Wine & Viticulture Journal - January/February 2018

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2018 · Volume 33 Number 1

INDUSTRY SUSTAINABILITY • Soft power: Contemporary approaches to energy effiency • Putting winery waste to work - what does the latest research show?

• Pre-fermentation strategies for producing lower alcohol wines • The impact of organics & biodynamics on vines and wines - a 10 year study • Tasting: Organic white wine

New Bucher XPlus ICS Innovations for more efficiency Bucher ICS 12� Colour touch screen PLC for easier and better pressing and maintenance.

Smooth electropolished drains on swivel for easier cleaning and optimum hygiene.

100% Stainless Steel Chassis Improved resistance over time

Talk to your Bucher vaslin dealer today: SWAT Cowaramup WA Tel: +61 8 9296 6466

Wine Energy Adelaide SA, NSW and QLD Tel: +61 439 021 913

Vinvicta Melbourne VIC TAS Tel: +61 1300 360 353

Viniquip NZ Tel: +64 6 879 7799

Bucher Vaslin 49290 Chalonnes sur Loire Samuel Plumejeau - Regional Sales Manager - Tel: +61 427 655 800 samuel.plumejeau@buchervaslin.com

www.buchervaslin.com Your success is our priority

IN THIS ISSUE

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

C O NN ET W E N S T S

V I T I C U LT U R E

11 WFA (Tony Battaglene): Keep marketing standards high 12 ASVO (Anthony Robinson): Introducing the ASVO’s new president and board members

38 Integrated, organic and biodynamic viticulture: a comparative 10-year study

13 WINE AUSTRALIA (Rachel Triggs): It’s important to understand the rules for GIs

WINEMAKING

16 MARK O’CALLAGHAN: Soft power: contemporary approaches to energy efficiency and management 19 ERIKA SZYMANSKI: Wasting away: what does the latest research in disposing of an old problem reveal?

43 GiESCO international meeting: sustainable viticulture in climate change scenario 47 Longevity and sustained performance of rootstocks for Australian vineyards 52 Harvesting stormwater for irrigation at Seppeltsfield 55 ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES: Dolcetto

BUSINESS & MARKETING

57 MARK ROWLEY: Drop in global supply presents opportunities for Australian wine 59 Philanthropy in the wine industry: an exploratory study 22 Winery wastewater - finding the right balance 26 Water into wine: pre-fermenation strategies for producing lower alcohol wine 30 Fining during fermentation: focus on white and rosé.

Advantages of fining in must rather than wine on aroma and colour 34 AWRI REPORT: Influence of wine polysaccharides on white and red wine mouthfeel

V3 3N 1

61 Management and cyber liability insurance – can you afford to run your vineyard business without it?

WINE TASTING

68 Organic white wine

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

3

Old Media + New Media For 74% of Advertisers, It’s a Package Deal Let’s face it advertising media decisions are a constant challenge for SMEs, especially “new media” or digital options.

A USA local advertising survey shows 74% of advertisers believe combined digital and legacy media (TV, Radio and Press) works best. Only 3% of respondents surveyed said they are buying only digital media. *

So next time you are planning a new product or service marketing campaign, why not book the ideal Winetitles Media marketing mix PRINT + DIGITAL - with Australia’s leading wine industry journal Wine & Viticulture Journal, and the industry’s digital daily news digest Daily Wine News.

Marketing solutions in PRINT & ONLINE! Call us today for a PRINT + DIGITAL proposal that targets your market and best suits your budget.

Contact Paul Andrew on +61 3 9370 0040 or via email at wvjsales@winetitles.com.au

*Source: Borrell’s Annual Survey of local advertisers; April-June 2017

Established 1985 Published bi-monthly Publisher: Hartley Higgins

Sonya Logan, Editor

H

arvesters, tractors and picking buckets have begun their annual parade out into vineyards around Australia for vintage 2018, with the usual likely suspects from the Hunter Valley among those to lead the charge.

Pleasingly, there is talk of grape prices, particularly in the warm inland regions, continuing their upward trend of the last couple of years. The Riverland estimates the farmgate value for its 2018 winegrape crush will smash through the $150 million barrier for the first time in more than a decade. Over in the Murray Valley, an improvement in winegrape prices has also been recorded, with red grapes in particular climbing by around 20 percent, although Murray Valley Winegrowers reports some growers under long-term contracts are being offered less for their crops than elsewhere.

In this first issue of the Wine & Viticulture Journal to emerge for 2018, we pay tribute to long-time contributor Tony Keys, who sadly passed away on 1 January. I was pleased, albeit greatly saddened, to attend Tony’s pre-wake at Bangalow, near his home in Byron Bay, in late October to bid a personal adieu to the man and share Tony stories with his friends and family. I will miss him professionally and personally.

Tony was pleased to celebrate his 64th birthday in late September, outliving his father by a year, and I’ve no doubt the stubbornness and tenacity that he brought to his commentary of the wine industry ensured he made it into 2018 before finally shuffling of this mortal coil just an hour into it. See our tribute to Tony on page 8.

We published Tony’s last article in our 2017 May-June issue. He contributed

General Manager: Jo-anne Oertel

a column in almost every issue since 2004. Almost matching that longevity is Mark Rowley, who until recently was a senior analyst at Wine Australia. Mark has been writing articles for the Wine & Viticulture Journal, and its forerunners, Australian Viticulture and the Wine Industry Journal, since 2008. He first provided articles rich with stats on varietal plantings in Australia to pair with the varietal reports in Australian Viticulture. For the Wine Industry Journal, articles focussing on harvest and planting stats in specific Australian wine regions were where he started.

Since 2011, Mark has written regularly for the Wine & Viticulture Journal, drawing on stats to show trends in the areas of export markets, harvest data, consumption and wine packaging, to name a few. Mark has moved on from Wine Australia to other pastures. We wish him well and thank him for what he brought to the above publications, and look forward to his yet-to-be-name successor (at the time of writing) to continue his good work.

As is customary for the maiden publication of the Journal for the year, this January-February issue focusses on Industry Sustainability and to this end we have articles on saving energy in the winery (page 16), dealing with winery waste (page 19), the effect on wine quality of adding water to wine to reduce high alcohol levels (page 36), a comparison of integrated, organic and biodynamic vineyard management on vines and wine quality over 10 years (page 38) and the longevity and stability of rootstocks over several decades (page 47).

May vintage 2018 be fruitful and profitable.

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 Celia Barril Tony Battaglene Armando Corsi Andrew Cottell Johanna Döring Marc Dressler Peter Dry Sharon Forbes Richard Freebairn Matthias Friedel Armand Gilinsky Rosana Fuentes Fernández Julia Gouot Bruno Holzapfel Ashley Horner Dan Johnson Randolf Kauer Mitch Laginestra Steve Lubiana Michael McCarthy Georg Meißner Phil Nicholas Mark O’Callaghan Tim Pitt Anthony Robinson Mark Rowley Alana Seabrook Mark Skewes Jason Smith Rob Stevens Manfred Stoll Erika Szymanski Jessica Tan Rachel Triggs Teresa Trimboli Tertius van der Westhuizen Advertising Manager: Paul Andrew Ph (03) 9370 0040 Fax (08) 8369 9529 Email: wvjsales@winetitles.com.au Production and Design: Luke Westle Subscriptions One-year subscription (6 issues) Australia $77.00 (AUD) Two-year subscription (12 issues) Australia $144.00 (AUD) To subscribe and for overseas prices, visit: www.winetitles.com.au Published by Winetitles Media ABN 85 085 551 980 Address 630 Regency Road, Broadview, South Australia 5083

Telephone and Fax Ph (08) 8369 9500 Fax (08) 8369 9501

Email

General info@winetitles.com.au Editorial s.logan@winetitles.com.au Subscriptions subs@winetitles.com.au Advertising widsales@winetitles.com.au

Website

www.winetitles.com.au Printed by Lane Print, Adelaide, South Australia.

ISSN 1838-6547

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter!

Conditions

The opinions expressed in Wine & Viticulture 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.

www.facebook.com/WineAndVitiJournal @WineVitiJournal

All material in Wine & Viticulture Journal is copyright © Winetitles 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.

Cover: Ben Heide REGULAR FEATURES

NEWS 6 WFA 11 ASVO 12 WINE AUSTRALIA 14 PRACTICAL WINEMAKING 16

5 ww w.w i n eti tl es .c om.au

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, the publisher will not accept responsibility for errors or omissions, or for any consequences arising from reliance on information published.

AWRI REPORT 34 ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES 55 VARIETAL REPORT 64 TASTING 68

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E J O UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V 33N1

N E W S

S N I P S

AUSTRALIA TAKES CANADA TO WTO FOR CURBING WINE IMPORT SALES Australia has initiated a dispute settlement action with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against Canada over restrictions on the sale of imported wine in Canadian grocery stores, describing them as arbitrary, disadvantageous and inconsistent with Canada’s WTO obligations.

The dispute claims the Canadian government and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia apply a range of distribution, licensing and sales measures, including product mark-ups, market access and listing policies, as well as duties and taxes on wine, at the federal and provincial level that may discriminate, either directly or indirectly, against imported wine.

WFA chief executive Tony Battaglene said the action was the first formal step in seeking to resolve the long-standing Canadian measures. He told ABC News WFA had worked closely with the Australian Government for a couple of years to try and resolve the industry’s concerns bilaterally but without success.

“Wine sales in Canada are controlled by provincial liquor boards. In recent years, the liquor boards have introduced a number of measures that discriminate in favour of locally produced wine. We respect the Canadian wine industry, but we are seeking a level playing field to ensure we can maximise our opportunities in this key market.”

He said the measures were negatively impacting trade with Canada - Australia’s fourth largest export market for wine, currently valued at $A193 million.

“This action is critical, as the United States were also negotiating a settlement under NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement) which could have provided them with preferential access to the Canadian market in line with that provided to the domestic industry,” Battaglene said.

WFA WELCOMES NEW TRADE DEAL The Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA) has welcomed the news the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) will be signed in Chile in March.

Eleven nations agreed to sign the deal after two days of high-level talks in Tokyo in late January: Australia, New Zealand,

6

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

Canada, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and Vietnam.

“This agreement will provide real benefits to the Australian wine sector,” said WFA chief executive Tony Battaglene.

“It will address tariffs as well as non-tariff trade barriers across a range of key and emerging export markets for wine which will be welcomed by winemakers across the country.

Our understanding is that the new CPTPP’s tariff schedule will echo the earlier TPP draft and represents a leap forward for strong export growth and trade liberalisation,” he said.

“Also of great importance to us is the inclusion of the wine and spirit annex which creates a harmonisation framework that will remove a range of wine technical barriers to trade.”

Under the CPTPP, the Australian wine industry expects to see elimination of the following wine tariffs in: Mexico (between 3 to 10 years); Canada (upon entry into force); Peru (within 5 years); Malaysia (within 15 years); and Vietnam (within 11 years).

Battaglene confirmed WFA’s dispute settlement action against Canada through the World Trade Organisation (see above) would not affected by the signing of the CPTPP as “provincial issues of concern are not covered by the agreement”.

OZ WINE EXPORTS REACH POST-GFC HIGH Australian wine exports increased 15 percent to $2.56 billion in the 12 months ending December 2017, the highest annual growth rate since 2004, according to the latest stats released by Wine Australia.

It was also a record-breaking year for volume, with exports growing 8% to 811 million litres, a calendar year high.

Wine Australia chief executive Andreas Clark said the sector also achieved a 7% increase in average value per litre free on board (FOB) to $3.16, the highest level since 2009.

“Growing demand for premium Australian wine, particularly in Northeast Asia, increased the value of bottled wine exports by 17% to $2.1 billion, while the average price per litre for bottled wine grew by 3% to a record $5.63,”Clark said.

He said it was notable that exports of wines priced above $10 per litre grew by 29% to a record $738 million.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

GUIDELINES FOR WINE EXPORT GRANTS NOW AVAILABLE The guidelines for the $50m Export and Regional Wine Support Package Wine Export Grants has been released by the Federal Government.

Applications for the grants opened on 2 January, with a total of $1 million of funding available to small and medium wine businesses for reimbursement of specific export promotion expenses incurred on or after 1 January 2018.

Claim can be made for up to A$25,000 for 50 percent of eligible expenses spent on the promotion of wine for export to China, Hong Kong, Macau and/or the USA. The grants will be accessed on a first come, first served basis.

More information about the Wine Export Grants is available at erwsp. wineaustralia.com WINE AUSTRALIA AND CSIRO SIGN $37M INVESTMENT AGREEMENT A five-year, $37 million co-investment agreement has been signed between Wine Australia and the CSIRO. The agreement, which will run from 2017 to 2022, allows for longer-term strategic investments between the two partners. It is the second agreement in a series of bilateral partnerships between Wine Australia and major research institutions, the first being with the Australian Wine Research Institute, under a new research and development funding framework that aims to allow research partners to be better able to make strategic investments and plan for the future, maintain technical capabilities in key areas, and have greater flexibility to pursue promising research results within an overall agreed framework.

Research addressed under the CSIRO agreement include: • developing and evaluating new winegrape varieties with robust disease resistance • breeding new rootstocks with greater tolerance to pests, salinity, heat and water stress • producing wines with unique flavours from grape varieties bred specifically for Australian conditions • developing new strategies to manage harvest timing and alleviate compressed ripening and harvest windows caused by climate change

V33N1

N E W S

VALE DRAYTON, HICKINBOTHAM AND KEYS

Leigh Schmidtke.

• new digital technologies to better estimate yield, crop condition and grape quality, and • future proofing Australia’s grapevine germplasm.

NEW DIRECTOR FOR NWGIC Professor Leigh Schmidtke has been appointed the new director of the National Wine and Grape Industry Centre (NWGIC).

The NWGIC is an alliance between Charles Sturt University (CSU), the NSW Department of Primary Industries and the NSW Wine Industry Association.

Schmidtke has been its acting director for just over 12 months.

