Merlin, I.; Hilbert, G.; Delrot, S. and Gomes, E. (2014) Long-term in vitro culture of grape berries and its application to assess the effects of sugar supply on anthocyanin accumulation. J. Exp. Bot. 65:4665–4677. Dokoozlian, N.K. and Kliewer, W.M. (1996) Influence of light on grape berry growth and composition varies during fruit development. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121:869-874. Poni, S.; Quartieri, M. and Tagliavini, M. (2003) Potassium nutrition of Cabernet Sauvignon grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) as affected by shoot trimming. Plant Soil 253: 341-351. WVJ

V31N3

ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

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

Nothing sheepish about growing Montepulciano in the Barossa Valley By Andrew Kalleske, Director, Atze’s Corner Wines, Barossa Valley, South Australia

ver the years we have searched for alternate varieties that are well suited to our warm Mediterranean climate and ancient red clay soils. Petit Verdot, Tempranillo, Negro Amaro, Graciano, Durif, Aglianico and Vermentino are a few we have considered. One variety that came up on our radar in 2004 was the Italian variety Montepluciano, after a discussion with a local Italian winemaker who spoke highly of the wines made in Italy. After further investigation it was clear to us that Montepulciano would be a variety that would be well worth growing, considering the shallow topsoils and deep red clays of the Koonunga sub-region of the Barossa Valley. The site we chose sat high on one of the highest hills in the area (300m above sea level), has an eastfacing slope and ironstone scattered over the surface of an ancient 200 million-year-old landscape. These perfect conditions restrict Montepulciano’s natural tendency for high yields and also keep the berry size small for increased concentration of flavour; they also suit the variety’s other natural tendency for dark colour and ripe tannins. To replicate the vineyards grown in Italy we decided to plant at a higher vine density than we otherwise would for mainstream varieties such as Shiraz, Grenache and Cabernet Sauvignon. Planting to a one-metre vine spacing and 3.6m row width may not be as close as can be found in Italy but this row width suits the machinery we use on our property. However, the one metre gap between the vines gives us extra density - an increase from our normal 1300 vines per hectare to 2600 vines per hectare. The aim of this is to increase competition among the vines for available moisture, increasing the intensity of flavours and tannins, while maintaining a reasonable yield and keeping the vineyard competitive from a profit standpoint compared with its mainstream rivals where the prices paid per tonne can be as much as 100% higher. With a single wire permanent arm and catch wire 200mm above the cordon to prevent rolling, this provides sufficient leaf shading with dappled sunlight for the fruit ▶ in summer.

V3 1N 3

MONTEPULCIANO By Peter Dry Emeritus Fellow, The Australian Wine Research Institute BACKGROUND Montepulciano (MON-tay-pull-CHAH-noh) is a red grape variety most likely of Italian origin—not Greek as claimed in some references. It has been confused with Sangiovese, perhaps because its name is the same as the hilltop town in Tuscany known for the wine DOCG Vino Nobile di Montepulciano made from Sangiovese (syn. Prugnolo Gentile). DNA analysis has revealed that Montepulciano is not related to Sangiovese. Synonyms include Cordisco, Cordisio, Morellone, Premutico, Primaticcio, Primitivo, Primutico, Sangiovese Cordisco, Sangovetto, Torre di Passeri and Uva Abruzzese. There are approximately 35,000ha planted in Italy where it is mainly grown in the central regions, particularly Abruzzo and Marche. In the former region it makes up 55% of the planted area. Montepulciano is the main variety in Marche DOCs such as Rosso Conero (minimum 85%), Rosso Piceno (minimum 3570%) and also used in several DOCs in Molise and Puglia. Outside of Italy, there are just tiny areas in Argentina, Brazil, USA and New Zealand. There are now more than 46 wine producers in Australia, from hot to cool regions, and mainly in South Australia (41ha). VITICULTURE Budburst and maturity are late. The medium bunches are compact to well-filled. The medium berries have a thick skin. It is vigorous with a semi-erect growth habit. Yield is moderate to high depending on clone. Montepulciano has a tendency to overcrop which may necessitate bunch thinning. In Australia it has proved to be both drought and heat tolerant and withstands prolonged heatwaves much better than any mainstream variety. In Italy, it is both spur- and cane-pruned but spur is most common in Australia. It has good tolerance of both botrytis bunch rot and downy mildew but is sensitive to powdery mildew. WINE Montepulciano is used for different wine styles from rosé to full-bodied reds. Wines are well-coloured and fullbodied with rich flavours and robust tannins, and age well. Descriptors include blackberry, cherry, mulberry, plum and earthiness. It is useful in blends with softer varieties. For further information on this and other emerging varieties, contact Marcel Essling (marcel.essling@awri. com.au or 08 8313 6600) at The Australian Wine Research Institute to arrange the presentation of the Alternative Varieties Research to Practice program in your region.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

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

ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

Despite an interruption to their growth after a mob of sheep accidentally found their way into the vineyard, this block of Montepulciano in the Atze’s Corner vineyard in Koonunga in South Australia’s Barossa Valley has bounced back to show some promising signs for the future with their first vintage in 2014 winning multiple gold medals. If the returns on Montepulciano can be much lower, why did we plant it in the first place? While there isn’t one straight answer to this question, I’ll outline a couple of reasons why before considering the most important one. There was an oversupply of Shiraz and other mainstream varieties in the Barossa after excessive plantings following the grape boom of the 1990s. Subsequently, there was a call out for small amounts of alternative varieties to fill some gaps to create extra interest in what else the Barossa can produce, making wine with unique varietal characters different to those offered by the mainstream varieties of Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon. On top of this, there was also a desire to spread out the harvest season so we were not pressed to pick everything at the same time, with Montepulciano ripening well after Shiraz. The one reason that wasn’t particularly obvious at the time we decided to plant the Montepulciano but is becoming increasingly important concerns that fact that the seasons are becoming warmer, which brings to the fore the variety’s ability to handle warmer summers and ripening periods. Varieties whose homes are found in hot regions like mid-southern Italy and Spain, in my opinion, will become more mainstream as they’ll become more consistent performers in the long term both from a yield (less shrivel compared with Shiraz) and quality point of view. The early days of our patch of Montepluciano were a little hairy (or woolly in this case!) In late November 2011, the vines had a very healthy start and were showing their first crop of grpaes. As fate would have it a mob of 150 sheep that were grazing in a paddock next door found a small one-foot-wide gap in the fence and charged through, stripping the vines bare as they thought all their Christmases had come at once. After retraining the vines all over again we harvest the first crop in 2014. While the vines didn’t look completely balanced yet, the bunches were loose and the canopies had a healthy dark jungle green colour. A light shoot thin in mid-October prior to harvest helped the vines maintain good balance and good fruitto-leaf ratio. Montepulciano is a late-ripening variety and we harvest

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

two weeks after our Shiraz harvest has ended. Even with this lateness of harvest the grapes hold their acidity beautifully. We picked it at a pH of 3.5 and a modest (for us) 14°Baume. We fermented the grapes in a single fermenter without putting it through the destemmer, maintaining whole berries for carbonic maceration in the ferment. As it was picked late in the season we had nice cool ambient temperatures for fermentation, allowing us to slowly ferment naturally for eight days. Hand plunging and short manual pumpovers kept the berries nice and whole through the ferment and gave us a beautiful bring purple hue and alluring blue and black fruit characters. Following the ferment we basket pressed and transferred the wine into third-fill French oak hogshead barrels, tasting the wine every three months to monitor the wine’s slightly aggressive raw tannins. These tannins were the most interesting aspect to us in the early days of maturation – ripe, yet very raw for their first 12 months to a point we weren’t really sure if we’d have a place for it in our Atze’s Corner line up. After about 12 months we noticed the tannins softening, complementing the lovely rich blackberry, prune and cocoa flavours and bright natural acidity that Montepulciano is famous for. The fruit continues to show these same qualities as the balance of the vineyard improves with each vintage. And the carefully monitored fencing now ensures that no woolly jumbucks will spoil the party in the future. In my opinion, Montepulciano, from a viticultural standpoint, is the most suited alternate red variety we have experiment with to date, standing alongside Vermentino, our preferred white variety for the Barossa’s climate. Should you take my word for it? It’s still early days but such a young vineyard performing the way it is, with multiple gold medals from its first vintage, can only promise good things for its future. I have a feeling it’s here to stay and its matching ability with cuisine like roast beef and pork, spaghetti bolognaise and meat lover’s pizza will make it a big hit with a wide variety of food WVJ choices.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

TASTING FEES

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

Cellar door tastings – to charge or not to charge? What does the latest marketing research, economic realities and the Californian experience tell us? By Damien Wilson, Hamel Family Chair in Wine Business Education, Sonoma State University

Whether to charge for wine tastings at cellar door has long been a hot topic within the Australian wine industry, as was illustrated by the online discussion that followed after Wine & Viticulture Journal editor Sonya Logan tweeted a remark by presenters at the Wine Industry Marketing Conference in Adelaide in February advising against the practice. Although fairly common in California, asking cellar door customers to taste wine is relatively unheard of in Australia or New Zealand, but should local operators follow their US counterparts? Damien Wilson takes up the case. <cough> “I’m sorry, but that will be how much?”

uch a response is more likely to be heard at a cellar door in California, rather than Australia or New Zealand, but is that situation destined to change? The idea of charging visitors a tasting fee at the cellar door has been topical of late, with some of the more influential protagonists in the Australian wine sector, such as Brokenwood Wines managing director, chief winemaker and part owner Iain Riggs, adding their weight to the debate. The winery visitor in Australia is less familiar with the idea that engaging in a tasting should incur a cost. From my early experiences working in the wine trade during the late 1980s, I recall the excitement at learning that not only did wineries offer visitors the opportunity to sample, but that this experience was free for anyone who made the effort to get out there in the first place. As an early career professional, I was just about bursting out of my skin with enthusiasm at the prospect of planning my first winery tour. With boundless motivation, I took to this challenge to learn all that there was about wine and wineries in as many regions as my time would allow. These wine tasting experiences almost universally resulted in bottle purchases. Whether the wine purchased was the best value, highest priced or just an interesting local curio was of little consequence. The experience and diversity of wine styles afforded this wine business student was both invaluable and formative on my subsequent skill set in the wine business. But this nostalgic recollection-through-rosé-tinted-glasses was simply one person’s experience, and it was based uniquely in Australia. For those unfamiliar with the Australian wine commerce environment in the late 1980s, wineries remaining solvent through that period of market contraction would have done just about anything to facilitate a sale. Freely offering wine to visitors was not only a viable option for encouraging sales, but it was widely accepted as the practice of the time. Fast-forward 25 years, and having recently ventured out into the Californian wine country of Sonoma, I wondered what impact a tasting fee would have had on my formative years in the wine sector. In mid-April I had the fortune to contribute to a presentation on wine tasting room metrics by Rob McMillan and his team at Silicon Valley Bank. They hold an annual survey on winery tasting

V3 1N 3

Part of the Twitter conversation that ensued after Wine & Viticulture editor Sonya Logan tweeted a remark by presenters at the Wine Industry Marketing Conference not to charge for wine tastings at cellar door. rooms and have done so for a number of years. When I found out that the average tasting room fee at a winery in Napa Valley is more than US$50, I just about fell out of my chair! Although this Napa example represents the high-water mark in tasting fees, all US wine regions completing the annual survey provided evidence that tasting fees are the norm in this part of the world. Had I been a wine business student over here, I’m sure that my wine education through tastings would have been very different from that experienced across the Australian landscape of vinous benevolence. A contrast between the commercially-focused, US environment with my more recent years of experience visiting wineries in France is akin to comparing a Rottweiler with a Chihuahua. They may be the same type of animal, but lovers of one are unlikely to have a strong affinity with lovers of the other. To illustrate, since moving to California last August, I’ve paid for five tastings I’ve experienced in California. However, in almost nine years, and innumerable winery visits during my preceding stint in France, I can’t remember a single experience where I had to pay for a wine tasting. So, with one