“I’m really very pleased to have been appointed to this position and look forward to building on the success of the centre to date,” Schmidtke said.

“It is a very exciting area to be working in at present, working collaboratively with our research partners at The University of Adelaide, the South Australian Research and Development Institute, CSIRO, and the Australian Wine Research Institute, supported by Wine Australia. We will examine ways which will ensure the ongoing sustainability of the wine industry in Australia.”

Schmidtke’s career in the wine industry began as a chemist and microbiologist at Southcorp Wines.

He began teaching wine production and microbiology subjects at CSU in 2001 before becoming an associate professor in wine microbiology. In 2011 he completed a PhD into the chemical effects of low rate micro oxygenation on oak flavour compounds in Shiraz.

Three significant contributors to the Australian wine industry have been farewelled in the space of a little more than two weeks.

Fourth-generation Hunter Valley vigneron Max Drayton died on 16 December, with Drayton’s Family Wines confirming his passing with the following statement on Twitter on 17 December: “It is with heavy hearts that we tell you that Max Drayton, Hunter Valley legend and treasured member of the Drayton family passed away on Saturday morning aged 86.”

Born and raised in Pokolbin, Drayton worked in the family business upon leaving school in 1946 – a business established by his great grandfather Joseph Drayton when he planted the first vines in the late 1850s.

In 1989, Drayton and three of his four sons purchased the company from other family members.

Drayton was named a ‘Hunter Valley Legend’ in 2007 for many years of service to the Hunter Valley wine region. He also received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the wine industry in the Hunter Valley and the community of Pokolbin in the 2003 Queen’s Birthday Honours.

Ian Hickinbotham died at his home in Melbourne on 29 December aged 88. At the age of 16, Ian Hickinbotham worked his first vintage in the Barossa Valley in 1946, completing one-year apprenticeships first with Thomas Hardy & Sons and then with SA Grapegrowers Cooperative in 1947.

He subsequently worked a vintage in Rutherglen before beginning his studies for the Diploma of Oenology course at Roseworthy Agricultural College in South Australia in 1948. Two years later, Hickinbotham was one of six inaugural graduates of the course at Roseworthy, where he had grown up in a staff house following the appointment of his father, Alan Robb Hickinbotham, as a lecturer in physical and chemical sciences at the college in 1929.

Ian Hickinbotham wrote his thesis on malolactic fermentation. In his autobiography Australian Plonky, published in 2008, he described the thesis as a significant accomplishment. “Two years later, my practical application of my research became my most important

S N I P S

contribution to winemaking in Australia,” he wrote.

Choosing to seek viticultural experience after his graduation, Hickinbotham worked for S. Wynn and Co which had just established Australia’s first contoured vineyard at Modbury in Adelaide. Soon after he was employed in the laboratory of the Wynns winery at Magill before being transferred to the company’s bottling cellar in Melbourne in 1951. Hickinbotham would return to the laboratory at Wynns in Adelaide before accepting an offer to become manager of Coonawarra Estate at the age of 22.

It was here that Coonawarra Estate owner David Wynn gave Hickinbotham permission to allow all the dry reds from the 1952 vintage to undergo malolactic fermentation. Hickinbotham is credited with being the first Australian to deliberately induce and understand the technique.

After resigning from Coonawarra Estate, HIckinbotham’s next major role was as technical manager with SA Grapegrowers Cooperative, then as general manager from 1956, where he convinced the company to adopt Kaiser Stuhl as its brand name and brought Wolf Blass to Australia. He accepted Max Schubert’s offer to join Penfolds as its Victorian manager in the early 1960s where he developed a forerunner to the bag-in-box, although the package was never adopted by the wine company. After two years, Hickinbotham left Penfolds and became a restaurateur in Melbourne with his wife Jude. From 1965-1975 he also was a consultant winemaker and wrote wine columns for The Australian Financial Review and The Age. In 1981 Hickinbotham and his family took over a lease at Anakie Vineyard, near Geelong, where they established the family wine business before helping to set up their first family owned vineyard at Dromana on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula in 1988, run by his son Andrew to this day.

Hickinbotham received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the Australian winemaking industry in the 1998 Australia Day Honours.

Tony Keys, an Australian wine industry commentator and a long-time contributor to the Wine & Viticulture Journal, died on 1 January aged 64. Further details on his contribution to the wine industry can be found on page 8.

WVJ

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

7

N E W S

Vale Tony Keys

By Jenny Stonier and Sonya Logan

A

ustralian wine industry commentator and long-time contributor to the Wine & Viticulture Journal Tony Keys has died, aged 64.

Keys died from illness just after 1.00am on New Year’s Day at his residence in Bangalow, New South Wales.

He was the proprietor and senior journalist for The Key Report, a weekly e-newsletter he and Jenny Stonier established in 2002 in which he critically examined events and trends in the global wine industry.

He began writing for the Wine & Viticulture Journal, then known as the Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, in 2004, first on an occasional basis, then on a more regular basis from 2006 in a column named The Key Files.

Born in 1953, England, Tony Keys entered the wine industry in 1973, working for an old-fashioned London wine merchant, where people still called each other Mister or Sir and the cellars contained mainly French classics going back to the 1870s, as well as German greats and vintage ports to 1812. He subsequently joined a young, flourishing, retail company called Oddbins, eventually becoming senior manager for the company’s largest London store.

Staffed by a young, enthused, knowledgeable and often wayward crowd, Oddbins was pushing the retail wine boundaries in the 1970s. During his time with Oddbins Keys first learned of the proliferation of boutique wineries taking place in Australia. During self-funded visits to Australia he saw both potential and several basic flaws within the industry; he also sensed opportunity.

Being able to inspire Oddbins to

8

www.win eti tl es .c om.au

take a greater interest in Australian wine or indeed Australians to take greater interest in the UK market, Keys established Ostlers - a wine merchant based in Clerkenwell, central London.

This enterprise was a huge success, and was named Decanter magazine’s Wine Merchant of the Year, among other accolades. It brought Australian wine to the attention of the UK trade, media and public.

Tony Keys during vintage at Inkwell Wines in McLaren Vale, South Australia.

Photo: Dudley Brown

Before its time, Ostlers’ life was cut short. From there Keys worked as a freelance agent with Hazel Murphy at the Australian Wine Bureau, in charge of education, and as an advisor to the Victorian Government, plus as a writer, lecturer and speaker on Australian wine. The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation also appointed him to assist small wineries establish themselves in the UK market.

Moving to Australia in 1998, a

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

promised job did not materialise and Tony met Jenny Stonier’s husband Greg Howell, of Vintessential Laboratories, on the Australian Wine Export Council tours where Keys tried to convince small producers to take advantage of ‘the big ship of export’.

Howell introduced Stonier to Keys at Wine Australia in Sydney in 2000 and the two became firm friends, starting discussions about what they could provide that would be of interest and benefit to the industry they both knew so well.

And so Keys turned to writing full time, as he and Stonier set up The Key Report.

“I once asked him to send me his CV,” Stonier recalls, “and he wrote back that at 12 years old he was awarded his 25-yard swimming certificate. That was it.”

In October 2002 the following email was disseminated to industry summarising the aim of The Key Report: Welcome to The Key Report, the thinking person’s critical weekly review and analysis of what’s happening in the Australian wine industry. You are receiving this email because of your interest in or connection to the wine industry.

Published weekly on-line, The Key Report will analyse what is being said in the press, both in Australia and overseas, keep a sharp eye on the financial dealings of listed wine companies, and a sharper eye on overseas sharks looking to swallow Australian assets, investigate and comment on many aspects of the Australian wine industry and provide interesting and entertaining weekly reading.

The Key Report is written by a team headed by the inimitable Tony Keys, whose 30 years’ experience in the wine industry has included the

V33N1

N E W S

Ten years of TKR

By Jenny Stonier

I

first met Tony, or TK as he became known to me, at Wine Australia 2000. My husband Greg Howell had been travelling the country with him as part of the Australian Wine Export Council tour (Tony’s employer at the time), which was headed by Jonathan Scott. Tony and Greg were the ‘naughty boys’ who sat at the back of the room and called out objections to the otherwise positive message that was part of the Australian wine industry in the 1990s.

My first impression of Tony was that he was a man of few, if any, pretensions – he called a spade an effing shovel. In fact, the first sentence he ever spoke to me contained more swear words than I had ever heard strung together at once. He appeared to be testing me – he knew I was from a sheltered background and he wanted to know if I could handle the challenge implicit in his rough ‘n’ tumble cockney attitude.

Of course, I warmed to him immediately – his whole persona screamed of the search for truth and justice. He suffered no fools and was prepared to spend as much time and energy as was needed to uncover the truth of a story. He dished out dirt when he thought it was appropriate but was equally happy to receive it when he was in the wrong. Never had I met someone who embodied so well the adage, ‘If you’re going to fight on the front line you’ve got to be prepared to be shot at’. He was shot at hard and often, but never held a grudge and couldn’t understand those who did.

The Key Report was born in Byron Bay whilst I was on holidays there, although both TK and I both lived in Victoria at the time. How fitting that it came back to the area – a place that lives and breathes ethical enquiry and open investigation.

writing of similar reports for AWEC (the Australian Wine Export Council) and Hazel Murphy at AWB (the Australian Wine Bureau in London). The Key Report will carry the news that invokes debate. It will not be a sycophantic collection of meaningless words with a sit-on-the-fence attitude, but a sharp, critical evaluation of the Australian wine industry and its increasing role in the world of wine.

“In the first three months we reached our year’s target for subscriber numbers,” Stonier said. “I think the main reason for our instant success was our credibility within the wine industry, plus we quickly became a forum for wine industry members to share their views and air their grievances. And although there was already a wealth of free information available online, everything we produced was original work. Being supported by sponsorship rather than carrying advertising meant that we could sail pretty close to the

V3 3N 1

The co-founders of The Key Report, Tony Keys and Jenny Stonier.

I left The Key Report in 2009 when I set off on a six-month trip around the country – internet access was elusive in outback Australia and I didn’t think I would be able to keep up the constant requirements of a publishing editor, not to mention managing the subscribers and online presence.

Thank goodness TK agreed to continue writing and publishing TKR – the world needs people who are prepared to risk so much to shine a light where others fear to tread.

wind on some issues (although we had to pull a couple of articles on advice from our legal department!)

“Tony was one of the great characters of the wine industry and it was fantastic fun working with him,” Stonier said.

Former publisher of the Wine Industry Journal Paul Clancy said the wine industry would be “poorer” without Keys.

“I gave Tony some space in the Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal to express his views and opinions and I never regretted doing so. Tony Keys very quickly became respected for his professionalism in industry writing. He wrote without fear or favour and whether you agreed with him or not he always had his facts right, he never held back from shining light into places where some preferred it not to be shone and his research was thorough,” Clancy said.

“I believe Tony Keys stood head

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

and shoulders above Australian wine industry writers and commentators through his integrity which he never compromised. The industry has plenty of sycophants and few fearless writers with the intelligence to analyse and comment in a constructive way. Tony provided what the wine industry needed - open, unbiased and balanced assessments of the facts. Sadly, he was never compensated anywhere near enough for the efforts he made for the industry he truly loved.

“The exhaustive analysis of market data and accompanying commentary which Tony provided the industry was an invaluable service perhaps not appreciated as highly as it should have been. Without the sage commentary of Tony Keys the Australian wine industry will be poorer.

“A kind, generous man who could be prickly pear or passionfruit, Tony Keys will be missed more than he will ever ▶ know,” Clancy said.

www.winetitles. com . au

9

N E W S

Wine writer James Halliday echoed Clancy’s comments.

“I first met Tony in London during the annual London Wine Trade Fairs I attended between the late-1980s and mid-1990s, and saw more of him when he moved to Australia.

“He was idiosyncratic, irascible and stubborn, and it took a few years for peace to break out between us. Before and after that time, I greatly admired his tenacity, his clarity of thought, and his tilting at windmills.

“There has never been a man with greater courage in his sector of the wine community, and we will all be poorer for his passing,” Halliday said.

Tributes to Keys on Twitter and online sources included the following: “First encountered Tony at Ostler’s in ‘87, shortly before leaving for Sydney: he was generous with his time and exacting in the appraisal of the wine of a land he loved. He remained true.”

Tim White, wine writer

“Although he never pulled his punches and got stuck into many in the wine industry, even those he criticised seemed to respect him. Tony was doing an important job and he will quite likely prove irreplaceable. The breadth of his knowledge about the business side of wine, and its history, as well as the product itself, made him a unique voice. His prickly nature meant he offended a lot of people, but, well, there is a saying about making omelettes without breaking eggs.”

Huon Hooke, wine writer

Tony Keys in June 2017. Photo: Simon Hughes “I have fond memories of Tony, especially his delight in learning more about journalism when he was starting The Keys [sic] Report. He was a fast learner, a natural, in fact... Hell of a writer…”

Jeni Port, wine writer

“Always liked and enjoyed Tony’s take on our silly silly game. It was a presentation of his at a Wine Australia event many moons ago that made me decided [sic] this was a passion worth pursuit, interviewed me a few times, very professional...will be missed.”

Michael Twelftree, co-founder, Two Hands Wines.

Tony Keys is survived by his partner Tracey and sons Josh and James.

WVJ

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Timley trunk renewal validated

T

he recent article by Sosnowski and McCarthy (‘Economic impact of grapevine trunk disease management in Sauvignon Blanc vineyards of New Zealand’, September-October 2017, p42-48) has highlighted the importance of acting early for more economic control of trunk diseases. These results are very much in line with those suggested in my article ‘Timely trunk renewal’, published in the September-October 2015 issue of this journal. The Sosnowski and McCarthy article terms trunk renewal “remedial strategy”.

The first line of defence against trunk diseases is wound protection and Australian growers are lucky to have a range of products available. European researchers are now suggesting that wound protectant be applied to one-year-old dormant plants. Mark Sosnowski has proven the effectiveness of spray application for larger-scale vineyards as part of winter pruning operations.

The second line of defence is trunk renewal. Left in place, old vine trunks become affected by cankers and have fungal fruiting bodies on the surface. They spread spores when it rains. Eventually the trunk may be so affected by dead conducting tissue and toxins from the fungi that the vine will die. It was demonstrated by Sosnowski and McCarthy that the sooner trunk renewal is performed, the sooner the old infected trunk can be removed and

10

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

destroyed. The new healthy trunk can be kept uninfected with wound protection. Some trunk diseases are easier to spot early than others, but wherever possible mark unhealthy vines for trunk renewal at winter pruning. Trunk renewal can be done over one or two years, with no crop loss, as opposed to the four year loss of crop suggested by Sosnowski and McCarthy.

With early enough action the spread of trunk diseases can be reduced. The common Australian approach of leaving the vineyard until a substantial number of vines are dead and sick, and then doing trunk renewal on all vines (including healthy ones) has been shown to be uneconomic

by Sosnowski and McCarthy.

The elephant in the room in this situation is that of trunk disease-infected grafted plants from nurseries, demonstrated to be a world-wide problem, and a major cause of spread of trunk diseases. This is now a point of concern in Europe, especially involving changes to rootstock mother vine management to reduce infection.

Dr Richard Smart Smart Viticulture Cornwall, United Kingdom

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

W FA

Keep marketing standards high

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

I

t has become more important than ever for wineries to ensure their marketing and communications meet high standards. Obviously, marketing costs money and no-one wants to waste it, lose reach or potential sales.

There are other reasons, too.

Reputations are at stake, yours and the industry’s. The alcohol industry is an easy target for populist policymakers and the headline-hungry anti-alcohol lobby is always at the ready to present extremist views that, quite frankly, fail on fact.

The Winemakers’ Federation of Australia and our members recognised long ago that the responsible promotion of alcohol was important and we remain committed to it. Our organisation and our members became signatories to the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code (ABAC), along with members of the Australian Brewers Association and Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia.

Other signatories include Woolworths Liquor Group, Coles Liquor Group, Campari Australia, Coca-Cola Amatil and Asahi Premium Beverages. There are also many more non-signatories who take advantage of the services and security ABAC provides.

ABAC’s guidelines are regularly updated and useful for businesses of all sizes, including smaller wineries. So using them will help keep your marketing communications refreshed and working for you.

ABAC’s guidelines apply to print, billboard, digital, radio, cinema, television, producer point-of-sale, packaging and other marketing such as direct mail. If you have not looked at the code lately, put an age-gate on your website or cleansed electronic and other databases, it is time to do so.

The Australian Government supports the guidelines and media/advertising organisations recognise them, too.

Importantly, using them highlights industry’s commitment to responsible promotion. For policymakers and consumers, knowing wineries and other alcohol producers follow the code gives confidence that we are all doing the right thing when it comes to responsibly promoting our products.

ABAC is a quasi-regulatory body and V3 3N 1

it works closely with Government and associated media organisations. It also works in concert with the Australian Competition and Consumer legislation, Australian Association of National Advertisers Code of Ethics, and the commercial radio, TV and outdoor codes and guidelines.

Along with the guidelines, there are checklists and useful services that have been developed and made widely available to help industry get behind ABAC. They also give peace of mind to the sector and to the public, including lawmakers.

Services include a pre-vetting or checking service, where things like point-of-sale, packaging, advertising and all other marketing can be road tested against the code. This is a good way to make sure you are not sailing too close to the wind. After all, marketing isn’t cheap – no-one wants a complaint escalated and product pulled from shelves or expensive ads withdrawn from market. Even more damaging is when complaints are spread across social media, putting your brand at risk.

The pre-vetting service is confidential and run independently of ABAC management. It is a user-pays service and available to anyone who markets alcohol (with discounts for signatories, including WFA members). Last year alone ABAC pre-vetted more than 1400 adverts, names and packaging, so many companies see using it as an investment in their brand.

As well, there is a public complaints investigation arm. It operates independently, while ABAC and industry fully fund it. It is headed by Michael Lavarch, a former Attorney General of Australia and Secretary-General of the Law Council. There’s also a governmentnominated public health expert on the management committee. Its decisions are published.

Let’s not forget the code is not the only set of rules for alcohol marketing in Australia. It fits in with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (formerly the Trade Practices Act 1974), state liquor licensing legislation, the Australian Association of National Advertisers Code of Ethics, Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and the Outdoor Media Association Code of Ethics.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

RECENT INITIATIVES Community Standards Research In keeping with ABAC’s commitment to stay ahead of community expectations for alcohol marketing, it conducted research in 2017. It looked into how robust complaints panel decisions were compared with community standards, with a survey of 1225 people and six focus groups to road test 12 advertisements. Complaints panel decisions were more conservative than the community views. Of course, ABAC has no intention of lowering its high standards.

Extension of the code to cover ‘placement’ of alcohol marketing The code now includes a set of placement rules to ensure alcohol marketing is not placed where the audience is skewed toward an under 18 audience.

The rules are: • alcohol marketers must comply with existing media-specific codes i.e., no outdoor ads within 150m of a school, and limits on when alcohol ads can be placed on free-to-air television broadcasts (not between 5am and 8.30pm unless with certain sports broadcasts) • use age restriction controls available on a media platform to exclude minors from the audience (e.g., Facebook) • audience to be at least 75% adult • no alcohol ads with programs or content primarily aimed at under 18s • no email/mobile marketing to be sent to minors (exception is where a minor provides an incorrect date of birth).

CONCLUSION From a WFA perspective, it is important that all our members comply with the Code. This means all wine businesses should have age-gating on their websites or be moving to implement it. It does not have to be a complex or expensive process but should be introduced as a matter of course as websites are refreshed and new vintages and labels come online.

I would point out that ABAC is the only alcohol advertising scheme recognised by the Australian Government.

Keeping our marketing and communications standards high is in everyone’s best interests. Now it’s over to you.

WVJ www.winetitles. com . au

11

A S V O

Introducing the ASVO’s new president and board members

By Anthony Robinson, President, Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology

NEW ASVO PRESIDENT DR ANTHONY ROBINSON

INTRODUCING NEW BOARD MEMBERS BROOKE HOWELL AND CHRIS BRODIE

Dr Anthony Robinson resides in the Barossa Valley and is the Grape and Wine Innovation Strategist for Treasury Wine Estates. Originally from Perth, in Western Australia, he started his career in 2000 and has worked in a range of roles across the wine industry from retail to research to viticultural management and winemaking. Anthony has a PhD in science (oenology) and is best known for his integrated industry perspective, passion for research, and collaborative drive.

As a winemaker, he has produced wines for innovative and award-winning brands, while as a researcher, he has published a number of peer-reviewed papers on wine chemistry and sensory science. Anthony has organised and presented at technical conferences in Germany, France, USA and Australia.

He has also been actively involved with Australian wine industry bodies, such as the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA), and the Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference (AWITC), and is an advocate for independent wine benchmarking through the show system.

Anthony was also a graduate of the Wine Australia 2017 Future Leaders Program.

Anthony joined the ASVO 14 years ago and has been a director since 2014. Since 2016, he has been ASVO vice president and a director of the AWITC Inc. In this capacity he has contributed to organising the ASVO Adelaide seminars, contributed to the planning, program and poster committees of the 2016 AWITC, has chaired the Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research advisory committee since 2016, and was a co-author of the 2015 ASVO Wine Show Best Practice Recommendations. As president of the ASVO, Anthony is looking forward to building on the legacy of the society, promoting education, providing forums for professional development, and enhancing the exchange of technical information.

Brooke Howell is the viticulturist and technical manager at Yalumba Family Vignerons, based in the Barossa Valley. Brooke studied at The University of Adelaide, completing a Bachelor of Viticulture with Honours in 2010. She has worked at Yalumba since 2011 and oversees trial work and technical management of company-owned vineyards across approximately 800 hectares in three regions of South Australia. Brooke works in premium and commercial viticultural production and has focussed trial work on organic and biodynamic production along with different methods for adaptation to climate change. Brooke received the silver award for the Young Organic Leader in the Australian Organic Annual Awards in 2015.

Brooke has participated in the Australian Women in Agriculture Leadership and Decision Making, the Next Crop program, and contributes to industry forums, including the Barossa Viticulture Technical Group, where she has assisted with regional trials and judged the South Australian pruning competition. Brooke is also involved in the Barossa region through her voluntary role as Barossa Future Leaders program coordinator. Every two years, the Barossa Future Leaders Program gives 16 participants the opportunity to learn valuable leadership skills that they can utilise within the community.

Brooke’s level of social media savvy will be an asset to the ASVO and she is looking forward to engaging with all generations on this platform to ensure information from ASVO is being disseminated to everyone. Membership is vital for the society, so being chair of the membership sub-committee will be a new challenge to ensure that members are engaging in the society’s activities and improving their professional development. Brooke has also been a

12

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

regular attendee at the ASVO Mildura seminar and is looking forward to the challenge of collaborating with her peers to pull the 2018 program together.

Chris Brodie started his career in New Zealand, after graduating with a Bachelor of Horticulture from Massey University in 1988, when he joined the Wingara Wine Group in 1997. He is now Katnook’s senior viticulturist and oversees integrated viticultural management systems, which take into account the four key elements for optimal grape quality: water, plant nutrition, pest and disease control, and sunlight. Since arriving at Katnook Estate, Chris has worked at improving his knowledge of wine and winemaking, as well as developing his palate. This has helped him understand the importance of the vineyard in crafting great wines but, obviously, is enjoyable in its own right.

Chris has been a member of the ASVO since he attended an ASVO seminar in Mildura on his first day of work in Australia. He has gained much from the Australian wine community and is still impressed by how open and willing people are to contribute to industry forums, particularly associations and societies. He sees his role as an ASVO director is to reach out to the wine community and encourage research and innovation. He strongly believes that ASVO seminars, the Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, and involvement in the AWITC are great forums for disseminating information and fostering industry engagement.

As a director of the ASVO, Chris hopes to give back to the wine community, encourage others to get involved, and encourage research innovation that can be easily adopted by growers and winemakers. He is aware that there is a large part of the community who tend to miss out on extension and networking opportunities and he wants to make it worthwhile and easy for employers to include those who might be excluded.

V33N1

A S V O

New ASVO president Anthony Robinson (left) and new board members Brooke Howell and Chris Brodie.

FIRST ISSUE OF THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF GRAPE AND WINE RESEARCH FREE TO ASVO MEMBERS ASVO will now be providing a hard copy of the first issue of the Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research each year to all members. The first issue includes information on the previous year’s ASVO Awards for Excellence and recognises those individuals who kindly donate their time to review research papers through the year. We hope our members enjoyed receiving the additional issue of the Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research in January. In addition, ASVO has been listening to our members who publish research manuscripts in the Australian

Journal of Grape and Wine Research.

From 2018, we will publish four issues of the AJGWR across the year to ensure we communicate published research to our membership faster. Electronic manuscripts will still be readily available online as soon as they have been accepted and typeset.

VINTAGE 2018 UNDER WAY Depending on where you operate, vintage will be under way or just commencing as you read this article.

This is an ideal time to check the wall of your grape receival area to see the state of your MOG (matter other than grapes) posters and dust off your copy of the Australian Winegrape Load Assessment

book. The posters provide a visual guide of industry best practice for assessment of grape loads with optimal, acceptable, and unacceptable levels of MOG. The posters, one each for red and white fruit, cover a wide range of MOG, including petioles, leaves, canes and the broken arms of vines. They also encompass foreign matter, such as stones, picking utensils, trellis parts, metal objects and irrigation components, which can be difficult to detect in loads prior to crushing. If your posters are looking a little tatty, faded, or are missing altogether, new posters and copies are available online for rapid dispatch from the ASVO website (https://www.asvo. com.au/) WVJ

Grants now open

• $10m of international wine tourism grants • $1m of wine export grants

APPLY NOW at erwsp.wineaustralia.com V3 3N 1

Export and Regional Wine Support Package Phone (08) 8228 2000 Email grants@wineaustralia.com

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

13

WINE AUSTRALIA

It’s important to understand the rules for GIs

By Rachel Triggs, General Counsel, Wine Australia

M

aintaining the integrity of the Australian wine sector is vital if we are to increase people’s perception of the quality and authenticity of Australian wine.

Provenance claims carry with them commercial value that has long been acknowledged and realised worldwide.

Fruit from some geographical indications (GIs) attracts a higher price than fruit from others, as does the resultant wine.

Accordingly, there are strict laws in Australia and around the world relating to the use of GIs for wine. These laws are enforced around the world as they protect the integrity of wine as a product and prevent unfair misinterpretations being made.

Inadvertently falling foul of these laws can be costly, as was recently demonstrated when a Tasmanian producer was forced to rebrand following threats of legal action from the consortium of Emilia-Romagna winemakers over use of the protected Italian GI ‘Emilia’.

Similarly, through our role as a regulator to protect the reputation of Australian wine, Wine Australia recently took corrective action after a wine was labelled incorrectly as originating from the Orange GI. Both examples demonstrate there is no room for complacency when it comes to the use of protected GIs. It is important for producers to remember that European consortia and regulators can take action against Australian producers under the Wine Australia Act where protected GIs are incorrectly used in Australia.

So, what are the rules? If you use a GI on your label, 85 percent of the fruit must be sourced from that GI. Where you list multiple GIs, things get trickier. The multiple GIs you list must account for 95% of the blend and they must be listed in descending order of composition (i.e., largest percentage to smallest). But wait, there’s more! You can’t put a GI on your label unless at least 5% of the blend is made from fruit sourced from that region.

Importantly, there is no subjective test when it comes to GIs. Regardless of the context, if you use a GI in the ‘description and presentation of wine’ and the wine is not made from grapes sourced from that region, it’s an offence. So, if you say on the back label of your wine that the winemaker was born in McLaren Vale but your wine is made from fruit from the Barossa (and clearly labelled as such), it’s an offence.