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

TASTING FEES

of the key aims of both country’s wine sectors being to develop wine tourism, should Australian wine producers be charging for tasting room visits or not? THE GOAL OF THE TASTING ROOM OR CELLAR DOOR The tasting room, AKA cellar door1, is the space at the winery where a small sample of wine is served to a customer with the express intention of encouraging a sale. The intended sale may occur directly as a result of the tasting, or at any time in the foreseeable future. The act of wine being sampled by the customer permits a pre-purchase evaluation of the product. Marketing research has found sales are best facilitated by initially making a brand salient in a consumer’s mind, and then ensuring the brand’s availability at the point of purchase (Bordalo et al. 2012). Creating salience is more valuable than simply creating awareness due to the expressed compunction of consumers to seek out such brands beyond those they are simply aware (Romaniuk and Sharp 2004). The implications are that customers visiting a tasting room are already responding to their compunction to seek out a brand with which they’re familiar. Consequently, a well-designed and managed tasting room will welcome such visitors with the provision of wine to help close sales. As such, the charge to cellar door visitors in order to taste wine should match the customer’s perceived value of the product and services rendered in the provision of this wine. Given many wineries choose not to charge for visits to a tasting room, the merits of both options need to be reviewed. THE CASE FOR NOT CHARGING CUSTOMERS FOR WINE TASTINGS Although not every winery charges a fee to taste wine in the US, around 70% of wineries charge visitors for tastings, according to a study by Michigan State University. In contrast, winery visitors in Australia are not generally used to paying for tasting wine at a cellar door. Some exceptions exist, but these are more often limited to certain geographical areas, to select premium wines, or to cellar-door only offers. As shown in the Twitter conversation on page 67, Iain Riggs’ Brokenwood winery offers a two-tiered pricing model for visitors. A low-priced option is available for those visitors just wanting to discover their wines, and a premium priced options for wine enthusiasts wanting to explore a greater range of Brokenwood’s higher quality offers. However, the approach of charging winery visitors for wine tasting at the cellar door is a novel approach. Traditionally, many Australian wineries aimed to push their wares through the retail distribution channel with more of a focus on pouring wine by the glass at restaurants, or discounting as a means of penetrating the market at retail. Additionally, so as to keep the retail channel on-side, and continuing to list a wine, producers feel obliged to charge a high price for their wines at the cellar door. Suggestions of undercutting a distributor’s retail prices via direct sales at

1 The terms ‘tasting room’ and ‘cellar door’ are interchangeable for the purposes of this article. Although there may be some minor difference in specification between the two terms, it’s my experience that the two terms refer to the same type of wine service experience. I grew up Australian, but as a current resident of the US, I tend to use the term that best suits the audience of the time.

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

Tasting Room at Peter Michael Winery in Knights Valley in California’s Sonoma County. the winery is very much looked down upon by the distribution channel. The implication is the wine producer is supposed to benefit from the higher margins available by selling wine directly from the winery, while retailers are able to provide greater brand awareness through a greater reach to a larger audience than the winery can do on its own. An argument could be made that by offering wine tastings for free, the wine producer recognises that the customer is already aware of the winery and is simply finalising the purchasing process at a point of sale. However, such an assumption would be incorrect for the high proportion of winery visitors looking for a range of enjoyment experiences, of which wine buying could be a sub-set (Bruwer and Alant 2009, Orth et al. 2012). Alternatively, wineries offering free tastings could be relying on the sociological trait of reciprocity. Religious groups frequently offer books, workshops or flowers to passers-by with the message that there is no obligation in accepting such gifts. Evidence from Kolyesnikova & Dodd (2009) illustrate that ‘no fee’ wine tastings can lead to greater wine sales than from those wineries charging for the service. The implication of that study is tasting room visitors purchase more wine from wineries that don’t charge tasting fees, as human nature is hard-wired to reciprocate such offers when they are made (Kolm 2008). However, wineries relying on the offer of wine to be a sufficient obligation to encourage a sale should also note that consumers can easily counter or rationalise this sense of obligation. Further, those wineries that do charge for tasting fees also make sales, in addition to the fact that all visitors who tasted wine had provided a revenue stream for that service. There is also the potential that wineries offer free tastings as an exercise in brand reinforcement through public relations, in support of a regional initiative to help develop a local tourism strategy (Bràs et al. 2010, Charters and Menival 2011). The option not to charge a tasting fee would be with the intention of attracting as many visitors as possible to the cellar door with the incentive to discover the region and sample the local wares. Such a strategy can be effective for attracting higher visitor numbers, but often at the expense of a high conversion rate of visitors to wine sales. More visitors means more costs in product, service and expenses. Thus, whatever the reason behind the decision not to charge a tasting fee at the cellar door, significant obligation is then placed on staff to make sales in order to cover the costs of having the tasting room open for tourists.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

TASTING FEES

THE CASE FOR CHARGING CUSTOMERS A WINE TASTING FEE The counter argument is that wine is a highly valuable, artisanal product for which consumers should be happy to pay. Wine is a very capitalintensive business, and giving it away to anyone equates to lost business opportunities. Restaurants, bars and retail Ana Keller, proprietor of stores all charge fees for the Keller Estate in California’s provision of their products Sonoma Coast region. and services. Further, many tourist sites and local providers charge for access, tours, merchandise and products. Even though samples may be offered at many of these businesses, there are often restrictions, limits, or specific ranges that are kept separate from the range of products offered for the purpose of generating a sale. Specific to wine is the nature of its production and distribution being controlled under licence. This constraint is because of the dangers associated with intoxication, and adds both an administrative and operational cost to its distribution. Such costs need to be recouped in the price charged to customers. Accounting practices would suggest that the point in delivery where those costs are incurred would be the most appropriate. Thus, if customers are charged a fee for wine tasting, the exercising of these costs are applied appropriately. Further, a common economic maxim is that customers get what they pay for. Accordingly, where customers are charged for the purpose of tasting wine, there is greater expectation that the service matches such expectations. These expectations can be effective in motivating staff to provide the requisite service. As explained by Ana Keller, the proprietor of Keller Estate in California’s Sonoma Coast region, the application of a tasting fee at the cellar door also provides opportunities for staff to practice their sales skills. Tasting fee waivers may be applied for existing wine club members, and customers who sign-up to the wine club on the day of the tasting. In return, such customers receive regular deliveries from Keller Estate. Therefore, the provision of a tasting fee becomes an effective tool for generating wine sales and member subscriptions. The tasting fee not only helps to generate revenue, but also facilitates repeat sales and the compilation of data to help build a stronger relationship with all visitors. However, a contrasting perspective is offered by Tom Eakin, of Peter Michael Winery in the Knights Valley region of California’s Sonoma County, As the CEO, Tom believes that the tasting room is provided as a valuable experience in relationship building with its customers because the winery doesn’t charge for tastings. The bottom line is that Tom believes they should not charge a tasting fee at the winery because visitors are typically from the Peter Michael Winery wine club. As a result, the tasting room visit acts as an opportunity to illustrate the winery’s commitment to service for its loyal customers, especially those customers who miss out on an allocation of wine. Almost all of the wine at Peter Michael is allocated to wine club members. So, even though the winery could charge for tastings,

V3 1N 3

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

this cost is absorbed into the price of each wine. Unsurprisingly, the membership numbers in its wine club suffer a much lower annual attrition rate than the norm for wineries in this region. These two Sonoma vintners have differing perspectives on tasting room fees, but both have commercially successful wineries. One key difference is that the provision of a tasting room at Keller Estate is for the purpose of attracting visitors, whereas Peter Michael Winery effectively provides a tasting room for rewarding loyalty. CONCLUSION The option of whether to charge a tasting fee at the cellar door comes down to the winery’s strategy and its congruence with that for the local tourism association. The decision to implement a tasting fee where one did not previously exist will likely result in a fall in tourism numbers, but the effect on sales at the winery is less clear. Customer perceptions will vary, but charging a fee equates to an expression of value for any product or service. Thus, even though public responses to an increase in costs are never positive, the impact of such a change is that perceived value increases as well. The challenge for any winery moving from a free-tasting to a fee-based model will be based on the salience and existing demand for the wineries choosing to undertake that change. The best option would be for such a change to be undertaken on a region-wide basis. As such, visitors would be left with little option except to pay for the provision of such a service. The short-term outcome is likely to be a decline in visitor numbers. However, if profitability increases as a result, then the change to a fee-based tasting would be well worth such an effort. REFERENCES Bruwer, J. and Alant, K. (2009) The hedonic nature of wine tourism consumption: an experiential view. International Journal of Wine Business Research 21(3):235-257. http://doi.org/10.1108/17511060910985962 Bordalo, P.; Gennaioli, N. and Shleifer, A. (2012) Salience and Consumer Choice (Working Paper No. 17947). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17947 Brás, J. M.; Costa, C. and Buhalis, D. (2010) Network analysis and wine routes: the case of the Bairrada Wine Route. Service Industries Journal 30(10):1621-1641. http://doi.org/10.1080/02642060903580706 Charters, S. and Menival, D. (2011) Wine tourism in Champagne. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 35(1):102-118. http://doi. org/10.1177/1096348010384597 Kolm, S.-C. (2008) Reciprocity: An Economics of Social Relations. Cambridge University Press. Kolyesnikova, N. and Dodd, T.H. (2009) There is no such thing as a free wine tasting: the effect of a tasting fee on obligation to buy. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 26(8):806-819. http://doi.org/10.1080/10548400903356228 Orth, U.R.; Stöckl, A.; Veale, R.; Brouard, J.; Cavicchi, A.; Faraoni, M.; Larreinag, M.; Lecatd, B.; Olsenh, J.; Rodriguez-Santosi, C.; Santinij, C. and Wilson, D. (2012) Using attribution theory to explain tourists’ attachments to place-based brands. Journal of Business Research 65(9):1321-1327. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.027 Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B. (2004) Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience. Marketing Theory 4(4):327-342. http://doi.org/10.1177/1470593104047643

Damien Wilson has more than 15 years’ experience in academic and market research in the wine sector. He was appointed the inaugural Hamel Family Chair in Wine Business Education at Sonoma State University in August 2015. Prior to that he was Associate Professor in Marketing at the Burgundy School of Business and a wine marketing lecturer at the University of South Australia.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

V I N E YA R D & WINERY SALES

Vineyards, wineries and brands – a year in review By Stephen Strachan, Director, Gaetjens Langley. Email: sstrachan@glwineadvisory.com.au

Following in the tradition of his colleague Colin Gaetjens, Stephen presents a snapshot of the vineyard and winery sales that have taken place in Australia over the past 12 months.

ransaction values for vineyards, wineries and wine brands in Australia have continued to show signs of improvement during the past 12 months, however results remain patchy. The old adage of ‘location, location, location’ remains front and centre with buyers and is clearly reflected in the results we have seen over the last year. As a general comment, the range of buyers in the Australian wine category has strengthened over the last year or so, and there is a distinct trend towards existing Australian wine and vineyard businesses searching for further investments in the Australian wine industry - buoyed by a lower Australian dollar, and evidence that exports are growing and Australian vineyard areas have declined. Evidence of improvements in financial returns is starting to filter through in some sectors, so this will also provide an impetus for buoyancy across vineyard, winery and brand values. There is a sense that savvy buyers have concluded market dynamics will soon lift profitability and, hence, asset and goodwill values. Accordingly, they are acting now ahead of any market changes. So, what has been happening? As a general comment, good vineyards and good brands in the right regions are seeing strong or improving results. The regional ‘hot spots’ currently are the Barossa Valley, McLaren Vale, Yarra Valley, Mornington Peninsula and Tasmania. Regions such as Margaret River, Adelaide Hills and Coonawarra have had some strong results, however these are not particularly uniform, indicating that site matters – for example, there is a wide disparity in Coonawarra vineyard values between terra rossa vineyards on the main road versus the rest. At the same time, large vineyards in less celebrated and commercial regions have seen a great deal of activity over the last 12 months, though not much joy for vendors. In most cases, these have been distressed sales, and buyers have been able to purchase these properties at low values. Looking at these large vineyards, prominent sales have included the vineyards sold as part of the liquidation of the Littore Group. These vineyards, 923 hectares in total, have been sold to Duxton Asset Management, though the transactions have not yet settled. Duxton Asset Management invests in agricultural assets and the chairman is Ed Peter, part-owner of Kaesler Wines, Yarra Yerring and various other wine and vineyard assets. Duxton has also acquired the 800ha Macquarie vineyard near Euston, formerly owned by Bruce Chalmers. Howcroft Estate Vineyards near Bordertown, comprising 412 hectares of red grape plantings, with a 609ML water licence, was sold to Casella Wines for a reported $9 million - or $22,000/ha on average.