‘Description and presentation’ includes promotional material such as tasting notes and websites. Accordingly, if your website states that your wine is a ‘Chablis’ style, again, it’s an offence. It’s all laid out in section 40C of the Wine Australia Act 2013 and these rules have been in place since 1 January 1994 and they underpin our access to the European markets.

Wine Australia takes a serious stance when it comes to making false claims in the presentation and description of a wine.

A variety of actions may be required in response to an incident; consequences that could include corrective action, injunctive relief or criminal penalties.

Darwin It’s always our preference to assist Australian Wine regions wine producers of Australia and exporters to NORTHERN TERRITORY Indian Ocean understand their Western Australia New South Wales 1 Swan District 30 New England Australia obligations so 2 Perth Hills 31 Hastings River 3 Peel 32 Hunter 4 Geographe 33 Mudgee they can comply, QUEENSLAND 5 Margaret River 34 Orange 6 Blackwood Valley 35 Cowra particularly 7 Pemberton 36 Riverina 8 Manjimup 37 Hilltops 9 Great Southern 38 Southern Highlands relating to WESTERN AUSTRALIA 39 Gundagai South Australia 40 Canberra District presentation and 10 Southern Flinders Ranges 41 Shoalhaven Coast 11 Clare Valley 42 Tumbarumba 12 Barossa Valley description claims 43 Perricoota South Eastern Australia* SOUTH AUSTRALIA 13 Eden Valley Brisbane Victoria 14 Riverland and the blending 15 Adelaide Plains 44 Murray Darling 16 Adelaide Hills 45 Swan Hill rules.

17 McLaren Vale 46 Goulburn Valley 18 Kangaroo Island 47 Rutherglen NEW SOUTH WALES 19 Southern Fleurieu 48 Glenrowan More 20 Currency Creek 49 Beechworth Perth 21 Langhorne Creek 50 King Valley information can Great 22 Padthaway 51 Alpine Valleys Pacific Ocean Australian Bight 23 Mount Benson 52 Strathbogie Ranges Sydney 24 Wrattonbully 53 Upper Goulburn be found at www.

Adelaide 25 Robe 54 Heathcote 26 Coonawarra 55 Bendigo VICTORIA wineaustralia.

Southern Ocean Canberra 27 Mount Gambier 56 Pyrenees (ACT) 57 Macedon Ranges Queensland 58 Sunbury com/labelling and 28 South Burnett 59 Grampians 29 Granite Belt 60 Henty our Regulatory Melbourne 61 Geelong 62 Yarra Valley Bass Strait Services team 63 Mornington Peninsula 64 Gippsland* TASMANIA can answer your Tasmania 65 Tasmania* questions on (08) Hobart 8228 2000 or audit@ www.wineaustralia.com wineaustralia.com Australia’s Geographical Indications comprise 28 zones, 65 regions and 14 sub-regions. For a complete list WVJ visit www.wineaustralia.com/labelling/register-of-protected-gis-and-other-terms/geographical-indications

Wine Australia

10°S

15°S

20°S

25°S

28

29

30

gR

in

rl Da

1

31

2

10

3

4

5

6 7 8

9

18

11 14 12 15 13 16 17 21 19 20

44

ch

La

36

M

35 34

37

39 45 R 43 42 47 46 48 49 56 55 54 52 24 23 50 51 26 59 57 53 25 27 60 58 62 64 61 63 urr ay

30°S

32

33

R lan

40

38

41

22

0

0

100

200

100

500 kilometres

200

65

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

40°S

500 miles

*South Eastern Australia and Gippsland are zones, Tamania is a state.

14

35°S

© 2017 Wine Australia

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

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

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

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

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Soft power: contemporary approaches to energy efficiency and management

By Mark O’Callaghan INTRODUCTION Regardless of one’s view on how Australia found itself in its current situation with energy supply, the fact is that as business managers, we must deal with the world as it is and not as we wish it to be. Australia now has some of the most expensive and least reliable power in the developed world. This is especially so in South Australia and Victoria, with predictions about future price rises varying depending on which report one reads.

For these reasons, it is prudent for any winery or vineyard management team to take the time to consider how and where they are using their energy with a view to improving both cost and reliability.

Of course, there are the environmental benefits of being more efficient with carbon-based energy but, frankly, if maximising carbon reduction per dollar invested was one’s aim, overhauling the winery electricity system is highly unlikely to be the most effective way to do so.

This article recommends improvements to energy efficiency (mostly electrical) with a view to making the business more robust, not to try to save the world.

MORE WITH LESS It is human nature (and basic economics) to devote more focus to the efficient use of scarce resources. And,

when it comes to energy, some early examples are very well illustrated in the original Yeringberg winery, built by David Mitchell (Dame Nellie Melba’s father and builder of the Royal Exhibition building in Melbourne). Built around 1870, before mains power or water, the building (a national treasure, in my view) is replete with design features that make the most of the energy available at the time – mostly sun and sweat. Two of the more elegant examples are the use of frosted window panes on the north-facing windows and clear glass to the south in order to even up the light within the building and moderate temperature (Figure 1). When it came to loading red must into the fermenters, the use of rail tracks, trolleys and catwalks suspended from the ceiling was less about appeasing Gaia and more about efficient movement with the technology available at the time (Figure 2).

With respect to contemporary winery methods and equipment, however, there are several new(ish) options which have slashed energy requirements per tonne, case or litre, depending on how you like to benchmark such things.

One of the first is flotation for the clarification of juices for some white and sparkling wines. While hardly a new or revolutionary method in 2018, the difference in energy consumption compared with traditional cold settling is

Figure 1. Frosted glass in north-facing windows (left) and clear glass to the south at Yeringberg, in Victoria’s Yarra Valley.

16

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

enormous. For example, where one may have previously taken a tank of juice from 25oC (or more) down to 5oC for settling, then warmed it back up to 18oC for inoculation, the same tank can now be clarified and fermentation commenced within a few hours with only a fraction of the cooling energy requirement.

The resource savings go beyond just the refrigeration however. When the energy required to produce the cement and stainless steel (both require eye watering amounts of it) for the additional winery capacity (tanks, buildings, water, etc.) is factored in, the savings are even more compelling.

Next generation machine harvesters are also having a profound impact on winery operations, process flow and energy consumption. With hitherto unimaginable levels of fruit purity (low MOG) arriving at the wineries, there are some impressive examples of wineries having great success with direct tipping of machine-harvested red fruit into fermenters (open fermenters, mostly), totally removing the need for destemmers, must pumps and even staff members in some cases.

The next example is not rocket science.

It is so simple that it may seem trite to include it but, sadly, too many wineries fail to grasp the significance of insulation and passive cooling options. Leaving aside the obvious example of storage tanks, the areas too often overlooked include things such as must lines and refrigeration lines, plus the simplest things like leaving warehouse or barrel store doors open. The energy savings from installing automatic warehouse-style doors on winery buildings can be incredible, especially during summer of course. Ordering staff to close the barrel store door each time they drive through is a simple idea but very poorly followed when things get busy.

Passive cooling options for buildings needn’t be expensive either. These systems simply monitor the external air temperature and if it is appropriate, pump it into the building to cool it rather than draw on refrigeration equipment.

Other off-the-shelf equipment that is delivering real results in wineries today is V33N1

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

heat recovery from refrigeration plants.

There are many models and suppliers to choose from but the principle is straightforward – simply pre-warm water using the excess heat from refrigeration plants while they are working. If one is after hot water at, say, 80oC for brettanomyces control in barrel washing, it makes a big difference if the in-feed water is already at 40oC, rather than 10oC. An example of the future of energy management from the brilliant presentation of Roger Boulton, from the University of California Davis, at the 2016 Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference was that of pulsed jacket flow for refrigerant brine. In this case, automated solenoid valves are used to hold cold brine in tank jackets to maximise heat transfer (increase of 3-5oC). By sending a smaller volume of warmer brine back through the return stream, the refrigeration system works more efficiently in the long run.

There is usually some very low hanging fruit (so to speak) around wineries when it comes to energy efficiency improvements and even simple things such as switching to LED light bulbs or running the office air conditioning at 25oC instead of 20oC in summer can make meaningful differences to baseload power consumption. For example, those two examples may well cut consumption by 6 amps and 4 amps, respectively, or 1.0 to 1.5kW. “…IT’S THE PEAKS, STUPID…” In addition to reducing the overall quantum of energy consumption, it is important to consider usage patterns and remember that infrastructure is usually designed with peak demand in mind – or at least as it is understood at the planning stages.

When it comes to electrical supply, the challenge is exactly the same as in so many other aspects of our field – the increasingly compressed nature of our processing. For example, a small winery may find itself drawing no more than 40 amps for most of the year but struggle to keep the draw below its maximum capacity of 100 amps during vintage. In addition to pushing the capacity of the board, some of the components of the costs of electricity supply relate to peak draw within a particular period - no matter how short that may be.

For these reasons, it is prudent to consider ways to manage these peaks V3 3N 1

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

With this in mind, it is easy to see the potential value of integrated management systems that can ensure these peaks do not occur at the same time and the capacity of the site is not breached, leading to tripped circuit breakers or blown fuses.

Radio telemetry may sound exotic but it is a simple mechanism by which start-ups of motors can be staggered, and the equipment is readily available and affordable.

Furthermore, it is easy to set simple rules around a hierarchy of equipment where a must pump will take priority over the start-up of an air compressor for example. Much better to push the compressor back by a few seconds to avoid fruit spilling onto the floor!

Figure 2. Trolleys and rail tracks for moving destemmed fruit in the original cellar at Yeringberg in Victoria’s Yarra Valley - ‘real’ gravity winemaking.

PACKIN’ HEAT: BATTERIES AND SOLAR There has been no shortage of media coverage about energy storage through the next generation of batteries. While it may be imprudent to hold one’s breath until a battery plant is able to supply a capital city during a blackout, it is certainly the case that some wineries (and breweries) are already operating perfectly successfully using industrial battery storage.

Despite some exiting signs of the future potential of lithium-air batteries (possibly four times the capacity), the ‘here and now’ reality is lithium-ion.

Even though their efficiency has been difficult to improve, there have still been phenomenal commercial gains in recent years with costs (per kW of storage) being approximately 10% of that of five years ago and good improvements in production efficiency – witness Tesla’s ‘Gigafactories’, for example.

We are now at the point where solar and batteries are a key part of the energy mix at more commercial wineries around the world (if not the entire supply) and this shows no signs of slowing down. While some sites may remain restricted by their

which usually relate to start-up current draw of electrical motors and boils down to two key points: trimming peak load (per motor) and offsetting them from one another.

Many electrical motors found in the wine business, whether they be on irrigation pumps, air compressors, refrigeration compressors, must pumps or anything else, use direct-on-line (DOL) starters which tend to draw very high current at start-up. Another more expensive but increasingly popular method is the use of variable speed drive (VSD), or ‘soft starters’, which can minimise the initial current draw. Figure 3 is a sketch of the two different types, showing start-up current draws typical of some winery equipment.

Figure 3, while a little crude, illustrates the potential problem for a winery with a board capacity of, say, 100 amps if several DOL motors were to start up at the same time.

Amps 140

D.O.L. 120 100

V.S.D. 80 60 40 20 0

Time

Figure 3. Sketch of contrasting start-up currents.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

17

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

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

roof area for solar panels, the frustrations with power outages and cost increases show no realistic sign of slowing either.

Another, probably less familiar, example of how batteries can be used is a system that can be very helpful in remote areas or to temporarily supplement supply, called a remote area power system (RAPS). With systems such as these the batteries are supplied by solar panels but supplemented with a diesel generator as required. With the batteries acting as a buffer, the generators need only operate when required and only in their most efficient range of RPM which can yield reductions in diesel consumption of more than 60%.

When it comes to solar power, the improvements in performance and price have been astonishing making it a much more realistic option to supplement supply or take over entirely. I think it was Roger Boulton who said in his presentation at the 2016 Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference that in the last three years, solar efficiency (yield per m2) has improved 25% alone, while prices continue to halve approximately every 10 years.

The technology is now at the point where batteries and solar are a genuine part of suite of energy options for modern wineries, worthy of careful consideration to improve the profitability of the businesses. They are certainly not expensive indulgences for the vanity of eco warriors.

WHY PAY MORE? While not actually a method for improving energy efficiency, power factor correction (PFC) is something that can help businesses reduce their electricity bills for essentially the same production capacity.

Remembering that this is an article by a winemaker for winemakers, not electrical engineers. Frankly, PFC is a little beyond your correspondent to explain in sufficient technical detail but it is the management implications that are most important.

One simple way to think of it is as the difference between ‘real’ power (that which the site uses) and ‘apparent’ power (that which the site pays for). Therefore, the lower the power factor (PF), the more one pays for the same energy. Compared with a theoretical maximum PF of 1.0 (impossible in a real operation however), a poor PF of 0.7, for example, could see a business paying 30-40% extra for its power.

18

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

As a guide to its significance, it is perfectly possible that a winery with an approximate capacity of 500 tonnes and a poor PF could be paying $250,000 per annum more for its electricity than it should. An experienced electrical firm can take the necessary measurements and direct businesses towards the best set of equipment to improve it.

MANAGEMENT In modern manufacturing there are certainly some impressive and sophisticated process control systems available. At the elite level is a control system architecture known as SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) in which components such as sensors, telemetry systems and contactors are networked.

Applied to a winery environment, a SCADA system would be able to, for example, use weather forecasts for an upcoming hot spell to pre-emptively lower the temperature of a barrel store, warehouse or brine temperature. They could also manage peak demands by shifting non-critical activities to lower use periods, such as pumping extra air into effluent system tanks or perhaps doing so when solar energy supply was abundant.

For most wineries in Australia, however, systems such as these are currently not realistic, being too expensive, complex and/or difficult to manage. That said, it is worth remembering that 15 years ago, that is exactly how many people would have described solar panels and battery systems.

WHAT GETS MEASURED GETS MANAGED With so many options and jargon and with management teams still under so much pressure, it is understandable that one might be left wondering where to start. In that regard, the best place to begin is with an energy audit. There are many experienced specialists who are able to measure and quantify the energy use patterns around a site so that improvement efforts can be focussed where they will make the most difference.