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

The sale of Josephine’s Vineyard (CMV Farms) in Robinvale was not a distressed sale. This is a 160ha vineyard and sold about 12 months ago for $1.5M. Adjusting for extra land and improvements on site, the vineyard sold for $8500/ha approximately, without water. At the time, water was valued at about $2000 per ML (now closer to $3000), which would mean that the vineyard would have been valued at about $20,000/ha if water was included in the sale. An overall rule-of-thumb for large vineyards with water would put values currently at around $20,000 to $25,000/ha. With water valuations currently at around $3000/ML along the Murray Darling Basin, at an average of 6ML/hectare in warm climates, fully operational vineyards are selling at between $2000 and 7000/ ha (without water), which is just a fraction of their establishment costs. Winery sales are also sluggish, with the best results achieved when wineries are sold along with vineyards, inventory and brands or goodwill. The first-class, modern Littore winery, Jindalee, near Geelong, sold to the Costa Group for a reported $6M, or $300/processing tonne capacity, demonstrating the priority for expediency over price in a liquidation sale – the bottling line alone was worth nearly $10M. Rossetto Wines, a 12,500 tonne winery in Griffith sold for around $5M, or around $400/processing tonne. The DalBroi family acquired the former Cranswick Estate Winery, also in Griffith, from Californian-based The Wine Group on a vendor finance deal. This was a 20,000 tonne winery, well equipped, and reportedly transacted for around $6M, or $300/processing tonne. The Ryecroft winery, a 20,000-tonne winery owned by Treasury Wine Estates at the back of the McLaren Flat township,

Rossetto Wines (pictured), a 12,500 tonne winery in Griffith, recently sold to Dee Vine Estate for around $5 million, reflecting the relative strength in the region of high-volume production and future sales opportunities.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

V INE YARD & WINERY SALES

was briefly put on the market – then shortly after, withdrawn – probably motivated by a change of strategy given the reality of selling an under-utilised winery. These three wineries illustrate some of the dynamics currently before the Australian wine industry. Jindalee had major supply contracts with Coles, and the sale to the Costa family shareholders of the Costa Group (fruit and vegetable producers, packers and wholesalers), also a major supplier to Coles, obviously signals an intent by Coles to continue with this format. The sale of the Rossetto winery to Dee Vine Estate reflects the relative strength in the region of high-volume production, sales, and future sales opportunities. On the other hand, a 20,000 tonne winery in McLaren Vale has little market appeal in a region that is shifting up-market, with smaller-scale production runs. Looking across the premium regions, sales surpassing $100,000 per hectare have been recorded in the Barossa and Yarra Valley recently. The Gnadenfrei vineyard in the Barossa sold for more than $450,000/ha a couple of years ago. This was a small, specific site that sold grapes exclusively to Torbreck for The Laird, and the sale (to Torbreck) reflected its strategic interest in securing the fruit source. More recently, Murray Street Vineyards purchased a 16.5ha Shiraz vineyard adjacent to its site for $2.36M. The vineyard was sold with a full crop and BIL water that exceeded the vineyard’s requirements, so deducting excess water and the value of the crop, the vineyard was valued at about $115,000 per hectare. Other sales in the Barossa include the Ebenezer vineyard at about $60,000/ha (37ha planted) and Magnolia Vale, which was sold to Calabria Family Wines last year. Recent sales in the Upper Yarra for premium Chardonnay and Pinot Noir vineyards (primarily) include the sale of Lusatia Park Vineyard to DeBortoli and the Guerin Vineyard (renamed Applejack Vineyard) sale to Giant Steps. Details on these vineyard sales are confidential but sales values have exceeded $100,000/ha. It is noteworthy that the best valuations for vineyards in the Yarra Valley have been achieved for very specific (and strategic) vineyards in the Upper Yarra, or in the ‘dresscircle’ area near Healesville around Gruyere and Coldstream. The Innocent Bystander brand and inventory were recently sold to Brown Brothers along with the adjacent site, the former White Rabbit Brewery - which will now become the home of Innocent Bystander and the Yarra Valley HQ of Brown Brothers. While details are confidential, the result demonstrates the strength of the Yarra Valley as well as the strength of the Innocent Bystander brand and its future earnings potential. McLaren Vale has, likewise, seen strong results for strategic vineyards. The Duck Chase East vineyard sale and the Cascabel sale each saw results above $80,000/ha. However, there are several larger vineyards on the lower levels of McLaren Vale that have been for sale and not traded. It would be difficult to see results for these vineyards reach $50,000 per hectare. Overall, the transition under way in the Australian wine industry is clearly evident in the sales results. The right sites, in the right regions are seeing buyer interest, competition between buyers and decent prices achieved. Likewise, brands with future earnings potential that have genuine cache in the market are trading at healthy multiples. Buyers are spoilt for choice if they are searching for mediocre vineyards or brands, but the high-performing vineyards and brands will continue to WVJ set the pace.

V3 1N 3

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

W! O N ER T GIS E R

Expert Market Analysis and Vineyard Innovation • • • •

Release of 2016 grape harvest pricing data 2017 demand outlook by variety, region, price point Expert analysis: economic outlook, climate, consumer demand Winner 2016 PIRSA Vinnovation Award (best vineyard innovation)

• • • • • •

Featuring: Ticky Fullerton, the ABC’s The Business Professor Ross Garnaut, leading economist Simon Tremble, Woolworths Liquor Group Jim Moularadellis, AUSTWINE Sen. Anne Ruston, Assistant Min. for Agriculture & Water Peter Taylor, TWE Director, Wine Production Aus.

Now in its third year at Adelaide Oval Friday June 17, 2016 Registration & program: sawggs.com.au

The 2016 PIRSA Vinnovation Award is sponsored by

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

S U G A R A N A LY S I S

Sugar analysis - too many choices? By Eric Wilkes1 and Luke Warner2 1 Chair, Interwinery Analysis Group 2 Statistical Secretary, Interwinery Analysis Group

A number of Australian wines have recently been rejected in certain export markets due to disputes over labelling regarding sugar content. With little information available on the variation and performance of the various sugar testing methods used by wineries, the Interwinery Analysis Group surveyed its members especially for Wine & Viticulture Journal readers to find out what methods are commonly in use in Australia and reviewed the results of the last five years of its proficiency testing program to assess their accuracy.

easuring the sugar content of wine is one of the more common analyses performed in Australian and New Zealand wineries. The reasons for doing the testing include: • determining when fermentable sugars have been exhausted and that further fermentation is unlikely • determining the sugar content available to influence the sweetness and hence contribute to the style of the wine • classifying wines as dry, semi dry, or sweet, etc. on labels under certain regulatory environments. All the above have significant impacts on production and marketing decisions and thus the accurate measurement of sugar content can be critically important. Indeed, a

number of wines have recently been rejected in certain export markets because of disputes over labelling that directly related to the determination of sugar content. Review of the extant literature, however, has shown that there is very little concrete information available about the variation and performance of the various sugar testing methodologies in the production context. To address this, the Interwinery Analysis Group (IWAG) undertook a survey of its members to determine current practices. Furthermore, the group reviewed data from the last five years of testing in its proficiency testing program in order to assess the performance of the major methods in use.

▶

Then and Now: Collotype Printers advertisement from Issue 1 of the Wine Industry Journal in 1986 (Above) and today (right).

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 2016

V31N3

S U G A R A N A LY S I S

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

SUGAR, NOT A SIMPLE DEFINITION The term sugar covers a large range of different chemical compounds found in nature and cannot be simply defined as a single entity. On top of this, different sugars have very different sensory properties, including sweetness, which further complicates the question of what should actually be measured. In wine, the most significant sugars - both in terms of the actual content in wine and their sensory impact - are glucose and fructose, which naturally occur in grapes. The small amount of sucrose present is enzymatically converted to glucose and fructose during fermentation and any additions of sucrose (only allowed in the case of sparkling wine production) are also rapidly hydrolised to its glucose and fructose components by the naturally acidic conditions found in wine. For these reasons, and the fact that only glucose and fructose are fermented by wine yeast, the majority of wineries in Australia and New Zealand directly measure glucose and fructose content as the practical measure of sugar in wine. The most popular measure to do this tends to be the use of enzymatic-based test kits and a UV/visible spectrophotometer. This direct measurement of the two most significant sugars, however, is a relatively modern phenomenon which has really only become common in the last 30 years as technology has become more readily available, affordable, and accurate. Prior to this, sugar measurement was routinely done using what are termed reducing sugar methods. These methods rely on the capacity of many sugars (but not

Despite the obvious drawbacks of reducing sugar methods, they are still widely used within industry because of the relative simplicity of set up and the reluctance of some winemakers to change their ‘calibration’ between the measured result and what they taste. sucrose, which needs to be inverted before testing) to reduce a cupro-alkaline solution, and include the common Lane & Eynon and Rebelein tests. Both of these titrimetric methods rely on a similar underlying chemistry, but vary in the procedures and reagents used. Both methods, unfortunately, also detect naturally-occurring pentose sugars, resulting in artificially high results. These sugars are non-fermentable and contribute very little to the actual sweetness of the wine and as such play a very limited, if any, role in wine production or sensory outcomes. These two methods also suffer from significant interference from other wine components that can also be reduced, including phenolics, requiring a range of pre-analysis steps such as decolourisation which introduces other significant errors into the analysis. This results in determinations for sugars that are generally between 0 and 3g/L higher than those determined by the use of glucose and fructose ▶ determinations, and occasionally much higher.

WORLD’S BEST PREMIUM LABEL SOLUTIONS www.mccshowcase.com • www.mcclabel.com.au

ADELAIDE: (08) 8405 0500 • BAROSSA: (08) 8563 6300 • GRIFFITH: (02) 6960 3333 • PERTH: (08) 9441 5000 • BRISBANE (07) 3245 4333

V3 1N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

S U G A R A N A LY S I S

Unfortunately, because of the variable nature of the interferents, it is not possible to actually directly convert between reducing sugars and glucose and fructose (GF) methods. Despite the obvious drawbacks of reducing sugar methods, they are still widely used within industry because of the relative simplicity of set up and the reluctance of some winemakers to change their ‘calibration’ between the measured result and what they taste. These tests are also unfortunately still considered the reference standard in a number of export markets meaning that many wineries have to use them in parallel with direct GF measurements to ensure compliance with local market labelling requirements despite the obvious technical advantages of the more modern methods.

Table 1. The descriptive statistics for the overall results from sugar testing (GF and reducing) for rounds 1 (white) and 2 (red) for the IWAG proficiency program 2012-2016. colour

Mean StDev Minimum Median Maximum

Red

1378

3.3

1.19

0.70

2.84

8.50

White

1300

5.0

3.179

0.29

5.40

17.70

they included quality control procedures such as spikes, standards or duplicate in their procedures. For GF methods, 85% of respondents confirmed that they did, as did 67% of laboratories doing reducing sugar methods. While well short of the ideal of 100%, it does demonstrate an awareness of the importance of quality control in the majority of IWAG laboratories that responded to the survey.