Without it, most of us would just be guessing.

Having a robust estimate of how much heat enters a warehouse or barrel store on a hot day through poor insulation, seals and leaving doors open will make it much

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

easier to justify spending, say, $50,000 on maintenance and automatic doors.

WE’RE GONNA NEED A BIGGER BOARD It is also encouraging to remember that there are almost always some simple ways to make big improvements to efficiency and reliability which are not as expensive as one might think.

One of my favourite capital expenditue and reliability examples is that of a vineyard which found that an irrigation pump, which was perfectly well maintained, would pass all pre-season tests but then tripped out and failed during hot spells – exactly when it was needed most.

What was happening on the hot days was that the voltage was dropping on the main lines from approximately 440 volts to 380 volts due to increased demand in the area and increased resistance of the lines in the heat. As a result, the pump was drawing an even higher start-up current, which was tripping the circuit breakers.

Given the cost of the fruit losses, the business decided to spend approximately $100,000 upgrading the supply and was poised to sign the contract when a chat with a good electrical engineer led to a better option. They installed a $17,000 VSD on the pump and it hasn’t skipped a beat since.

Mark O’Callaghan is senior consultant and director at Wine Network Consulting.

Mark joined WNC in 2013 after working independently for two years. Prior to this, he spent 14 years with Accolade Wines (formerly BRL Hardy), including eight years as senior winemaker and winery manager for Yarra Burn in Victoria’s Yarra Valley. He has also made wine in McLaren Vale, Heathcote, Great Western, the Pyrenees, Austria and Sicily.

Vineyard and winery software management systems For his next article later in the year, Mark intends to look at vineyard and winery software management systems, after hearing that many wineries are grappling with integrating various systems for vineyards, bulk wine, accounting, online sales, customer relationship management, and so on. If you’ve experienced similar issues, or are indeed a service producer who can offer a solution, then Mark would be delighted to hear from you via email: WVJ mocallaghan@winenet.com.au.

V33N1

WINERY WASTE

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

Wasting away: what does the latest research in disposing of an old problem reveal?

By Erika Szymanski

Economies of scale and logistical considerations mean efficiently turning winery waste into a production stream for use by another industry is complicated. However, recent research is shining the light on potential solutions enabling individual wineries to find the most suitable routes for them in disposing of the solids from their wine production.

With fuel and electricity being the largest parts of a winery’s onsite carbon footprint, and a big part of its bills, using waste for energy production is an obvious goal.

I

n theory, it is a classic win-win situation. Winemakers have grapes, but are mostly interested in the liquid portions and need some way to dispose of the solids. Other industries can make use of the solids but do not necessarily want or need to begin with the expense of fresh whole grapes, or can convert pomace into a good-enough feedstock for fuel or livestock production. Turning winery waste into an input for another production stream seems like an ideal solution… at least until you bring economies of scale and other logistical considerations into the picture.

Then, efficiently dealing with winery waste streams begins to look either like a major infrastructure problem, or an argument for keeping local problems local, or both.

At present, grape pomace is often distilled for grape alcohol, leaving almost the same volume of solid waste to be disposed of via other means, landfills not excluded. Research into alternatives is building steam for numerous reasons.

The products of distillation are not in as high demand as they once were, and distilleries require a lot of energy to power.

V3 3N 1

Waste research is a natural counterpart to biochemistry and pharmaceutical studies are finding value in polyphenols and other molecules that can be extracted from pomace. Equally, while much sustainability research focusses on what goes in to the vineyard and winery – energy, water, chemicals – what comes out must also be part of the picture. With fuel and electricity being the largest parts of a winery’s onsite carbon footprint, and a big part of its bills, using waste for energy production is an obvious goal. And the prospect of linking profit – or at least cost recovery – to requirements that wineries document and monitor waste has obvious appeal.

Winery waste is nothing new, but changing industry pressures are mandating new solutions.

The journal Waste Management – not a journal you might typically consider a hot-bed of oenology research – publishes a surprising volume of research on putting winery waste to work, including three articles in the past three months.

Meanwhile, investigations into the finer points of feeding grape pomace to livestock

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

(mostly cows and sheep) have been popping up in journals of food science and agriculture. The difficulty with all such studies is not only that grape pomace is a highly variable product, but that the ecosystems surrounding it are highly variable, too.

Research can expand the range of technologies available for disposal, try to improve on existing ones, or investigate bringing technologies established elsewhere into winemaking. Making recommendations is another matter. That is not necessarily a negative. By reviewing the range of technical options available, recent scientific work has been sketching out the lay of the land in a way that could help individual wineries find their own routes, acknowledging that everyone’s path is going to be different without necessarily suggesting a best solution.

In one of those Waste Management articles, researchers at The University of Adelaide provide a thorough run-down of sustainable options for turning solid winery waste into something solidly worthwhile (Muhlack et al. 2017). Those

www.winetitles. com . au

19

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

WINERY WASTE

options divide into four categories based on how the pomace is treated. Pomace can be biologically processed to generate additional ethanol, biofuel, or several other products, often leaving just as much waste to be disposed of via other means.

Valuable molecules can be extracted, though these processes also still leave bulky second-order waste behind. Pomace can be processed in one of several ways to produce energy and store carbon. Or pomace can be put to agricultural use for feeding livestock or composted to feed soils.

On the valuable molecules front, the most typical and traditional extraction processes mine waste for grape seed oils.

But as nutrition researchers continue to strengthen cases for the value of dietary phenolics to disease prevention, the rationale for putting effort into pulling those phenolics out of winegrape residue strengthens, too. As a rule, pomace from white winemaking tends to yield more concentrated phenol extracts, as many more phenolics are extracted from solid into liquid components with fermentation on red grape skins. All manner of biochemistry studies have investigated which combination of solvents (often water plus ethanol, methanol, or acetone), time, and temperature are best for extracting specific phenols and retaining their antioxidant activities (Muhlack et al. 2017). Now, research is focussing on ways to make those processes more environmentally friendly and more efficient at larger scales using high pressures, supercritical fluid extraction, or high voltage electric fields—all developments that might matter for wineries watching environmental footprints. Similar developments are touching tartaric acid production from lees and pomace, a process dating to at least 1980 but now being updated to avoid producing the calcium sulfate sludge left behind by traditional methods.

These strategies are less about disposal than about valorisation, maximising the total value of waste but leaving another disposal problem behind. Whether the extra fuss of those extra steps is worthwhile – for profit or for peace of mind – is another question involving the usual questions of infrastructure and resources.

Energy production is a possible solution for both first-order waste directly from the winery and second-order waste from distillation or other bio-processing.

20

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

Combustion burning yields heat that can be used directly or applied to a boiler and heat-exchange system to make steam and generate electricity via a turbine-andgenerator system. Combustion is less than optimally efficient, however, because pomace usually needs to be dried first.

One strategy for improvement is converting pomace into pellets which, in combination with wood, make an efficient-enough fuel to be used in residential boilers fired by solid fuel that might be used by small, medium-sized, or large wineries alike (Schonnenbeck 2016). With shared centralised processing facilities, even small and medium-sized wineries could reduce energy costs and close waste loops.

More efficient ‘thermal decomposition’ methods, like pyrolysis and gasification, yield more than just heat but also require more infrastructure. Though syngas is extremely useful for diverse chemical manufacturing processes, gasification requires equipment likely to stretch the capacities of even large wineries. Pyrolysis yields bio-char, bio-oil, and bio-gas at lower temperatures and with less fancy equipment than required to turn pomace into syngas by gasification. Recent research by chemical engineers at Monash University in collaboration with CSIRO Energy shows myriad benefits to swapping simple combustion for pyrolysis, at least for larger wineries dealing with volumes able to off-set that initial investment in equipment (Zhang et al. 2017).

Bio-oil can be used as a fuel oil, though it typically requires additional processing and is more or less valuable depending on global commodity prices. Bio-gas can also be converted into syngas with some extra processing. For many wineries, however, the most value from pyrolysis will come from maximising char production. Char can be used directly as a soil amendment with a significant carbon sequestering bonus – about 50% of the total carbon in the pomace, compared with about 10% for conventional composting. It also has uses in chemical, pharmaceutical, and food industries.

These authors found that large wineries with annual crushes of more than 1000 tonnes would increase net cashflow by adopting onsite pyrolysis with their own equipment (Zhang et al. 2017). Wineries crushing less than 50 tonnes would not benefit, as savings would be too low to offset equipment costs. For those in the middle, pyrolysis beats combustion for

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

producing value but does not necessarily turn a net positive return on investment, especially given the vagaries of the energy market. Moreover, skewing the pyrolysis process to produce optimal ratios of solid, liquid, and gaseous outputs requires careful control – another motive for working together to make shared use of expertise and equipment.

An alternative strategy for converting pomace to energy that could keep production onsite, even at smaller wineries, is anaerobic digestion to produce biogas. Chemical reactions break long organic polymers into small molecules that a series of bacteria can metabolise into methane and carbon dioxide. Research conducted last year in France and Lebanon showed that small-scale anaerobic digestors could be remarkably efficient in producing methane... from Cabernet Franc pomace, at least (El Achkar et al. 2016).

Previous French studies suggest that the energy efficiency of anaerobic digestion varies significantly depending on what kind of pomace is used and how it is stored (Lempereur and Penavayre 2014). While that variability points to the need for more research, it also suggests that individual wineries might be able to tailor a process that fits their local conditions.

Using winery waste as an animal feed is a classic mode of ‘value-added’ disposal in part because it is less fussy and (usually) requires less up-front investment. In the interest of using larger quantities more systematically, however, numerous studies have recently been aiming to learn more about how much pomace can healthfully be fed to animals and what benefits or drawbacks might accrue from doing so.

Livestock, unsurprisingly, seem to benefit from antioxidant-rich diets much as humans do, though the reasons why humans care end up being different.

Romanian researchers studying how dairy cows faired on a diet including 3kg of dried red grape pomace per cow per day found that the cow’s blood lipid profiles improved, much as their human counterparts respond to high doses of antioxidants. Milk composition remained approximately the same (Chedea et al. 2016). While boosting antioxidants in milk might have been a nice side-benefit, the good news was that neither milk quantity nor milk quality was harmed by the animals’ special grapeenriched diet.

A recent Spanish study surveyed the nutritional qualities of a range of potential

V33N1

WINERY WASTE

pomace feedstocks, from samples fresh from the winery to processed waste from distillation plants to silage produced by holding pomace for several months (Guerra-Rivas et al. 2017).

Results demonstrated wide variability in parameters relevant to the economics of lamb and sheep’s milk production, even when looking only at red grape pomace.

Pulp-to-seed ratio was important, with pulp being more digestible and containing higher proportions of some polyphenols.

One conclusion – the conclusion researchers at The University of Adelaide make in reviewing this research (Muhlack et al. 2017) – is that more research should go toward identifying precisely which kinds of pomace are best used for animal feed, both with an eye toward maximising livestock production and to minimising greenhouse gas emissions from doing so.

That suggestion infers the need for some massive infrastructure, diverting different kinds of waste to different use streams on the basis of particular chemical properties, and employing monitoring systems to measure those properties. An alternate conclusion might be that grape pomace is best used as animal feed when it can be used locally in food production systems

where value rests more on provenance than on efficiencies of mass-production.

Beyond the technical details of how any of these mechanisms of reuse and recycle operate, the most valuable information to come out of waste management research may be the usefulness of eliminating the idea of ‘waste’ altogether. Rather, those solids can be treated as ‘feedstocks’ for producing an additional range of valuable products from the start. For most wineries, however, that suggestion only works when the winemaking process is not limited to the winery. Talking about how to manage the whole ecosystem of wine production, waste included, ends up bringing in a whole ecosystem of industries along with their varied expertise and infrastructure.

Ideally, dealing with winery waste probably is not a win-win solution, but a win-win-win solution in which the winery does not work alone.

REFERENCES Chedea, V.; Pelmus, R.S.; Lazar, C.; Pistol, G.C.; Calin, L.G.; Toma, S.; Dragomir, C. and Tanaru, I. (2017) Effects of a diet containing grape pomace on blood metabolites and milk consumption of dairy cows.

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 97:25162523.

El Achkar, J.H.; Lendormi, T.; Hobaika, Z.; Salameh, D.; Louka, N.; Maroun, R.G. and Lanoiselle, J-L. (2016)

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

Anaerobic digestion of grape pomace: Biochemical characterisation of the fractions and methane production in batch and continuous digesters. Waste Management 50:275-282.

Guerra-Rivas, C.; Gallardo, B.; Mantecόn, A.R.; del Alamo, M. and Manso, T. (2017) Evaluation of grape pomace from red wine by-product as feed for sheep.

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 97:18851893.

Lempereur, V. and Penavayre, S. (2014) Grape marc, wine lees and deposit of the must: How to manage oenological by-products? Bio Web of Conferences 3:01011.

Muhlack, R.A.; Potumarthi, R. and Jeffery, D.J. (2017) Sustainable wineries through waste valorisation: A review of grape marc utilisation for value-added products. Waste Management doi 10.1016/j. wasman.2017.11.011 Schonnenbeck, C.; Trouve, G.; Valente, M; Garra, P. and Brilhac, J. (2016) Combustion tests of grape marc in a multi-fuel domestic boiler. Fuel 180:324-331.

Zhang, N.; Hoadley, A.; Patel, J.; Lim, S. and Li, C.E. (2017) Sustainable options for the utilisation of solid residues from wine production.Waste Management 60:173-183.

Erika Szymanski is a research fellow in science, technology and innovation studies at the University of Edinburgh, in the UK, where she studies yeast in contemporary biotechnology. Her background spans microbiology, rhetoric and composition, and wine studies in the United States and New Zealand, where she completed her PhD research in wine industry-focussed WVJ science communication.

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

Wastewater management Water efficiency Irrigation Environmental planning

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

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

21

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

W I N E R Y WA S TE WATE R

Winery wastewater finding the right balance

By Mitchell Laginestra Principal Wastewater Engineer and Technical Leader, GHD Pty Ltd. Email: mitchell.laginestra@ghd.com INTRODUCTION Enjoyment of wine is one of the great pleasures of life, but there are a number of environmental impacts associated with wineries (like any manufacturing facility) including: • water pollution, degradation of soil and damage to vegetation from disposal of liquid wastes and residuals • odours from management of wastes and by-products • noise from pumps and equipment at the winery.

Many of the issues are exacerbated during vintage, and operators of wineries need to ensure they meet all legislative requirements in mitigating impacts.

Most wineries are located in rural locations and disposal of the generated liquid wastewater and solid wastes represent the biggest challenge, while noise and odour mitigation can be relatively simply managed. Odours are typically associated with the wastewater system, and appropriate management of the wastewater can also diminish the odour impact (although this is dependent on the type of treatment facility adopted for the site).

In rural situations, irrigation of the generated effluent is regarded as an appropriate avenue of disposal. However, it must be recognised that the effluent needs to be properly treated and run-off controlled.

UNDERSTANDING POTENTIAL ISSUES The first step in determining the potential for environmental nuisance is understanding the wastewater load (this is a function of volume and contaminant concentrations of the wastewater).

Table 1 summarises typical concentrations during vintage and nonvintage periods and the impact on the environment.

To put things in perspective, sewage contains biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of around 300mg/L, so winery waste can represent a stream about 10–20 times more potent than raw sewage. Apart from the era of the early 1900s and in some third world countries today, no-one uses raw sewage for crop irrigation any more. Here presents a challenge of how to treat the effluent, and making use of the present nutrients to support vegetation growth.

The second step is understanding the capacity of your treatment system, which will dictate the effluent quality. The seasonal nature

of the winemaking process presents a challenge (hydraulic and contaminant loading must be catered for). However, one mitigating circumstance is that vintage generates the greater volume of wastewater, and because vintage occurs in summer and autumn (when irrigation requirements are high), the storage of treated effluent can be minimised.

Because of its organic (BOD) concentration, winery wastewater must be suitably treated to enable irrigation, and this involves a biological process. The variation in pH must also be dealt with, and many wastewater systems will involve some pH adjustment, although good biological treatment can also provide suitable alkalinity buffering (which means that the pH will adjust with good biological processing). Solids reduction will occur with welldesigned treatment systems but biological solids must be regularly purged (degradation by-products) to provide healthy biomass in the treatment system. These can be dewatered and composted with wine residual (the marc and lees) to generate a good by-product to improve soil conditions and add organic matter to the soil.

The size of treatment plant units, detention time (flow divided by volume of treatment tanks) and organic loading (BOD load divided by volume) should be calculated to determine how the facility stacks up against the ability to treat the effluent. The amount of sludge being removed needs to be checked also.

Monitoring of the wastewater is a key part of understanding the process, and BOD reduction over the treatment plant should be greater than 85–90% during vintage. If it isn’t, then it is likely that there is either insufficient retention in the process or (more than likely) the mechanical aeration is not enough.

Typically, a wastewater specialist can advise winemakers on treatment capacity versus actual load. I have presented some case studies below where overloading during vintage was a distinct shortcoming.

THE CONSTRUCTED TREATMENT PLANT – CASE STUDY 1 A winery had a constructed facility (aerated activated sludge system) to manage its wastewater and provide effluent for irrigation to a woodlot under an EPA licence. Figure 1 shows the activated sludge tank (which was operated well, controlling mixed liquor concentration and general biomass levels). Although there was no breach to the licence-specified discharge limits

Table 1. Winery wastewater characteristics - vintage vs. non-vintage Parameter

Vintage period

Non-vintage period

Impacts

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) mg/L

2500 – 7000

800 – 1500

Anaerobic degradation causes odours. Depletes oxygen in water

pH

4-8

6 - 10

Impact on microbiological activity in water and soils.

Affects vegetation growth.

Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L

500 - 1500

200 - 800

Impacts soil properties, odour from degradation

NUTRIENTS: Nitrogen, mg/L Total Phosphorus, mg/L

20 – 75 10 - 20

5 – 25 5 - 10

Eutrophication in water bodies. N can be toxic to organisms

22

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

WINE RY WASTE WATE R

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

Figure 1. An aerated activated sludge system constructed to manage the wastewater of a winery and provide effluent for irrigation to a woodlot under an EPA licence.

Figure 2. A single lagoon with a small aerator and filtration plant used for effluent before using it for agricultural land irrigation.

in general, variation of the effluent quality was significant, particularly during vintage. In reviewing the plant performance, it was found that during the vintage period, the system suffered from: • insufficient volume in the activated sludge bioreactors (detention time and organic loading were some 3.7 days and 0.7kg BOD/m3/d, respectively, during vintage which indicated the system was about half the size it should be. Outside vintage, detention time was over 13 days, which was more than adequate • insufficient aeration with a shortfall of some 50% during vintage. Outside of the vintage period, aeration was found to be adequate • lack of nutrients to achieve adequate biological oxidation • shortfall in effluent storage and irrigated area.

A number of wastewater management options were reviewed including duplication of the activated sludge bioreactor and anaerobic pond as pre-treatment. The former represented the simplest and lowest capital cost option but the anaerobic digestion/pre-treatment option potentially provides a much more sustainable solution (controlling odours, reduction in energy, lower operating cost, no additional nutrient requirements).

THE LAGOON TREATMENT SYSTEM – CASE STUDY 2 Winery wastewater management involved a single lagoon (with a small aerator) and filtration prior to agricultural land irrigation of effluent (Figure 2). While the treatment lagoon was remote from the cellar door, odour was a significant issue. In reviewing the ▶ system, it was found:

1800 420 145 www.waterform.com.au

Solving Wastewater Quality Challenges with Australia’s Leading Wineries Performance & Compliance Guaranteed Design & Build Solutions Cost Benefit Reuse | Advanced Technologies | Operation & Maintenance Services

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

23

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

W I N E R Y WA S TE WATE R

existing pond as a maturation/polishing pond. Either would be regarded as suitable to reduce odour emissions from the existing system, although the anaerobic pre-treatment is regarded as more suitable. Interim measures might include hiring of slow speed surface aerators (or purchase of aerators for the aeration of the surface of the pond only, without disturbing the bottom sludge layer) and partial desludging of the pond to mitigate odours.

OTHER INDUSTRIES

Figure 3. The wastewater treatment process at an abattoir in New South Wales comprising an anaerobic lagoon and activated sludge process (foreground).

• the effluent quality was poor, with high BOD and low pH • there was some sludge accumulation within the ponds, but this was not the main cause of odours • the existing lagoon system was significantly overloaded (during vintage, retention time is about 25 days, and organic loading was some 6000kg BOD/ha.d, which indicates the pond volume/ area needed to be some two to three times larger. It was also noted that it was unusual to have a single pond. Typically, two to three ponds operate in series to prevent short circuiting • the key cause of odours was likely to be from organic overloading of the pond.

Again, a number of options for future upgrades of the system were considered including a covered anaerobic treatment lagoon followed by existing pond, and an aerated pond followed by

Enzyme Solutions

FERM ASSIST ®

®

Optimum Performance Fermentation Aid Containing Enzymes A complex blend of yeast nutrients with a Protease Enzyme for maximum nutrient uptake and to ensure optimum fermentation conditions every time. Contact our distribution sales teams at E.E. Muir & Sons for more information or request for a demonstration in Melbourne today.

Damian Toon Business Manager | 0409 431 771 | dtoon@eem.com.au Adam Daniels Technical Sales Manager | 0407 047 024 | adaniels@eem.com.au Proudly distributed by

24

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

Enzyme Solutions is a Business Unit of

While the wine industry typically uses single stage treatment systems and effluent irrigation of vineyards or adjacent horticultural areas, it is interesting to look at other industries and their wastewater management practices. While they don’t have the same issues as the wine industry (they have a constantly high load, rather than seasonal), some aspects are relevant to wineries not only in terms of the type of treatment, but how effluent is recycled.

I have considered two cases below of differing situations.

The abattoir There are many rural abattoirs (or meat processing plants) in Australia. In terms of contaminants, the abattoirs have lower BOD than wineries, although nutrients tend to be higher. They tend to have a common process train for treatment: • screening and dissolved air flotation (to remove grass solids and fats) • anaerobic pond (covered to minimise odours) and reduce most of the BOD • aerated pond to reduce BOD to low levels • storage pond to enable irrigation • irrigation of effluent to grazing land.

The multi-stage process reflects the need to treat the wastewater (to reduce BOD to low levels, typically less than 50mg/L) to enable suitable disposal. Abattoir operators also tend to save solids by-product and/or use them for composting.

The irrigation component is important for them, and allows recycling of nutrients to the land.

Figure 3 shows the treatment process at an abattoir in NSW (activated sludge process after anaerobic lagoon, which is in the background). The gas produced from the anaerobic lagoon is flared, but could be used in a cogeneration system for electricity production.

The brewery The brewery (metropolitan area) was paying almost $1.5m in trade waste fees to discharge partially treated effluent to the sewer. This was clearly an economic incentive to consider reuse of the treated effluent, and the drought provided the impetus to implement a strategy to achieve this.

The pre-treatment formerly involved air flotation, coupled with an anaerobic system (breweries have a BOD level lower than wine effluent during vintage). The company developed a water management plan for use in non-food contact areas of the brewery, including washdown, boiler make-up, cooling towers, and hot cleaning systems (not the beer).

The upgrade involved augmentation of the existing wastewater treatment plant, with installation of aerobic treatment (moving bed bioreactor), filtration, microfiltration, and reverse osmosis (RO) followed by chlorination for disinfection of effluent. The RO may seem somewhat excessive, except when considering the need for low-scale effluent for cooling tower application. It should

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

WINE RY WASTE WATE R

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

also be noted that some wineries have used RO for treatment of water for process applications.

Figure 4 shows the reverse osmosis membranes, the final wastewater treatment stage at the brewery.

CONCLUSIONS The wine industry faces a number of wastewater difficulties associated with vintage. However, there are many examples of suitable treatment systems to manage this, and it is important to have a suitably designed system to cater for the increased contaminant load during vintage. It is key that winemakers understand the capability of a winery’s treatment facility and identify any shortcomings in order to avoid potential odour and environmental impacts.

Reuse of suitably treated effluent is appropriate, and composting of marc and lees to improve soil properties makes good sustainable sense. Reuse of properly treated wastewater effluent is possible after treatment. Typically, this will involve a multi-stage system to achieve the required BOD reduction (especially during vintage). There are a number of examples of suitable practices from other industries. Making use of waste by-products (effluent), and reducing use of potable/process water will save money in the long term.

In developing a strategy to deal with higher vintage loads, and taking into account sustainability principles, many high BOD industries (including wineries) have now been recognised as anaerobic systems, providing additional opportunity to reduce organic loads and, at the same time, produce methane-rich gas for energy production.

Figure 4. The reverse osmosis membranes making up the final wastewater treatment stage at a brewery.

Effluent reclamation is governed to a significant extent by the intended application (which dictates the effluent quality requirements). Besides vineyard or woodlot irrigation, potential uses of recycled water at wineries could include: • washing and cleaning • service water for heating and cooling • landscape irrigation.

It should, however, be acknowledged that treatment is a cost, and the higher the effluent quality requirements, typically the higher the cost. However, not all uses require high water quality.

In addition, there is a pay back from not only saving water in the long term, but also in terms of social and environmental benefits.

WVJ

Water Management Solutions Wastewater

Kingspan Commercial BioDisc® Wastewater Treatment Plant Relied on globally for over 60 years – Now available in Australia

BM Commercial BioDisc®, Raasay Distillery, Isle of Raasay, UK

– Selected for Raasay Distillery to treat wastewater from staff facilities, restaurant and up to 12,000 visitors a year – Cost effective and energy efficient wastewater treatment plant when compared to competitive options – Noise-free and odourless solution for commercial projects, including hospitality and accommodation

Talk to a Wastewater expert today

V3 3N 1

1300 736 562

sales.au@kingspan.com kingspan.com.au/water

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

25

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

LOWERING ALCOHOL

Water into wine: pre-fermentation strategies for producing lower alcohol wine

By Renata Ristic, Olaf Schelezki and David Jeffery The University of Adelaide and the Australian Research Council, Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production INTRODUCTION

on export (Wilkinson and Jiranek 2013, Schelezki et al. 2018) Various approaches are available for lowering wine alcohol content, either before, during or after fermentation (Schmidtke et al. 2012, Longo et al.

2016). Early harvest is one of the approaches trialled to decrease the alcohol content of wine through lower grape sugar concentrations, but picking fruit early may shift grape composition towards green and unripe attributes due to increases in wine methoxypyrazines and/or higher levels of C6 alcohols or aldehydes (‘green apple’, ‘grass’) (Kalua and Boss 2009, 2010). Insufficient aroma/ flavour and phenolic maturity of the early-harvest fruit usually produces wines low in flavour intensity, with marked bitterness and herbaceous characters (Pineau et al. 2011, Bindon et al. 2013). However, unripe grapes can be used to produce a low alcohol, highly acidic blending material that is subsequently incorporated prior to fermentation into the must of the crop harvested at ordinary maturity, hence producing wines of moderate alcohol levels and enhanced sensory

Warmer and shorter grape ripening periods attributable to a changing climate are posing considerable challenges for Australian producers. Logistical pressures due to a compressed vintage can lead to delays in grape harvesting that further increase berry sugar levels, yielding wines with elevated alcohol concentrations. Extending the time of harvest is also driven by winemakers’ and consumers’ fondness for riper grapes, which make wines with enhanced aromas and fuller body (Wilkinson and Jiranek 2013) or, alternatively, to account for a considerable variability in berry ripening (i.e., producers aiming to reduce berry ripening heterogeneity).