SO WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING OUT IN INDUSTRY? HOW DO THE MAIN METHODS STACK UP? The IWAG survey received 79 responses from its member laboratories of which 53% exclusively did glucose and fructose determination and a further 33% doing both glucose and fructose and reducing sugar methods. This latter group probably reflects the requirements for reducing sugar results for labelling in markets such as China, rather than a production requirement for two types of sugar analysis. Only 11% of respondents used reducing sugar methods exclusively, with 3% of respondents not measuring sugar by any methods. For wineries that did measure GF, by far the most popular methodology was using enzymatic kits (77% of respondents) followed by 22% who used mid-infrared technologies that do not require reagents or kits, but often have a higher upfront cost and do require some understanding of calibration systems. For those measuring reducing sugars 19 respondents used the Rebelein method while 11 used the Lane Eynon methodology. HPLC systems were used by four respondents, in general for GF methods, but one laboratory was using it for reducing sugars. An important factor in doing any analytical chemistry is adjusting methodology to suit the sample matrix. In the case of the measurement of sugar, the two most important aspects of this are the impact of wine colour on the sample and the actual concentration of sugar present. Colour is acknowledged to be a major interferent in reducing sugar methods and 81% of labs doing this test decolourise red wine samples before testing. This, however, leaves 19% of respondents not doing this important step which suggests there is room for method standardisation among IWAG laboratories to ensure more consistent results. It is generally considered that colour only has a very limited, if any, impact on enzymatic testing results for GF analysis which is reflected by the fact that 94% of laboratories do not change their GF methods based on wine colour. The actual concentration of sugar in the wine does have an impact on both GF and reducing sugar methodologies so it is concerning that 25% and 19% of laboratories that do GF and reducing sugars, respectively, do not adjust their sample dilution based on the result they get. This has the potential to introduce significant errors, especially at very low (<1g/L) and high (>10g/L) sugar concentrations. The final aspect of the survey asked respondents whether

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

The next question to be asked was, how do the differing major methods compare in performance as measured by the IWAG proficiency testing program? To do this, results from the first red round and first white round of each year for last five years of proficiency testing (2012-2016 inclusive) were reviewed and the results compared. This analysis encompassed 2678 separate tests done on five different red and white wines (10 in total) by more than 150 laboratories (note that not all laboratories participated in all rounds or did all tests). The mean results for all tests separated for reds and whites are given in Table 1. To aid analysis, the results were restricted to the three main methods used by the IWAG participants, namely enzymatic testing for GF analysis and Lane & Eynon and Rebelein for reducing sugars. The only other significant method in the results were those done by mid-infrared technologies. While not included in this analysis, a review of the methods by the authors is available in the 2014 May/June edition of the Wine & Viticulture Journal in the article ‘Accurate mid-infrared analysis in wine production - fact or fable?’ Because this data represents testing on 10 different wines, it was necessary to normalise the results to allow comparison between different wines and years. To achieve this for each wine, each result was divided by the overall average for all tests (both GF and reducing sugar methods) to give a normalised mean result proportional to 1g/L. The overall results for each method are shown in Table 2. The comparative results for each method are presented graphically in Figure 1. Looking at the distribution of normalised results for all methods, we can see a distinct difference between enzymatic methods and reducing methods. Not only are the reducing methods giving a much higher result, as is to be expected, but the range of values is much narrower for the enzymatic methods as is shown by the comparative standard deviations with that for the enzymatic methods (0.15) being around half that seen for the reducing methods, Lane & Eynon and Rebelein (0.34 and 0.27, respectively). This demonstrates the much lower levels of precision to be found using these relatively complex titrimetric methods. Lane & Eynon relies on doing a titration using a boiling solution with precise timing while five different reagents are involved in the Rebelein method. Both

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

V31N3

S U G A R A N A LY S I S

Table 2. Overall results for each sugar method in the IWAG proficiency testing rounds 1 and 2 for the years 2012 to 2016 inclusive. Individual results were normalised to a mean value of 1g/L by dividing individual results by the overall mean for all methods for each round before analysis.

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

methods also require a degree of judgement by the operator to determine the endpoint adding further inconsistencies. When results are compared by colour, we see the difference is even more obvious for red wines with the mean difference between normalised results being in the region 0.6 as can be seen in Figure 2. The actual difference between GF and reducing sugar methods in the mean results before being normalised for comparison ranged from 1.6 to 2.3g/L depending on the wine. A similar result occurs for white wines, but the differences in the means of the normalised

results are slightly less at around 0.5g/L (corresponding to differences ranging from 1.1 to 1.6g/L). This is interesting in that it demonstrates that it is not just the colour compounds in red wines that lead to the significant differences we see between reducing and enzymatic testing methods; obviously, other wine components are contributing significantly to the differences. Looking at the reducing sugar methods in isolation (Figure 3) we see no real difference between Lane & Eynon and Rebelein for the normalised results with an Anova giving a result of p<0.05, indicating no statistical significance in the results at the 95% confidence level. There is a slightly greater spread of results for the Lane & Eynon method, but once again, it is not significant compared with the overall result. What is apparent is a bimodality in the distribution of results for each method, that is, each histogram would appear to have two distinct peaks. This can be attributed to the significant difference in the results obtained for red and white wines when compared with the average result as seen in Figure 4. Red results, in general, are higher than white results when compared with overall means, highlighting the effect of colour compounds. This brings into focus the

Figure 1. The comparative overall results for sugar analysis for the enzymatic, Lane & Eynon and Rebelein methods. All results normalised to a mean of 1g/L.

Figure 2. The comparative overall results for sugar analysis for the enzymatic, Lane & Eynon and Rebelein methods for red wines only. All results normalised to a mean of 1g/L.

Figure 3. The comparative overall results for sugar analysis for the reducing sugar methods for red and white wines. All results normalised to a mean of 1g/L.

Figure 4. The comparative red and white results for reducing sugar methods. All results normalised to a mean of 1g/L.

Method

Enzymatic 1768 Lane & Eynon Reblein

V3 1N 3

Mean StDev Minimum Median Maximum 0.81

0.15

0.20

0.80

2.26

320

1.35

0.34

0.72

1.36

4.28

590

1.39

0.27

0.22

1.41

2.19

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

S U G A R A N A LY S I S

Figure 5. The comparative red and white results for the Lane & Eynon method. All results normalised to a mean of 1g/L.

Figure 6. The comparative red and white results for the Rebelein method. All results normalised to a mean of 1g/L.

issue noted earlier of the almost 20% of laboratories that are not decolourising samples before testing by this method. It can also be suggested that the effect of colour is actually greater than is seen in these results, but it has been made less apparent here by the large proportion of laboratories decolourising before testing with reducing sugar methods. A similar review of the effects of colour on the GF method was also done (results not shown here) and did show there was some effect on the results, however it was relatively small compared with that seen in the reducing sugar methods and would be unlikely to impact results significantly.

Counter intuitively for colour-based titrimetric methods, the spread of results for white wines is much greater than that found for reds (normalised standard deviations of 0.34 compared with 0.21, respectively). This may, however, be a function of the fact that the average concentration of sugar in the white wines was almost double that of the reds (see Table 1) in the testing rounds rather than being an artefact of different interferents in the methods for red and white wines. The effect is similar when we look at the effect of colour on Lane & Eynon and Rebelein methods individually (Figure 5 and 6, respectively) with a significant difference between reds and whites reflecting the higher impact of the different components in red wine. The normalised difference between red and white wines is essentially quite similar for the two methods and not statistically significant. Overall it can be said the differences in performance between the two reducing methods is limited and are probably outweighed by the individual competence of the laboratory and the familiarity with the method.

Who are you looking for?

SO WHAT DOES IT ALL TELL US?

Wine industry personnel ONLINE PHONEBOOK â&#x20AC;˘ Searchable â&#x20AC;˘ Easy to use

www.winetitles.com.au/widonline/phonebook* * Available only to those who have purchased/subscribed to the Wine Industry Directory

ORDER TODAY:

Visit: www.winetitles.com.au Call: +618 8369 9522 Email: orders@winetitles.com.au

The obvious conclusion from the above data is that not only are GF methodologies, at least in the enzymatic method case, more relevant from both a production and sensory standpoint than reducing sugar results, they are also significantly more precise than the comparative reducing sugar methods. The technologies needed to implement GF analysis are now accessible and affordable for all but the smallest wineries and are available at a cost comparable to that of doing reducing methods internally from many commercial providers. There needs to be a continued effort to unify international wine analysis methods to common analytes such as GF that are independent of methodologies. Not only will this provide more precise and relevant results to wine production, it will allow a much greater certainty when exporting products that labelling and stylistic claims will meet in market regulation. The results also highlight the importance for wineries of participating in proficiency testing programs such as that offered by IWAG in ensuring accurate and precise results. WVJ

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 2016

V31N3

WINE EXPORT

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

Impact of the ‘Brexit’ on Australian wine exports By Angelica Crabb, Analyst, Wine Australia

n February 2016, UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced that a referendum on whether or not Britain would remain in the European Union will be held on Thursday 23 June 2016. This article discusses what this might mean for Australian wine exports to the United Kingdom should Britain vote to leave the EU (a moved termed the ‘Brexit’); in particular, what the effect might be on import duties, the impact for our competitors, and the wider economic factors to be considered. The United Kingdom has been a member of the EU since 1973, but public opinion has been varied on the issue of membership ever since and even more so after the Conservative party won the election in 2015 on the back of promising a referendum on the subject. Current opinion polls have ‘leave’ at 43 percent, while ‘remain’ sits at 39 percent. This raises the question of what the world would look like without the UK as part of the European Union. The UK is of great importance to global wine markets. Accounting for one-third of all Australian wine exports, the United Kingdom is Australia’s number one export destination by volume with 247 million litres of wine exported in 2015. The UK is the second largest import market by value globally, and Australia is the second largest source of wine behind Italy by volume. Considering these facts, any changes in the UK market will certainly mean changes for the Australia wine community. As a member of the EU, wine imports into the UK are subject to import duties – Common Customs Tariff (CCT) – and EU regulations. The current rates are illustrated in Table 1. Based on Wine Australia analysis of customs data for table wine, it is estimated that the cost of the EU import duty on Australian wine exports to the UK totalled more than A$42 million in 2015. If the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union, these duties by default would no longer apply and, as such, level the playing field. Our main competitors in the UK market are other states within the EU, namely France, Italy and Spain, and these countries are not currently charged duties. As illustrated in Table 2, it is estimated that, combined, these countries are currently saving approximately A$110 million per annum as a result of their EU membership. Additionally, there are other existing trade agreements in place with the EU – Chile and South Africa being the main beneficiaries. Chile has a free trade agreement (FTA) in place that exempts it from import duties. South Africa’s ‘FTA’ is more complex. The

Table 1. EU import duties for table wine. Alcohol strength <13%

V3 1N 3

Table 2. Actual versus hypothetical import duties to the UK.