However, a prolonged ripening period increases the risk of rapid onset of berry shrivel leading to excessive wine alcohol concentrations. Despite these trends and influences in the vineyard, winemakers are increasingly aware of the need to manage wine alcohol levels to balance wine style, meet consumer demand for lower alcohol wines and to avoid paying higher taxes or duties

properties (Kontoudakis et al. 2011).

This approach was further tested by one of the projects conducted within the Australian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production (TC-IWP) at The University of Adelaide.

Over three vintages, 2015-17, ARC TC-IWP PhD student, Olaf Schelezki, under supervision of Associate Professor David Jeffery, Professor Alain Deloire (CSU, now at SupAgro, Montpellier University) and Dr Paul Smith (AWRI, now at Wine Australia), investigated pre-fermentation approaches, including water addition, to produce Cabernet Sauvignon and Shiraz wines of lower alcohol content.

The effectiveness of an early harvest regime and a blending approach was studied in 2015-16 for Cabernet Sauvignon, using either ‘green harvest wine’ (GHW) or water to substitute for some juice prior to fermentation. The inclusion of water to dilute initial sugar must levels was timely in light of the recent decision (FSANZ 2017, A1119) to permit the addition of water to high sugar musts to facilitate fermentation (Office of Parliamentary Counsel 2017).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

20

H1

H2

H3

H4

18

% of population

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

°Brix

Figure 1. Berry total soluble solids (oBrix) distribution for consecutive harvests (H1– H4) in the 2015 vintage showing higher proportions of berries with high TSS at later harvest dates.

26

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

Cabernet Sauvignon grapes were sourced from a commercial vineyard in McLaren Vale, South Australia.

Bunches were harvested during veraison (≈50% coloured berries), fermented to dryness, fined with charcoal and bentonite, and stored at 0oC until required for blending. During subsequent harvests, grapes were picked and vinified at four consecutive maturity levels (H1-H4) to enable comparison of Cabernet Sauvignon wines with different alcohol levels with H4 acting as both the control (C) and base for the pre-fermentation blending treatments. After destemming and crushing, proportions of the H4 juice were substituted either with filtered

V33N1

LOWERING ALCOHOL

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

Table 1. Alcohol level, rate of pre-fermentative juice substitution, and differences (%) relative to the control for wine colour density and phenolics composition of Cabernet Sauvignon wines made via blending treatments in 2015 and 2016.

Wine

Alcohol % abv

Substitution rate % v/v

Colour intensity

Hue

Total anthocyanins (mg/L)

Total phenolics (au)

SO2 resistant pigments

Wine tannin (mg/L)

21.5

0.59

838

61.3

4.59

2144

Control 2015

18.2

B1

14.4

43.7

-1.9

-10.2

-3.5

-1.1

-21.1

0.1

B2

15.8

27.3

2.8

-8.5

-6.0

3.9

-11.3

8.9

B3

17.0

13.6

-4.7

-3.4

-0.4

0.3

-7.8

-6.5

Bw1

14.7

32.0

-3.7

-6.8

-1.9

0.8

-16.1

-1.1

Bw2

16.0

19.9

-3.3

-3.4

-5.5

-1.1

-6.1

-4.8

Bw3

17.4

10.1

-5.1

-3.4

3.9

4.6

-1.1

-6.9

Control 2016

15.5

11.7

0.63

595

45.0

2.84

1297

B1

12.6

39.5

-3.4

-11.1

-1.2

-10.4

-17.6

-19.7

B2

13.8

25.7

-1.7

-6.3

-0.5

-4.4

7.7

-10.2

B3

14.5

16.3

11.1

-6.3

2.0

1.6

11.6

-3.1

Bw1

12.9

25.3

6.0

7.9

2.5

2.0

0.0

14.2

Bw2

13.8

16.4

16.2

7.9

-4.4

0.2

8.8

10.5

Bw3

14.6

10.4

14.5

4.8

0.2

4.4

16.9

15.7

B=blends of Control with GHW; Bw= blends of Control with water.

water or with GHW prior to inoculation, in order to adjust sugar levels of the musts to match as best as possible the final alcohol concentrations in the harvest series wines H1-H3. A range of grape and wine compositional measures important to red wine quality were undertaken and wines were profiled by descriptive sensory analysis using a trained sensory panel. This article describes the effects of blending regimes using green harvest wines (B1, B2, B3) and water (Bw1, Bw2, Bw3), on chemical and sensory properties of wines compared with the control (harvested at commercial maturity) Cabernet Sauvignon wines. A full account of vintage 2015 can be found in Schelezki et al. (2018) and the summary in Schelezki and Jeffery (2017).

RESULTS The 2015 growing season in McLaren Vale was warmer than the long-term average (2416 Huglin index units) and berry shrivel was evident, making it a representative season in terms of compressed grape ripening. Berries picked at later time points for the harvest series wines revealed a proportional increase in the number of berries with high sugar

V3 3N 1

and, with the onset of berry shrivel from H3 onwards, a greater degree of ripeness heterogeneity (with around 10% of berries having >35°Brix for the commercial harvest time point H4, Figure 1). Water and GHW (4.5% and 5.3% alcohol by volume (abv) in 2015 and 2016, respectively, pH2.7, produced from grapes picked at about 8°Brix) were used to blend with the must arising from grapes harvested at H4 after running off a proportional amount of juice. In vintage 2015, the commercial harvest date H4 produced wines with 18.2%abv, whereas blending yielded wines with around 14.5%abv for treatments containing 30-40% GHW or water by volume, and up to 17%abv for wines made with 10-14% GHW or water by volume (Schelezki et al. 2018).

Vintage 2016 was characterised by less compressed ripening development and favourable vine water status and the Cabernet Sauvignon grapes from the same McLaren Vale vineyard were commercially picked just in time before berry shrivel could progress. This led to a H4 control wine with 15.5%abv and blending treatments of 12.6%, 13.8% and 14.5%abv for GHW substitution, and 12.9%, 13.8% and 14.6% for water substitution (Table 1).

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

Phenolic measures of wines were undertaken to provide information from which important colour and chemical properties can be inferred. The vintage effect was significant and reflected in considerably higher wine colour density and phenolic measurements in vintage 2015, compared with vintage 2016, which recorded overall more favourable ripening conditions and milder season.

In vintage 2015, wine colour density, concentration of total anthocyanins and total phenolics were similar between the control and blending treatments, irrespective of the substitution rate (Table 1). The effect of the treatments was observed mainly for SO2 stable pigments, which was magnified after 18 months in bottle, with the water treatments apparently showing better ageing potential by having higher levels of anthocyanins, stable pigments and colour density (Schelezki et al. 2018).

In vintage 2016, positive outcomes were observed for blending treatments B3, Bw2 and Bw3, which achieved significantly higher wine colour density than the control (Table 1).

This could be a result of a cumulative effect of only slightly higher (but not statistically significant) concentrations of anthocyanins, phenolics and total

www.winetitles. com . au

27

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

LOWERING ALCOHOL

tannins, which all contribute to wine colour density (Cheynier et al. 2006).

Most importantly, while there were no statistically significant differences in the concentrations of SO2 resistant pigments and wine tannins between the control and blending treatments, the water treatments showed higher values than the control, indicating that the use of water to achieve lower alcohol wines was a better approach than the use of GHW (Table 1).

In each year a sensory panel was assembled and trained to perceive the smallest differences in the sensory profiles of wines. The panel assessed wines for aroma, flavour and taste/mouthfeel attributes such as sweetness, hotness, bitterness and astringency. In general, sensory descriptive analysis did not reveal any negative effects of blending treatments on the sensory properties of the wines. In both vintages, overall wine aroma was not affected by any of the treatments, whereas overall flavour intensity appeared to be marginally affected (up to 10% on a 100-point

intensity scale) with a higher proportion of substituted juice (Figure 2). Similar results were obtained for ripe berry flavours, such as ‘dark fruit’ and ‘dried fruit/jam’ flavours, although higher ratings of those flavours in the 2015 control wine could be partially associated with higher perceived sweetness of those wines (ReboredoRodriguez et al. 2015). Decreasing intensity of ‘green’ flavour perception was correlated with the alcohol content from B1, Bw1, B2, Bw2 to B3, Bw3 and control in 2015 wines, whereas, in 2016, only Bw1 was perceived significantly greener than the control wines. This can be considered an advantage of the applied blending treatments compared with harvesting prematurely to manage wine alcohol, as intense ‘green’ or ‘capsicum-like’ aroma and flavour in Cabernet Sauvignon is an undesirable wine character, disliked by many wine consumers (Lattey et al. 2010, Jiang et al. 2017). Furthermore, bitterness and wine astringency were either rated lower or the same as the control in all B and Bw wines. Most importantly,

Aroma Intensity

Hotness** Bitterness

Astringency

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Hotness***

F Dark Fruit**

F Dried Fruit/Jam*** F Green*

Sweetness***

B2

B3

Bitterness

Astringency

50

C

Bw1

30

F Dark Fruit*

20

Astringency

10 0

F Dried Fruit*

Acidity

Bitterness*

F Green

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

Body*

Bw2

Bw3

C

Flavour Intensity

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

F Dark Fruit

Acidity

F Dried Fruit

Bitterness*

F Green Sweetness

Sweetness

28

F Dried Fruit/Jam**

70

Hotness**

40

B2

F Dark Fruit*

Sweetness** *

Flavour Intensity**

60

B1

Flavour Intensity*

Figure 2. Sensory profiles of Cabernet Sauvignon wines made by running off juice and proportionally blending with green harvest wine (B1, B2, B3) or water (Bw1, Bw2, Bw3) prior to fermentation in vintage 2015 (top) and 2016 (bottom). C = control; F = flavour attribute. *,**,*** denote significant differences at p<0.5, p<0.01 and p<0.01

Aroma Intensity

70

Astringency* *

Adjusting the alcohol level of wine via juice substitution with water or

F Green*

Aroma Intensity Hotness**

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Acidity

Body**

B1

CONCLUSION

Aroma Intensity

Flavour Intensity**

Acidity*

with decreasing alcohol levels, wines lost some of their hotness.

Having higher alcohol levels, 2015 wines were perceived hotter than the corresponding 2016 wines, which was reflected in lesser differences between the control and blending treatments in 2015 wines (only B1 and Bw1) compared with 2016 (B1, Bw1, B2, Bw2). Overall, differences in the sensory profile of wines were more apparent in 2015 than in 2016, which was probably a result of considerable differences in berry compositional attributes caused by the disparate conditions during the ripening period and at harvest for each vintage. Consequently, harvesting grapes according to more enhanced models (Deloire 2013c), rather than just by grape TSS concentrations, could help to overcome vintage-related divergences and improve the prediction of wine styles, particularly when alcohol management is considered.

B3

C

Bw1

Bw2

Bw3

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

C V33N1

LOWERING ALCOHOL

GHW in general led to only marginal changes in chemical and sensory parameters. During the 2015 vintage, compressed ripening dynamics caused substantial berry shrivel and both blending treatments appeared to have been a useful tool to lower the ethanol content of wines with initially high must sugar concentrations (>30oBrix) to produce wines with moderate alcohol concentrations without significantly alternating their quality parameters. In 2016, the grapes achieved commercial maturity without being affected by berry shrivel and the water substitution approach showed promising outcomes for lowering alcohol level while preserving the characteristics of fully ripened grapes. Furthermore, the slightly inferior quality parameters (colour and phenolics) resulting from the GHW blending treatments and the effort and costs involved with producing GHW in the first place would seem to challenge its suitability for an industrial application, leaving water as the preferred (and simplest) blending partner to adjust alcohol levels in wines.

Overall, large decreases in final wine alcohol concentration can be readily achieved purely through a pre-fermentation approach. Due to its ubiquitous availability and minimal impact on wine composition, the implementation of filtered water was found to be the most convenient way to decrease wine alcohol content in this study on Cabernet Sauvignon.

However, because this approach tends to retain the compositional attributes determined by grape maturity at the time of harvest, it could be regarded as a useful last resort to limit the negative implications of a highly mature crop, rather than being broadly implemented after deliberately prolonging the maturation of grapes on the vine.

Supporting the observations made during the 2015 trials, the outcomes in 2016 strongly underscored the advantages of water implementation, but also raised more questions about the best way to do so. A more convenient way for winemakers to dilute must sugar concentrations is the simple addition of water without running off juice, hence in 2017 the experimental setup was designed to evaluate dilution or substitution with

V3 3N 1

water as tools to manage wine alcohol levels, while retaining optimum wine quality. In addition, the 2017 trial sought to understand how the stage of grape maturity may influence attempts to lower wine alcohol concentrations by picking fruit at two distinct maturity levels described as ‘fresh fruit’ and ‘mature fruit’ (Deloire 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, Suklje et al. 2014), thus completing these first investigations of an early harvest regime and blending approaches to manage alcohol levels in red wines.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Keren Bindon and Paul Smith (AWRI), and Ana Hranilovic (The University of Adelaide, UA) are co-authors on the publication in Food Chemistry and are gratefully acknowledged for their contributions to this work. We also thank Treasury Wine Estates for the donation of the grape samples, and acknowledge Jin Zhang (UA) and Stella Kassara (AWRI) for their technical assistance. Paul Petrie (AWRI) is thanked for encouragement and conceptualising aspects of the grape ripening and size variability trial.

This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production (www.adelaide.edu.au/tc-iwp/), which is funded as a part of the ARC’s Industrial Transformation Research Program (Project No IC130100005) with support from Wine Australia (including supplementary scholarship GWR Ph1408) and industry partners.

For further information contact: olaf. schelezki@adelaide.edu.au or david. jeffery@adelaide.edu.au REFERENCES Bindon, K.; Varela, C.; Kennedy, J.A.; Holt, H. and Herderich, M. (2013) Relationships between harvest time and wine composition in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon 1. Grape and wine chemistry. Food Chemistry 141:147-147.

Cheynier, V.; Dueñas-Paton, M.; Salas, E.; Maury, C.; Souquet, J.-M.; Sarni-Manchado, P. and Fulcrand, H. (2006) Structure and properties of wine pigments and tannins. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 57:298-305.