EU import duty (€ per litre) Bottled wine 0.131

Bulk wine 0.099

13-15%

0.154

0.121

15-18%

0.186

0.154

18-22%

0.209

agreement allows the first 50 million litres into the EU to be duty-free, with the CCT payable on anything exported thereafter. Although it is unknown how much South African wine in the UK is duty free, the UK accounts for 35 percent of the 320 megalitres of wine South Africa exports to the EU. Together, France, Italy, Spain, Chile and South Africa make up 60 percent of imports into the UK. Other wine exporters that are charged the same duties as Australia include the United States (eight percent share of UK imports) and New Zealand (four percent). If the UK were to leave the Union, new trade agreements with EU countries and also those outside the EU would very likely be negotiated. The ‘Brexit’ could remove a significant cost to trade for Australia as World Trade Organisation rules would prevent the UK from favouring one country over another except in the context of FTAs. Australia has already embarked on preliminary discussions towards an FTA with the EU. For wine post-Brexit, it might be a better strategy to consider an FTA with the UK. To add to the uncertainty, the transition period, between a ‘leave’ vote in the referendum and actual exit, may or may not involve a continuation of existing policy until the new trade arrangements are agreed. Concerns about new agreements have also been raised by the UK trade body, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, who reported that 90 percent of its members favour remaining a part of the EU. There are also greater economic factors to consider. The economic unrest that leaving the EU could trigger also needs to be taken into account. Since the referendum was announced, the Great Britain Pound has experienced a marked decline against major global currencies. Adding the ‘Brexit’ on top of already struggling European and UK economies has many economists concerned. If consumers have less money in their pockets, the value and volume of wine sold may decline as consumers may decide to ‘trade down’ to cheaper wines and other alcoholic beverages or stop consuming entirely. There is abundant uncertainty surrounding the ‘Brexit’, most notably in the greater economic sphere. However, this may be counter-balanced by a potential upside for Australian exporters if the current tariff disadvantage was eliminated. For more information on the UK market, contact the Market Insights team at enquiries@wineaustralia.com, telephone 08 8228 2000 or visit www.wineaustralia.com/winefacts Sources: Wine Australia, The Guardian, Global Trade Atlas, The WVJ Spirits Business

Imports Year ended Jan 2016 Country

Bottled

Bulk

Import duties on table wine YE Jan 2016 import duties (million AUD)

Hypothetical import duties to be paid if not in a customs union with the UK (million AUD)

Australia

37.9

200.9

42.1

France

151.7

6.7

34.2

Italy

213.7

18.3

49.7

Spain

107.8

13.4

25.8

Chile

58.7

49.7

21.2

South Africa

29.6

76.7

16.2

19.4

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

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

Making $20 plus Sauvignon Blanc stand out from the multitudes below The first issue of the Wine & Viticulture Journal – then known as the Australian Wine Industry Journal – contained a varietal report on Sauvignon Blanc where it was noted, “The current interest in Sauvignon Blanc stems from the change in public taste from traditional white styles to more definite, distinctive styles, and from blended wines generally to ‘purer’ unblended styles.” The wineries featured in that report were Tisdale Wines, Cullens, Primo Estate, and De Bortoli Wines and set the tone for the multitude of varietal reports that the Journal would publish over the next 30 years and will continue to do so, giving readers an insight into how certain varietals are currently being made. This latest report features the producers of the two top Australian and top two New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs from our recent tasting of $20-plus Sauvignon Blancs from both sides of the Tasman. Darryl Caitlin, Winemaker Mark Vella, Viticulturist Sidewood Adelaide Hills, South Australia Wine: Sidewood 2015 Sauvignon Blanc (RRP A$20.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE This Sauvignon Blanc was made from two clones: F4V6 and I4V9. The vines, which were planted in the Sidewood estate vineyard in 2005, are 1.5 metres apart and the rows 2.4 metres apart, giving a vine density of 2778 vines per hectare. The vines are 380 metres above sea level in deep alluvial loam to medium clay loam soil. Rows run north to south and are watered via an automated drip irrigation system that is monitored on a daily basis for scheduling during the growing season. Moisture probes, a dig stick, shovel and visual assessments are used to maximise

the timing between the scheduling of irrigation applications. The majority of the scheduled irrigations take place during the night to maximise infiltration efficiencies and minimise evaporation. An automated overhead flipper system (Naan Dan) acts as frost control which is operated by two weather stations and protects the entire vineyard. The system automatically starts at 0.5°C and will continue to operate until the temperature reaches >0.9°C. The vines are trained to a VSP (vertical shoot positioning) with two sets of foliage wires used over three operational timings to optimise canopy size and orientation. Cane pruning is applied and early spring shoot removal carried out to reduce congestion and crowding of the crown. Removal of shoots along the vine cordon at 25cm shoot length is also performed to maximise vine uniformity

Darryl Catlin strolls through the Sidewood vineyard which contains two clones of Sauvignon Blanc, F4V6 and I4V9, which were planted in 2005.

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 2016

and manipulate the cropping level to our desired target production levels. Bunches are also removed at veraison to maximise uniformity, regulate bunch distribution and regulate bunch size. Because of the variation in bunch sizes due to the climatic conditions this operation can be completed several times in a growing season. The fertiliser program for this block of fruit starts with organic matter being returned to the vineyard by sheep that manicure 100% of the vineyard during the winter. Tissue analysis (petiole and leaf testing) is completed prior to flowering and visual assessments of leaf and canopy conditions are monitored for the entire growing season to ensure appropriate nutrition levels are maintained. Tasmanian Bull Kelp is applied by foliar application regularly to maintain a healthy and balanced canopy that can comfortably ripen the fruit. Macro and micro nutrients are

Sidewood winemaker Darryl Catlin. V31N3

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

also applied to supplement irrigation at key growth stages throughout the season (i.e. budburst, flowering, fruitset, verasion and post-harvest). The block is 100% machine picked. The entire vineyard is inspected on a daily basis leading up to harvest with the block for the 2015 vintage harvested over four different nights to optimise the harvest timing which directly affects fruit quality and flavour profiles. The harvest window for optimising the fruit quality and capturing the different flavour profiles was stretched over seven days allowing for the difference in soil types and pruning styles.

WINEMAKING

Flowstone winemaker Stuart Pym.

The 2015 Sauvignon Blanc was harvested between 2-5 March. The various sites provided flavours that ranged from citrus to passionfruit, nettle and beautiful natural acidity. The fruit was machine picked in the cool of the night to very early morning and transported direct to the winery. The grapes where picked by a Selectiv harvester and as a result had very low or no real MOG. The grapes where destemmed directly into an airbag press. Some SO2 was added directly to the must and again at the juice tray on the way to the tank. Pressing cuts was made on taste, but mainly came at 650 litres per tonne. One ferment was allowed to ferment wild before having yeast added while the other tank had QA23 added. The ferments lasted between three to five weeks. The ferment temperatures ranged between 13-15°C. Once fermentation finished, SO2 was added and the wine bentonite fined and cold stabilised. Our future approach to this wine is to refine our winemaking processes in terms of processing in an airless environment, experimentation with skin contact, and wild ferments, among other ideas. The vineyard is also a source of improvement and methods of harvesting and site will play an important role in the future.

in South Australia. This cornerstone SKU of the Sidewood range is quickly becoming a benchmark example of an Adelaide Hills Sauvignon Blanc in all domestic markets and is now setting foot in the Pacific region, being exported to the USA, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and China.

MARKETING The 2015 Sauvignon Blanc was simultaneously released to all states in the domestic market at the beginning of spring. Sales of this purely estate-grown wine have since grown month-on-month in both on-premise and independent offpremise markets. We have had especially pleasing sales in both Victoria and New South Wales as well as maintained success

V3 1N 3

Stuart Pym, Winemaker Flowstone Margaret River, Western Australia Wine: Flowstone 2014 Sauvignon Blanc (RRP $32.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE The grapes for this wine were purchased from a single vineyard in the southern climes of Margaret River. The locality is Karridale (don’t get mixed up with the proposed sub regions of Margaret River), and is probably the coolest region in Margaret River. It just scrapes in to being cool climate. It is a small vineyard run by two diligent and friendly local farmers. It is planted on a gentle westerly aspect, at the top of the hill. The soil is gravelly loam to about one metre. The vineyard was planted in the late 1990s with the standard clone of Sauvignon Blanc. The vine rows run north-south. The row and vine planting is 3.25m x 2m. The vineyard was originally set up to have the option of moving to a split canopy. Fortunately, we have moved on from that. The vines are now cane pruned to two cordons (each of about 12 buds), and VSP trellised. Shoot thinning is carried out, particularly in the crown, and done quite early in the season. No subsequent leaf removal is carried out. Shoot tipping is done twice per season.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

The spray regime primarily comprises sulfur and copper, with the occasional systemic spray. Irrigation can be necessary and depends on the stage of the vine and season, and weather patterns. Irrigation is not carried out as a matter of course. The water source is a nearby soak. Current vineyard practices are working well, so there is no view to changing them. General crop levels average about 7t/ha, although the last two years have been about 4-5t/ha. The 2014 yield was around 7.5t/ha. The fruit is hand picked. Harvest timing is based on flavours, sugar/acid balance, vine condition, and any significant impending weather events. The total Sauvignon Blanc harvest for Flowstone is 3-5 tonnes with the balance going to another local winery. The 2014 vintage in Margaret River was very good across the board.

WINEMAKING The goal is to make a Sauvignon Blanc of style and complexity - pretty much a paradigm shift from most in the general market. The notional model is wines from Sancerre or Pouilly Fume more than New World styles. I feel that there is plenty of merit in championing serious Sauvignon Blanc. The fruit is hand harvested in one pick (it is only 3-5 tonnes), stored cool overnight, and whole fruit pressed the next day. Pressing is in an airbag press, and a Champagne cycle is used. A pressings cut is made at about 550-600L/t. Acid is added if, and as, required. PMS is added to give 10ppm free. The juice is settled overnight at about 10°C and racked the following ▶ morning.

www.winetitles. com . au

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

The juice is racked to a solids level as determined by eye, and would be about 250-300ntu. The juice is racked directly to barrel. The barrels are a combination of old white barrels (older than seven years) and demi muids. I buy one demi muid a year, so progressively this percentage is increasing. All oak is French. The barrels are inoculated individually, and with three different yeast strains split between barrels. Fermentation temperature is capped at about 22-25°C. DAP is added following a drop of around 2Be. Once fermentation is complete, the barrels are sulfured up and topped. Subsequent battonage is occasional. The wine stays in barrel for about a year. During the subsequent vintage the barrels are blended and held in tank until the end of vintage, at which time the wine is prepared for bottling. Fining is with skim milk and isinglass, with the wine filtered once. Bentonite is added for protein stability. Bottling is done at a local contract bottling facility. The wines spends at least 18 months in bottle before being released.

MARKETING Flowstone is a very small wine business that operates out of the shed next to our house. We have two tiers of wines: the Flowstone wines, and the Flowstone Queen of the Earth wines. The Queen of the Earth wines are Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon only. All other wines, including the Sauvignon Blanc, are in the Flowstone range. The Sauvignon Blanc is bottled in a French green burgundy bottle, and carries the distinctive Flowstone label, made from 81% limestone, with the balance being bonding resin. This limestone label is a wonderful connection back to the caves of Margaret River where the flowstones occur, and to a core part of the region’s geography. This wine has had some very good media reviews (including Halliday’s Best Sauvignon Blanc, 2015; and in Halliday’s Top 100 in 2015 and 2016), which has helped it find some marketplace awareness. One line from a particular journalist rings true for this one, “...unlike any other Sauvignon Blanc in Australia”. The wine is available in Western Australia and distributed sparingly in the eastern states. It carries a good split

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

between on-premise and retail. There is no distribution in South Australia or Tasmania. It is not exported. The wine is also available via the Flowstone website. Jamie Marfell, Winemaker Stoneleight Wines Marlborough, New Zealand Wine: Stoneleigh 2015 Rapaura Series Sauvignon Blanc (RRP: A$28.99/bottle)

VITICULTURE Fruit for this wine is sourced from the Stoneleigh Vineyard in the Rapaura region of Marlborough. The Rapaura sub-region sits on the northern side of the Wairau Valley at the base of the Richmond Ranges. The ranges run the entire length of the valley with peaks reaching to more than 1700m. The Stoneleigh Vineyard is located approximately 3.5km from the base of the Richmond Ranges and around 13km from the coast. The vineyard is two to three metres above a floodplain and has a gentle undulation (0-3°) west to east. The Richmond Ranges create a rain shadow for most of the Wairau Valley, catching the prevailing rain from the northwest. Rapaura’s close proximity to the ranges means it receives more rain than the rest of the valley, as rain not caught falls at the base of the ranges. The location of Rapaura, at the base of the mountains and at the end of the longer Wairau Valley, also tends to create a windtunnel effect through the vineyards. This both helps and hinders grape development. The strong, hot winds have a devigorating effect on the vines, putting more stress on the vines and reducing growth. This can work in the winemakers’ favour with the vines putting more resources (and therefore more flavours) into the grapes. The winds also have a drying effect, reducing the risk of disease and mould on grapes. Compared with the wider Marlborough growing region, the Stoneleigh vineyard has: • higher rainfall, meaning more consistent growth during the crucial growing season • lower diurnal temperature range, resulting in more balance between sugars and acids leading to softer, more rounded wines • lower risk of frost, allowing for more

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

Stoneleight Wines winemaker Jamie Marfell. consistent harvests and less risk of fruit loss. The Rapaura Series wines are named for the soil series in which the vines grow which is characterised by a high number of stones left behind from glacial outwash. The high concentration of stones in the Rapaura vineyards impact winegrowing in a number of ways: • drainage – the soil is free-draining which minimises root rot and disease in the vineyards • low nutrient level - the high number of stones reduces the amount of nutrientproviding soil, leading to smaller vines with more concentrated flavour • vineyard temperature - the high concentration of stones on the surface of the vineyards act as a heating mechanism for the grapes. In the day they reflect heat into the grapes as well as store heat that is released during the cool evenings. This process, known as thermal mass, reduces the diurnal temperature in the vineyards and this affects the flavours and aromas developed in the grapes. A unique feature of our vineyards is the complex braiding of trenches containing more fertile soils. For viticulturists, this means the soil can vary within a single row from stony gravel to deep, fertile silts which makes it essential to know the vineyards intimately. The climatic conditions of the 2015 Marlborough growing season (Oct-Apr) were (number in brackets is long-term average):

V31N3

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

sugar, aiming for an alcohol of 13-13.5%. The wine was held cold until blending. At blending we look for the oak cuve component to make up 60% of the blend with the aim of achieving a textural element with no obvious oak nuisances. The wine spent two months on lees prior to blending. The blend was protein and cold stabilised prior to being crossflow filtered and bottled. No fining agents other than bentonite were used. In the future we are looking to introduce greater use of old large format oak to add textural complexities and weight to our premium range, without losing the inherent fruit intensity you get from Marlborough

MARKETING An example of the high concentration of stones in the Stoneleigh vineyard at Rapaura in New Zealand’s Marlborough region. The stones provide a free-draining soil that minimises root rot and disease, reduce the amount of nutrient-providing soil, leading to smaller vines with more concentrated flavour, and act as a heating mechanism for the grapes by reflecting heat into the grapes and storing heat for release during cool nights. Growing degree days: 1290°C (1224°C) Rainfall: 180mm (343mm) Mean max. temperature: 21.6°C (20.9C) Mean min. temperature: 10.5°C (10.3C) These Sauvignon Blanc vines were mainly mass selected and planted on a mix of three rootstocks: 101-14, 3309 and SO4. The vines range in age from five to 35 years old. Rows are 2.75m apart and vines 1.8m apart and set up as a two-cane VSP trellis. While the vines are predominantly grown on a two-cane VSP, there are also two blocks of two-cane spur-pruned vines. The vines are mechanically leaf plucked to give 60% fruit exposure and drip irrigated. The volume of water applied is dependent on the soil type. There are soil moisture probes throughout the vineyard that allow the correct volume of water to be applied for the soil and weather conditions. The water is sourced from aquifers. A permanent sward of volunteer plant species is grown in the inter-row. Due to the stony ground cover crops are not used. The vines are pruned to two and three cane VSP to give 24 to 36 buds. These are hand cut, stripped out with a mechanical stripper and tied down by hand. The vines do not suffer any significant issues with disease. The wind tunnel effect of the valley reduces disease and mould risk. However, high bird pressure

V3 1N 3

means overhead multi-row nets are used to lock the birds out to reduce bird damage. The main qualities we look for at harvest are good fruit integrity; intense, ripe flavours; and good acid/sugar balance. Malic acid and sugar levels are monitored throughout the ripening period. The maturity analysis of the 2015 fruit at harvest: Brix 22.6° T/A 8.8g/l pH 3.19 Malic acid approx. 5g/L The Sauvignon Blanc is cropped at 8-12t/ha.

WINEMAKING Grapes for this wine were harvested on the 26 March 2015 and crushed to bag presses. The grapes were pressed to one tank, taking no press cuts. Juice SO2 was maintained at 20-30ppm free. The juice was centrifuged as soon as possible to an NTU specification of 150-200 into a selection of small tanks and large format old oak cuves. The different small parcels of juice were then inoculated with a selection of yeasts (QA23, X5 and PDMs). Ferments were kicked off warm and then cooled to maintain 1 -2 Brix/day. All the ferments were stopped at 3.5-4.5g/L

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

The wine is mainly sold in the onpremise channel as well as some key prestige bottleshops in Australia. The marketing is minimal and the wine is served by the overall support we provide to the range (Stoneleigh Classic and Stoneleigh Wild Valley). Matt Patterson-Green, Head Winemaker Geoff Woolcombe, Viticulturist Jackson Estate Marlborough, New Zealand Wine: Jackson Estate 2012 Grey Ghost Barrique Fermented Sauvignon Blanc (RRP A$32.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE The Jackson Estate 2012 Grey Ghost Barrique Fermented Sauvignon Blanc is an estate-grown, single-vineyard wine. The vineyard is located in the Central Wairau Valley, in Marlborough, New Zealand. The site is flat, located 23m above sea level and has minimal frost risk. Vine rows are in a north-south orientation and planted in silt loam over river gravels. The average rainfall for the area is 390mm with the average growing degree days from the beginning of September to the end of April totalling 1245. Prevailing winds are from the north-west; Marlborough can be a windy place in the spring and summer. The vines are 22 years old, clone MS on 3309 rootstocks. They were planted at a density of 1852 vines per hectare from a vine and row spacing of 1.8m x3m, respectively. Trained to a VSP system, the vines are hand pruned with three canes ▶ laid down to give 45-50 buds.

www.winetitles. com . au

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

Matt Patterson-Green, head winemaker, and Geoff Woollcombe, viticulturist, for Jackson Estate. Machine leaf plucking is carried out post-flowering and again when berries are pea sized. An average yield is 6.7kg per vine. Irrigation water is supplied from the Wairau aquifer via drip lines and is provided when soil moisture monitoring indicates that it is needed. A permanent multispecies sward is maintained between rows along with a narrow under-vine herbicide strip. Fertiliser applications are made based on the outcome of soil samples taken in May and petiole samples at flowering. Botrytis can be a concern depending on the season along with powdery mildew over the warmer summer months.

WINEMAKING The Grey Ghost is a wine that has slowly evolved over time. Originally, we wanted to make a wine that showcased the terroir and old vines of the vineyard but with a winemaker’s twist. This as resulted in a wine that highlights not only the primary fruit characteristics of a Marlborough-style Sauvignon Blanc, but also emphasises the complexity that older Sauvignon Blanc vines can produce, revealing a lift to the usually masked secondary and tertiary characters of the variety. The fruit is typically picked early at a Brix of around 21-21.5, and is 100% hand harvested over the course of two separate picks usually a week apart. Harvesting is done in the hours just after sunrise to make the most of the cooler morning temperatures. Picked into 400kg bins the fruit is transported to the winery where it is weighed and then whole bunches loaded via elevator into a closed tank press. Pressed out using a cremant cycle

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

The Jackson Estate vineyard in the Central Wairau Valley of Marlborough, New Zealand.

program the pressing is slow and long. A press cut is made to taste and inevitably ends up being at around the 650L/t mark. The press is stopped at this point with no pressings kept. During the course of pressing minimal SO2 is added at the juice tray prior to transferring to the settling tank. Juice is allowed to settle at 10°C for no more than 24hrs before 60% of the total pressed volume is transferred to six year and older French barriques for ferment. The balance of the tank is rough racked to a stainless steel tank taking all but the heaviest of settled lees. Both barrel and tank portions have base nutrition added at this point to support a wild primary fermentation. It usually takes up to seven days for the batches to kick but once under way temperatures are lightly regulated. Barrels ferment at around 20°C with the tank modulated to no lower than 15°C. If required additional supplementation is added. At the completion of primary fermentation both batches are allowed to sit on gross lees for up to six months. Regular stirring by way of twice weekly battonage or floor sweeping ensures that lees are kept suspended in tank and barrel to build complexity. Depending on analysis a portion or all of the barrels will be allowed to go through malolactic fermentation to soften Marlborough’s traditionally bright acidity. Generally, the Grey Ghost is a full 1gm/L to 1.5gm/L lower than a more traditional style Marlborough Sauvignon. Sulfuring on lees will be done once malolactic fermentation has reached a level that has softened the wine sufficiently. Total time in barrel is around nine

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

months; the wines are then tasted, racked and blended in tank prior to fining trials and stabilisation. The 2012 Grey Ghost received very light skim milk fining, followed by 1.5g/L NaCalite Bento and 1g/L COT. Post stability the wine is crossflow filtered, adjusted and prepared for bottling. We tend to hold the wine in bottle for a further year to year-and-half prior to release to allow it to settle down and get a little bottle age. Looking back, the way this wine has been made has slowly evolved and changed, not a lot, but enough to be noticeable. The percentage of oak used, the amount of malolactic fermentation allowed, fining and time in bottle are all things that have slowly changed.

MARKETING The Grey Ghost is a very important part of our portfolio. Made in very limited volumes, barrel and wild ferment characters and bottle ageing gives us a Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc with a point of difference. We added ‘Barrique’ to the label from the 2011 vintage to help differentiate the Grey Ghost style from our main Stich Sauvignon Blanc which is a stainless steel fermented wine with light lees ageing. Many of our distributors were looking for a Sauvignon Blanc that was “just not typical”. It is a hand sell as it needs the winemaking story told for a consumer to understand why it is what it is. But for a restaurant looking for a wine that matches seafood, poultry and varied spiced foods it’s become rather popular. It is sold internationally in Hong Kong, Finland, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. WVJ

V31N3

TASTING NOTES

What’s special about $20+ Australian and New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc? By Sonya Logan

The very first varietal report published in the Wine Industry Journal in its May 1986 launch issue featured Sauvignon Blanc. To mark this focus on what would become Australia’s biggest selling white wine just over 20 years later, we decided to invite producers of Sauvignon Blancs from both sides of the Tasman to see how some of the offerings in the A$20+ category stacked up against each other. “…whether it is worth pitchIng one’s lot in and planting to Sauvignon Blanc are not questions that can be answered now, but it is evident…that Sauvignon Blanc has a future as a specialised wine on the Australian market.”

hoever wrote this introduction to the first varietal report to be published in the Australian Wine Industry Journal in its inaugural May 1986 issue probably couldn’t have predicted the varietal would knock off Chardonnay’s 20-year reign to become Australia’s highest selling white wine just over two decades later. Much less that Sauvignon Blanc from New Zealand would make up the lion’s share of these sales. With Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc still the number one selling white wine in Australia, we decided a trans-Tasman comparison was needed, but not of the under $20 category that dominates sales, but in the above $20 offering, to get a snapshot of what producers in both countries are making for those who care to spend that little bit more for their drink. Our invitation to producers to submit wines to our blind tasting resulted in 34 wines being received – 22 from Australia and 12 from New Zealand. Having held a tasting specifically of Fume Blancs for our September-October 2014 issue, it was intended to set aside these styles for this tasting. However, our tasting proved they are lurking in the over $20 category although not labelled as such (one, however, was - the 2015 Singlefile Fume Blanc). “Several of the wines were arguably Fumes,” said tasting panellist Peter Leske, of Revenir and La Linea, who was joined on the panel by Elena Brooks, winemaker for Dandelion Vineyards and Heirloom Vineyards; Darryl Catlin, winery manager for Sidewood; and Charlotte Hardy, Wine Architect. “While we beat ourselves up about the stylistic differences between Pinot Gris and Grigio, we could be equally critical of ourselves about Fume Blanc and regular Sauvignon Blanc,” Peter said. Before our tasting panel began sampling the wines, I asked them about their expectations for what lay before them. One was that the New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs would be obvious for their overt characters – several of the Aussie entries were found to exhibit similar overtness. The second was that given the multitude of offerings in the sub-$20 category, those in the tasting had to offer something extra – yet very few of the wines were deemed to hit the grade. And the third was that some of the Australian wines would show evidence of earlier picking to closer resemble New Zealand styles – this was also largely unrealised. “If these wines are priced at over $20 then they should be better than what’s on offer for less than $20. If they’re not more complex, why would I spend $20 or more when I can get something similar for $12.00? They’ve got to have more complexity or intensity or

V3 1N 3

Our tasting panellists (from left) Elena Brooks, winemaker, Dandelion Vineyards/Heirloom Vineyards; Darryl Catlin, winery manager, Sidewood; Charlotte Hardy, Wine Architect; and Peter Leske, Revenir/La Linea. balance; something to set them apart because if they don’t there’s a bucketload of wine out there for a whole lot less,” Peter said. “I was looking for the reason for these wines to be on the bench because of their pricing. In some cases that was pretty obvious – whether I like them is another story. But for many I just didn’t see the point. If this was just a Sauvignon Blanc tasting I would have had a different approach to it.” “We made the comment before we started the tasting that we would probably detect that wineries were picking earlier – we didn’t see that. Does that mean we regard Sauvignon Blanc as such a commodity that we are treating it so badly?” Charlotte questioned. Darryl suggested the difficulty in selling Sauvignon Blanc for more than $20 when there are so many on offer for less money was the likely reason why wineries were treating their more expensive offerings “badly”. While Peter said it was hard to make “genuinely complex wines out of grapes and yeast”, notwithstanding the two can produce very pretty wines, Darryl argued the lack of complexity in many of the wines in the tasting was a reflection of the viticulture applied to the fruit. “How much Sauvignon Blanc are you aware of that is cropped at less than 12t/ha and the viticulture is carried out in such a way to produce A-grade fruit? Very few. But if you hand pick it and look after the vineyard and pick your site – we talk about the importance of site with Pinot and Shiraz but we rarely talk about it or managing cropload or any of those things with Sauvignon Blanc,” Darryl said. Although agreeing there weren’t any “real stars” in the line-up, the panel deemed the following wines the best: 2015 Sidewood Sauvignon Blanc, 2014 Flowstone Sauvignon Blanc, and 2015 Stoneleigh Rapaura Series Sauvignon Blanc with not much separating Jackson Estate’s 2015 Stich and 2012 Grey Ghost Barriques Sauvignon Blancs.

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

TASTING NOTES

SIDEWOOD ESTATE 2015 SAUVIGNON BLANC Adelaide Hills, South Australia 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle Best of the Aussies: Pale straw in colour with a slight green hue. Powerful, very Sauvignon Blanc-like nose with tropical, lantana, grass, basil, apricot, geranium, coriander, capsicum, green pea and citrus characters with a hint of sweetness. Palate is soft and flavoursome with good consistency between the nose and palate. Tight acid structure and well-judged residual sugar. Characters of grass, fresh cut hay, corn, peas and hints of apricot. Well-balanced, well-made. Touch of sweetness on the mid to end-palate.

FLOWSTONE 2014 SAUVIGNON BLANC Margaret River, Western Australia 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$32.00/bottle Best of the Aussies: Pale straw gold in colour which is bright and clear. A genuinely complex nose that is flinty and yeasty with a touch of oak; apricot, nectarine, lemon, tropical, lantana and almond characters also evident. Palate has good balance and length and a lovely mouthfeel. Toast, tobacco, yeast, tropical, apricot, almond kernel, vanilla and flinty notes apparent; good complexity and interest, fine and dry, with texture at the end. “It’s holding up very well,” noted one taster. “This wine delivers for a $20+ Sauvignon Blanc,” said another.

STONELEIGH 2015 RAPAURA SERIES SINGLE VINEYARD SAUVIGNON BLANC Marlborough, New Zealand 13.1%v/v - screwcap RRP$28.99/bottle Best of the Kiwis: Bright and clear colour of pale straw. Ripe, green, simple but attractive nose featuring peas, corn, fresh herbs, straw, tropical and floral notes. Palate is well-balanced and zesty; characters of tropical fruits including guava, pineapple and lychee; basil, peas and grass also evident. Good length and weight. “Lots of lovely Sauvignon Blanc characters,” said one taster, “but could do with some more interest.”

JACKSON ESTATE 2012 GREY GHOST BARRIQUES Marlborough, New Zealand 13.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle Best of the Kiwis: Deep straw in colour. Aged greens with a touch of pyrethrum, smoke and sweetness on the distinctive Sauvignon Blanc nose; creamy edge. Well-balanced and complex palate which has good flavour and length; almond and nutmeg present along with some very subtle apricot.

DOMAINE A 2015 STONEY VINEYARD SAUVIGNON BLANC Coal River Valley, Tasmania 15.0%v/v – cork RRP$34.10/bottle Almost golden in colour. Quite an attractive nose featuring ripe sweet fruit and a little bit of honeysuckle. Honeysuckle continues onto the palate which is forward and a little neutral; cut grass and sweet almond notes also evident. Some texture present, perhaps suggesting the use of pressings; strong phenolics but lacks some acid; slightly bitter, broad and alcoholic. One taster thought the wine had a natural ferment character.

KARRI BINDI 2015 SAUVIGNON BLANC Margaret River, Western Australia 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle Bright colour of pale straw with a green tinge. Herbaceous nose with some gooseberry; slightly salty and flinty. Palate is also bright with firm steely acid and good breadth throughout. Appealing layered texture. pH and TA a little high. “Strong varietal characters but the palate is a little too tight,” noted one taster.

WE BRING TOGETHER TA

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 2016

V31N3

TASTING NOTES

SOUMAH 2015 SINGLE VINEYARD SAUVIGNON BLANC

HANGING ROCK 2015 JIM JIM SAUVIGNON BLANC

STEFANO LUBIANA 2015 BIODYNAMIC SAUVIGNON BLANC

Yarra Valley, Victoria 12.7%v/v – screwcap RRP$25-26.00/ bottle

Macedon Ranges, Victoria 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle

Tasmania 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle (cellar door)

Bright green in colour. Slightly reductive nose at first followed by strong varietal characters of gooseberry, cut grass and faint florals. “Almost Riesling-esque nose,” noted one taster. Nice zip and tang on the palate to begin with but the sugar sticks out a little. Some oak influence evident. Somewhat sweet and sour.

Clear straw yellow. Vegetal and herbaceous nose with some goat’s cheese and a sulfur lift. Palate delivers a mouthful of flavour and tight acid with some corn, flint, herbs and some marzipan in the middle. Mouthwatering acidity. Sulfur also evident on the palate. “A dividing wine,” noted one taster. “An interesting wine; if I was going to spend more than $20 this wine is going to reward me with some intrigue,” said another.

Pale straw in colour with a golden hue. Ripe and complex nose with a slight attenuated ferment character along with some nettle, lemon curd, lime and gooseberry. Medium intensity palate which has some obvious Sauvignon Blanc characters; good poise and balance. Well-balanced acid structure with a lime finish and mouthfilling weight. Two of the tasters agreed it was a nice wine but needed to offer more for the price.

MAIN & CHERRY 2015 SAUVIGNON BLANC Adelaide Hills, South Australia 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle Clear and bright colour of pale straw. A reductive nose with some straw and tobacco. Relatively plain, broad and flat palate with a phenolic edge; evidence that the wine has been worked but lacks some interest; slightly hot finish. “The makers of this wine appear to have tried something different but lacked the fruit,” one taster noted.

D’ARENBERG 2015 THE BROKEN FISHPLATE SAUVIGNON BLANC McLaren Vale, South Australia 12.1%v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle Pale straw in colour. Powerful green bean character on the nose which is very Sauvignon Blanclike; capsicum, asparagus and lantana also evident. Balanced palate that is distinctively Sauvignon Blanc featuring herbaceous and tropical characters as well as some residual sugar; good length with lingering acid. “This wine screams Sauvignon Blanc,” said one taster, “but a little straightforward.”

PENNY’S HILL 2015 THE AGREEMENT SINGLE VINEYARD ADELAIDE HILLS SAUVIGNON BLANC

WANGOLINA 2015 SAUVIGNON BLANC

McLaren Vale, South Australia 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$22.50/bottle

Pale straw in colour with a slight golden hue. Obvious Sauvignon Blanc nose featuring sweet, tropical, lantana, and gooseberry characters. Good depth of flavour on the slightly talcy and broad palate which has good length. Hay and cut grass throughout with a lasting flavour of lychee. Fine phenolics. Good balance of acid and sugar. Alcohol contributes a richness that is just acceptable. “Straighforward but generous palate that is balanced,” said one taster. “Just a little clumsy on the palate,” said another.

Pale straw in colour. Low intensity nose of green herbs, grass, fresh cut hay and a touch of citrus. Nice mouthfeel on the well-balanced palate which follows a citrus path. Seems to lack power initially but did build the more it was tasted. Good length with good midpalate weight which finishes with an alluring sweetness. “Good wine but slightly benign,” said one taster.

Limestone Coast, South Australia 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle

ALENTED AUSSIE & NZ WINE GROWERS WITH OUR WINE LOVERS.

V3 1N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

TASTING NOTES

HAHNDORF HILL 2015 SAUVIGNON BLANC Adelaide Hills, South Australia 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$23.00/bottle (cellar door) Pale straw in colour. Subtle nose initially but opened up with time. Distinct lemon and lime aromas, as well as some apricot, quince, feijoa and straw; slight vegetal lift; slightly elevated sulfur. Nettles, hay and a slight hint of green peas on the full-flavoured palate which is relatively ripe but has some fresh, well-balanced and lingering acid. Powerful mouthfeel with some alcohol hotness but it’s in balance. Slightly broad, sweet almond finish.

DANDELION 2015 WISHING CLOCK SAUVIGNON BLANC

HEIRLOOM VINEYARDS 2015 SAUVIGNON BLANC

ROSS HILL 2015 PINNACLE SAUVIGNON BLANC

Adelaide Hills, South Australia 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$27.50/bottle

Adelaide Hills, South Australia 12.5% v/v screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle

Orange, New South Wales 12.3%v/v – screwcap RRP$30.40/bottle

Pale straw in colour. Seductive and slightly oxidative nose featuring ripe and green characters as well as pyrethrum, rice paper, toffee, dried apricots, honeysuckle, quince and tropical fruit. A distinct acid line on the palate which has a good mixture of green and riper flavours. Sweet palate but isn’t cloying. Apricot, nectarine and hay characters evident. Clean and long. Back palate has a slight oxidative character to it.

Pale straw in colour with a brown tinge. Slightly forward nose with green banana, herbs, coriander, feijoa and some guava; elevated sulfur; some oxidation evident. Palate is dry, crisp and tight with good texture and fresh, lingering acid; fruit is fading.

Pale straw in colour. Characters of amaretto liquer, almond and marzipan on the nose with faint herbs and nettle hidden behind; a slight bacterial note. Mealy yet fine, tight palate. Bread, apricot and a slight oystershell character on the palate with lemon on the back palate. Good length. Slightly oxidative and elevated sulfur. “Not my preferred flavours but very well done; an interesting wine for the price bracket,” one taster noted.

WHICHER RIDGE 2015 SAUVIGNON BLANC Geographe, Western Australia 12.8%v/v – screwcap RRP$26.50/bottle Straw in colour. Almond kernel, strong oak and some bacon and stonefruits on the nose; a smoky character also apparent. Palate is also a little smoky and features almond, nectarine, sea water, brioche, and aged marzipan. “Interesting layered palate that isn’t fruit forward but is well-balanced,” said one taster.

BRANCOTT ESTATE 2015 LETTER SERIES B SAUVIGNON BLANC Marlborough, New Zealand 14.4% v/v – screwcap RRP$27.99/bottle Bright straw in colour. Geranium, capsicum, lemon, lime, rice paper, green tea, sulfide and almond meal aromas on the powerful and very appealing nose. Big, ripe, complex, pure, refreshing and long-lasting palate which is well-balanced and not overtly sweet or acidic. Slight oxidative characters. Lime and grapefruit apparent with hints of subtle apricot. “A crowd pleaser,” noted one taster.

STONELEIGH 2015 WILD VALLEY SAUVIGNON BLANC Marlborough New Zealand 13.0% v/v screwcap RRP$21.99/bottle Pale green straw in colour. Lemon sherbet and peach on the green yet ripe nose which is oaky and attenuated. Hints of a stuck ferment on the palate which has distinct characters of guava, grass and tropical fruits. Apricot and almond also apparent. High acid. “Mid-palate is too sweet, sugar is too cloying,” said one taster. “Misses the front palate – all back palate,” said another, adding “good phenolics”.

WE BRING TOGETHER TA

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 2016

V31N3

TASTING NOTES

VILLA MARIA 2015 RESERVE WAIRAU VALLEY SAUVIGON BLANC Marlborough, New Zealand 13.0% v/v screwcap RRP$35.00/bottle Straw in colour. Lantana, nettles, gooseberry and straw on the nose which has a touch of development. Palate is tight, fresh, dry, fine, full and reasonably well-balanced featuring lemon, floral, gooseberry, rockmelon and basil characters. Bit of sweetness; fruit is fading. “Would definitely appeal to the masses,” said one taster.

VILLA MARIA 2015 CELLAR SELECTION SAUVIGNON BLANC

MOUNT DIFFICULTY 2015 SAUVIGNON BLANC

Marlborough, New Zealand 13.0% v/v screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle

Central Otago, New Zealand 14.5% v/v screwcap RRP$27.99/bottle

Clear and bright colour of deep straw. Tropical, aged greens, green tea and apricot kernel characters on the nose with slight coriander, gooseberry and lanolin notes; elevated sulfur. Well-balanced palate with good length and acid and oodles of flavour. Typical Sauvignon Blanc characters of gooseberry, apricot, nectarine and almond. “I feel like I want another glass,” said one taster, “and I like that.” “A nice drink but a little non-descript,” said another.

Bright and clear pale straw in colour. Leafy capsicum, flint, tobacco and fume characters on the nose as well as green banana and lemon. Mineral palate with fruit sweetness that dominates; some bitter lemon on the back palate. One taster thought the wine was oxidised. “Nice palate but a bit disjointed and unbalanced,” noted one taster. “A confronting wine, but a wine that I would be intrigued enough to drink initially for the money.”

TAMAR RIDGE 2015 SAUVIGNON BLANC Tasmania 13.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$28.00/bottle Pale straw in colour. Fresh and greenish nose featuring characters of lantana, fennel, grass, gooseberry, tobacco and lots of SO2. Palate is balanced with a tight and zesty front palate and good flavour on the mid-palate; finishes clean with a slightly smoky note. Palate features gooseberries, lemons and limes, and some fairyfloss.

BELLBRAE ESTATE 2014 SOUTHSIDE SAUVIGNON BLANC

JACKSON ESTATE 2015 STICH SAUVIGNON BLANC

Geelong, Victoria 12.5% v/v screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle

Marlborough, New Zealand 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle

Bright and clear straw yellow in colour. Nutty, creamy, toasty nose with ginger, honeysuckle, pineapple, bananary-oak, spicy and some developed characters; elevated sulfur. Candied ginger and apricot on the palate which is too oaky and aged for a 2014 vintage wine; good acid but displays lanolin.

Pale straw in colour. Pretty nose featuring aromas of tropical fruits, apricot, honeysuckle, and jasmine with a golden syrup edge; leesy characters also apparent that follow through to the palate. Delicate, pretty and beautifully balanced/ weighted palate with hints of bush honey and dried apricots. Tight, strong acid with good fruit and phenolic grip; slightly sour. “Lots of everything but mercifully dry; I expected it to finish sweet,” said one taster.

MOUNT LOFTY RANGES 2015 OLD CHERRY BLOCK SAUVIGNON BLANC Adelaide Hills, South Australia 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$22.00/bottle Bright straw in colour. Green and flinty palate with some tobacco, toast, musk, florals, tropical fruits, gooseberry and lantana characters and hints of fume. Slight smoke character on the palate which is balanced, generous and somewhat round, featuring some lantana and tropical fruits. Phenolic and fume finish. Slightly jarring.

ALENTED AUSSIE & NZ WINE GROWERS WITH OUR WINE LOVERS.

V3 1N 3

W I N E & V ITICULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

www.winetitles. com . au

TASTING NOTES

SHERWOOD ESTATE 2014 SIGNATURE FAMILY SAUVIGNON BLANC Marlborough, New Zealand 13.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$20.99/bottle Golden straw in colour. Powerful, aged nose of herbs, tropical fruits, currant leaf, gooseberries and a touch of sweatiness. Palate is sweet initially, fresh with a zesty spine of acid and ongoing fruit; good length and balance with some phenolic development.

TOI TOI 2014 MARLBOROUGH RESERVE SAUVIGNON BLANC Marlborough, New Zealand 13.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$22.99/bottle Pale straw in colour. Gooseberries, nettles, coriander and geranium on the nose. Strong palate with good length and balance and crisp acid featuring lemon, lime, vegetal and herbal characters. “Remarkably fresh,” noted one taster, adding, “Touch of sweetness which is acceptable.”

TOI TOI 2014 MARLBOROUGH BROOKDALE ORGANIC SAUVIGNON BLANC

SPY VALLEY 2014 ENVOY JOHNSON VINEYARD SAUVIGNON BLANC

Marlborough, New Zealand 13.0% v/v – screwcap RRP$24.95/bottle

Marlborough, New Zealand 14.0% v/v – screwcap RRP NZ$30.00/ bottle

Pale straw in colour. Aged nose of pyrethrum, lemon curd, biscuits and burnt mushroom butter with hints of marzipan and a creamy characters. High acid and excess sweetness on the palate which is sweet and sour, buttery, and oily; tight limey acidity.

Bright green/gold in colour with hints of green. Oaky and smoky nose with aged greens, florals, lemon and lime and almond meal characters; a Chablis style. Herbs, tropical fruits, citrus, cinnamon, nutmeg, toast and some sweetness upfront on the palate which has a sulfide edge, the only downside being a slight resinous character to the oak. Piercing acid that lingers in the mouth and makes you salivate. “Fabulous wine but not true to variety,” said one taster. “Needs food,” said another.

SINGLEFILE 2014 FUME SAUVIGNON BLANC Great Southern, Western Australia screwcap RRP$30.80/bottle Pale straw in colour. Lemon, lime, hazelnut, nutmeg and toast on the nose which is a little soapy and has a slight VA lift. Toast and oak on the palate which has a waxy feel. Hazelnut and nutmeg carry through to the palate where toast, lemon and lime is also evident; good mouthfeel with obvious oak; oily and viscous yet zesty.

WANGOLINA 2013 SINGLE VINEYARD SAUVINGON BLANC Mt Benson, South Australia 12.5% v/v – screwcap RRP$30.00/bottle Deep straw in colour. Seductive nose that is creamy, toasty and worked with characters of toffee. Honey and toast battle it out on the palate which is big and quite appealing with buttery, toffee, sweet fruit and praline characters also present. Drinking now. “Not Sauvignon Blanclike but delicious,” said one taster.

BANKS ROAD 2014 SAUVIGNON BLANC Geelong, Victoria 12.0% v/v screwcap RRP$23.18/bottle Bright and clear straw in colour. Orange blossom, apricot, jasmine, muscat and some lime on the nose which has elevated sulfur. Apricot, apple and orange blossom characters in the mouth where there is good texture; perhaps a little broad on the back palate. “Lovely, feminine and restrained – very Viognierlike,” noted one taster. “Not holding varietal character well,” said another.

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

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 2016

V31N3

GRAYSWINE, YOUR ONLINE SALES PARTNER

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

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

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

Micro Power Pack for Quantum Mist The new Micro Power Pack by Croplands (pictured) is a self-contained, independent oil supply, designed specifically to reduce reliance on tractor hydraulics. The system has taken three years for the Croplands R&D team to complete and holds a design registration. It was released last year exclusively to the New Zealand horticulture market with great results and is now also available in Australia. It is an optional feature for Croplands two and three-row Quantum Mist grape sprayers. This new and revolutionary design enables smaller tractors to power the Quantum Mist like never before. By only

carrying 20 litres of oil, the Micro Power Pack reduces the risk of oil spills and has a lesser impact on the environment. It is also a quieter, cooler and lighter running unit. It is also fitted with a low oil level cut out. This ensures that only 2L of oil can be spilled before the unit shuts down. The Micro Power Pack is PTO driven, mounted on a self steer drawbar and linked to the sprayer. It is suitable for 40-140 L/min oil flow, dependent on the pump size, which should be matched to the sprayer requirements.

For further information visit www. croplands.com.au

Wine labelling technology has changed but company values remain the same Thirty years ago, when the Wine & Viticulture Journal was born as the Australian Wine Industry Journal, wine label printing was very different compared with today’s technologies and range of innovations. What has remained constant is one company’s commitment to the values of quality, service and innovation. Collotype Labels was founded in 1903 in Adelaide, and with an unerring commitment to deliver world-best premium label solutions, the company evolved and grew over the decades. From humble beginnings the business is now the world’s largest printer of wine and

spirit labels, with sites across Australia, and operations in North America, UK, Continental Europe, Asia and South Africa. Now a global company, and sporting a new identity as Multi-Color, the business has never lost sight of its origins and values, and continues to deliver worldbest solutions to customers large and small. Driven by a consciousness that labels are an extension of the brand values of the client, Multi-Color is proud to support the wine community with solutions that help build brands and drive sales.

From regional artisans to global brands, Multi-Color has a suite of technologies, substrates, embellishments and market leading innovations to deliver the best value for quality across all mediums, to ensure that your label is a true reflection of your brand. And with production facilities in five sites, Multi-Color is perfectly positioned to support the diversity of the Australian and New Zealand wine community.

For further information visit www. mcclabel.com

Oenobrands unites dry yeast range under Fermivin For more than four decades, Oenobrands instant dry yeasts have been used by winemakers around the world. The yeasts have been marketed under a variety of names according to their specific use: Fermivin (for rapid and complete fermentation), Fermichamp (for restarting stuck fermentations), Fermirouge (for red wines), Fermiblanc Arom (for white wines), Fermicru (for improving aromatic potential) and Collection Cépage (for varietals). Oenobrands has decided to bring these various ranges together into one whole and comprehensive range as part of the umbrella brand Fermivin. The company says the launch of the Fermivin range is not simply a rebranding exercise. To develop the

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

range, Oenobrands conducted a full review of its offering, which includes yeast strains for a wide range of applications. The company reevaluated and tested each strain to specify its potential. Application tests also led to new positioning for rosés and sparkling wines. Aurélien Bastiani, brand manager of the Fermivin range, said, “We collected testimonials on the different strains from winemakers in each wine region around the world to ensure that our products provide them with targeted solutions for their needs. Oenobrands will continue to expand the range as it develops new fermentation solutions, supported by research from international institutes W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR NA L MAY/JUNE 2016

such as the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), the French Institute of Vineyards and Wine (IFV), the University of Chile, and many others. To make the new Fermivin range as clear as possible for winemakers, Oenobrands has named each specific product by its selection number and letters referring to its application. “As winemakers tend to refer to strains in the production process, these new names are more accessible and will facilitate which product to select and use,” Bastiani said. The 18 yeast strain products in the new Fermivin range are available from Oenobrands Australian distributor Vintessential Laboratories, www. vintessential.com.au V31N3

multifunction harvest, destem & sort

Returns on your investment all year round

pre-prune

precision prune

leaf remove

twin rear-mount tool attachment For more information contact: Pellenc Australia 14 Opala St, Regency Park SA 5010 P | 08 8244 7700 F | 08 8244 7788 E | admin@pellenc.com.au

www.pellenc.com.au

spray

Melbourne

Adelaide

New Zealand

EXCITING

NEW TECHNOLOGY

FROM

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

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

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