Deloire, A. (2013a) Berry ripening and wine aroma. Practical Winery & Vineyard April 2013:1-3.

Deloire, A. (2013b) New method to determine optimal ripeness for white wine styles. Practical Winery & Vineyard Winter 2013:1-4.

Deloire, A. (2013c) Predicting harvest date using berry sugar accumulation. Practical Winery & Vineyard May 2013:1-3.

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

(2016); Available from: http://www.foodstandards. gov.au/code/applications/Documents/A1119%20 Addition%20of%20water%20to%20wine%20AppR. pdf Jiang, W.W.; Niimi, J.; Ristic, R. and Bastian, S.E.P. (2017) Effects of immersive context and wine flavour on consumer wine flavour perception and elicited emotions. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 68:1-10.

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

Kalua, C.M. and Boss, P.K. (2010) Comparison of major volatile compounds from Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) from fruitset to harvest. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 16:337-348.

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

Lattey, K.A.; Bramley, B.R. and Francis, I.L. (2010) Consumer acceptability, sensory properties and expert quality judgements of Australian Cabernet Sauvignon and Shiraz wines. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 16:189-202.

Longo, R.; Blackman, J.W.; Torley, P.J.; Rogiers, S.Y. and Schmidtke, L.M. (2016) Changes in volatile composition and sensory attributes of wines during alcohol content reduction. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture DOI:10.1002/jsfa.7757.

Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Standard 4.5.1 - Wine production requirements. 2017; Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/ F2017C00713.

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

Reboredo-Rodriguez, P.; Gonzalez-Barreiro, C.; Rial-Otero, R.; Cancho-Grande, B. and SimalGandara, J. (2015) Effects of sugar concentration processes in grapes and wine ageing on aroma compounds of sweet wines. A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 55:1051-1071.

Schelezki, O.J. and Jeffery, D.W. (2017) Techical note: Water into wine: pre-fermentation strategies for producing lower alcohol wines. In www.adelaide. edu.au/tc-iwp/publications/technical/TN7-Waterinto-wine.pdf Schelezki, O.J.; Smith, P.A.; Hranilovic, A.; Bindon, K.A. and Jeffery, D.W. (2018) Comparison of consecutive harvests versus blending treatments to produce lower alcohol wines from Cabernet Sauvignon grapes: Impact on polysaccharide and tannin content and composition. Food Chemistry 244:50-59.

Schmidtke, L.M.; Blackman, J.W. and Agboola, S.O. (2012) Production technologies for reduced alcoholic wines. Journal of Food Science 77:25-41.

Suklje, K.; Antalick, G.; Meeks, C.B.; Blackman, J.W.; Deloire, A. and Schmidtke, L.M. (2014) Optimising harvest date through use of an integrated grape compositional and sensory model: A proposed approach for a better understanding of ripening of autochthonous varieties? Oenoviti International Network 44-49.

Wilkinson, K. and Jiranek, V. (2013) Wine of reduced alcohol content: Consumer and society demand vs industry willingness and ability to deliver. Red 15:16.

FSANZ. Approval report – Application A1119: Addition of water to facilitate wine fermentation

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

WVJ

www.winetitles. com . au

29

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

FINING

Fining during fermentation: focus on white and rosé Advantages of fining in must rather than wine on aroma and colour

By Alana Seabrook1 and Tertius van der Westhuizen2 The most common timing for fining is in the juice stage or in wine, but a multitude of research supports fining during fermentation as a beneficial practice. Fining is a generic term for the removal of a particular set of compounds, and there are various methods to accomplish this. Combinations of fining agents (Figure 1) can have a targeted effect on undesirable compounds without affecting nitrogen levels.

Both micronutrients and nitrogen can be replaced through the addition of organic nitrogen sources, but key aroma compounds like thiols are lost indefinitely if they are not protected from oxidisable phenolics early on in the juice stage (Coetzee et al. 2013). Wine is a complex matrix of proteins, colloidal matter, sugars, acids and phenolic compounds.

Fining removes unwanted components from juice or wine. This may be for the purpose of clarification, removal of oxidisable and non-oxidisable compounds which can affect colour, bitterness and other off flavours. Fining can improve wine stability in a number of ways and improve wine from an organoleptic point of view. Besides having a clarifying effect, fining leads to changes in the polyphenolic structure of wines and, in red wines, improves the stability of colouring matter by eliminating particles likely to precipitate later in bottle (LaguneAmmirati and Glories 1996). Fining also helps reduce the microbial load of the wine (Murat and Dumeau 2003).

WHAT ARE THE KEY AROMA COMPOUNDS THAT NEED PROTECTION? Thiols are a key part of expression in many varietals, the most notable being Sauvignon Blanc. Thiols are relatively unexpressed in grape juice, but develop via yeast metabolism during alcoholic fermentation (Dubourdieu

»

TAKE HOME POINTS • Oxidisable phenolics (mainly flavonoids and phenolic acids) can affect colour by turning brown.

These brown oxidised phenolics can scavenge important aroma compounds • Fining during fermentation may prevent aroma and colour modification by fining out oxidisable phenolics early on • Each wine is unique and will require a tailored combination of fining agents suitable for the desired wine style • CO 2 from the fermentation will not protect phenolics from oxidising • Time from grape to bottle – there is often less time to stabilise colour, which results in a greater need to fine.

et al. 2006). The yeast strain plays a critical role in the formation of the thiols from precursors found in grapes.

Cysteinylated and glutathionylated precursors have a high chemical stability against oxidation (Roland et al. 2010).

In Sauvignon Blanc, 3-sulfanylhexanol (3SH), 3-sulfanylhexyl acetate (3SHA) and 4-sulfanyl-4-methylpentan-2-one (4MSP) are elemental, but have also been linked to the blackcurrant aroma of red wine (Rigou et al. 2014). 3SHA is formed from the acetylation of 3SH by the yeast during fermentation (Swiegers et al. 2007).

Methoxypyrazines are grape-derived and important contributors to green pepper, asparagus, grassy, herbaceous and vegetative characteristics. Three main methoxypyrazines occur in wines, namely 3-isobutyl-2methoxypyrazine (IBMP), 3-isopropyl-2-methoxypyrazine and 3-sec-butyl-2-methoxypyrazine (Marais

»

Figure 1. Different applications of fining combinations

Controlling colour intensity and refining the wine POLYMUST® ORG

Vegetal protein (pea), calcium bentonite.

Effective clarification. Preserves organoleptic potential.

POLYMUST® V

Vegetal protein (pea), PVPP. Eliminates oxidisable phenolic compounds.

POLYMUST® DC ORG Vegetal protein (pea), calcium bentonite, active carbon.

Reduces hue. Stabilises colour.

POLYMUST® ROSE

PVPP, vegetal protein (extract of potato protein).

Stabilises hue, reduces phenol acids.

VEGECOLL®

Vegetal protein (extract of potato protein).

Significant action on oxidisable polyphenol.

POLYLACT®

PVPP, potassium caseinate.

Inhibits browning.

Controlling oxidation

Figure 1. Different applications of fining combinations.

1994). These aromas are not modified by fermentation, and were shown to be present even after oxidative handling in the absence of SO2 (Coetzee et al. 2013).

Monoterpenes are plant-derived, have characteristic floral, fruit and citrus aromas in the form of geranoiol, linalool, nerol and alpha-terpineol, and are present in aromatic muscat varieties (Mateo and Jiménez 2000). Terpenes are normally glycosylated and nonvolatile in their glycosylated form. These may be released over the course of the fermentation or with commercial enzymes (Rusjan et al. 2016). Esters, higher alcohols and volatile acids are produced exclusively by microbial intervention (this level is subject to genera, species and strain variation) (Sumby et al. 2010).

Esters are much less prone to oxidation than thiols and can contribute fruit aromas.

Technical Manager, Laffort Australia

1

Managing Director, Laffort Australia

2

30

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

FINING

TYPES OF FINING AGENTS Fining agents can be divided into two categories: Proteinaceous and nonproteinaceous (Table 1). Their interaction with wine compounds can be in the form of a chemical bond, absorption and adsorption or electrostatic interaction.

A chemical bond formation will bind to the compound in question and normally Table 1. Types of fining agents and their respective properties

Proteinaceous

Nonproteinaceous

Fining agent

Charge

Gelatine

Positive

Isinglass

Positive

Casein

Positive

Egg white

Positive

Pea

Positive

Potato

Positive

Bentonite

Negative

Tannins

Negative

Silica

Negative

PVPP

No charge

Carbon

No charge

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

precipitate. Absorption and adsorption carries no electric charge and captures the compounds upon its structure.

Electrostatic interactions involve the fining agent and the compound having opposite charges, attracting the larger molecules which combine with the fining agent and settle out.

changing the colour, o-quinones can then react with thiols, rendering the bound thiol inodorous, thereby removing important aromas (Singleton 1987). When the must is fined earlier rather than later in the wine, the oxidisable phenolics can be removed before any effect on aroma and colour is caused. When fining wine, the oxidisable phenolics present may WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF FINING IN already have had an impact on aroma and JUICE RATHER THAN FINING IN WINE? colour and the rate used has to be much The removal of oxidisable phenolics lower, as the fining at this point may are key to preserving aromas and, have a much harsher effect. Glutathione importantly, preventing the wine from is found in yeast and juice and can play oxidising and turning brown. Elimination a role in aroma protection via means of the phenol acids and flavonoids scavenging oxygen and can bind to the prevent the formation of o-quinones oxygen in o-quinones forming a stable (brown compounds; Figure 2). If the compound (Cheynier et al. 1993). majority of compounds that can be During fermentation a fining agent oxidised are taken out, then there is able to be kept in suspension due to is much less to oxidise. Apart from the agitation caused by the fermentation Figure 2. Prevention of the formation of quinones which can trap volatiles aroma

Figure 2. Prevention of the formation of quinones which can trap volatiles aroma.

ZERO FORCE. FULL POWER. Experience the new dimension of ergonomics in high-pressure cleaning: with the new EASY!Force trigger gun, you need zero holding force and can clean effortlessly for longer. EASY!Force is compatible with Kärcher Professional pressure washers.

www.karcher.com.au 1800 675 714

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

31

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

FINING

Figure 3. Thiols (concentration/threshold) incrementing must turbidities and with/without Vegecoll®, fermented with A) Zymaflore® X5 yeast and B) Zymaflore® Delta a) and, as a consequence, be thoroughly distributed throughout the must. The desired aromatic outcome can be optimised by managing the right level of nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) for the yeast and fining action. Figure 3 is a trial conducted in 2014 on the Sauvignon Blanc free run fraction, demonstrating an increase in thiols with the turbidity regulation and addition of a fining agent. The purpose of adding the fining agent was to eliminate oxidisable phenolics in the juice which could subsequently bind to volatile thiols in their oxidised form. The yeast strain Zymaflore X5® (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) was inoculated into the same must with incrementing turbidities: 150, 200 and 250 NTU (fluffy lees were added back to adjust the NTU). Each of these fermentations were conducted with and without the addition of an extract of potato protein (Vegecoll®) at 30ppm. Both yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) and lipid content were adjusted to the same level. When conducted with a second strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Figure 3b) the levels of thiols released in the same must were much higher, ranging from 46–49% increase in thiols, rather than 14–24% for the first yeast strain.

The thiol fraction was measured three months after the end of alcoholic fermentation (Figure 4) for both Zymaflore X5 and Zymaflore Delta®. In all cases there was a better preservation in thiols at the end of the three-month period where Vegecoll was used.

With the introduction of crossflow filtration, it can be tempting to skip the fining stage. Crossflows can make the wine clear, but not stable. When floating with a fining agent, there is the added benefit of fining at the same time.

Grapes naturally have glutathione present, but it can also be released from the yeast. Glutathione is important because it can also bind to phenolic acids and prevent them from oxidising.

Glutathione can be taken up by yeast, so any nitrogen deficiency will incur the loss of glutathione. Fining agents do not have an impact on glutathione levels, making fermentation an ideal time to fine.

MULTIPLE ADDITIONS: FINING IN JUICE AND DURING AF Figure 5 was a trial conducted in France in 2015 on Sauvignon Blanc pressings.

The control had managed oxygenation

32

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

A)

b)B)

Figure 3. Thiols (concentration/threshold) incrementing must turbidities and with/ Figure 4.Vegecoll®, Thiols (concentration/threshold) measured atX5the end and of AFB)and 3 months after AF without fermented with A) Zymaflore® yeast Zymaflore® Delta.

Figure 5. Trial variations: A: Control, juice with controlled oxygenation and settling; B: Vegecoll® at 200 ppm on the juice prior to settling, protection from O2; D: Vegecoll® at 150 ppm on the juice prior to settling + 30 ppm in Alcoholic Fermentation, protection from O2; E: Figure (concentration/threshold) measured endjuice of alcoholic Vegecoll®4.atThiols 50 ppm in Alcoholic Fermentation, protection from at O2.the Press 2015, fermentation and threeinmonths after alcoholic fermentation.

Sauvignon Blanc, winemaking used barrels

Figure 5. Trial variations: A: Control, juice with controlled oxygenation and settling; B: Vegecoll® at 200ppm on the juice prior to settling, protection from O2; D: Vegecoll® at 150ppm on the juice prior to settling + 30ppm in alcoholic fermentation, protection from O2; E: Vegecoll® at 50ppm in alcoholic fermentation, protection from O2. Press juice 2015, Sauvignon Blanc, winemaking in used barrels. and settling without any fining agent (A).

Overall this variant showed the lowest levels of 3SH and 3SHA. The second variant (B) had a one-off addition of 200ppm of Vegecoll added to the juice prior to settling, and had the highest level of 3SH after ageing. On the other hand, 3MHA was higher in variant D, whereby there was a preliminary addition of Vegecoll at 150ppm on the juice prior to settling, plus 30ppm added in alcoholic fermentation. The addition of Vegecoll at 50ppm during alcoholic fermentation alone produces levels of 3SH and 3SHA slightly above the control (A), suggesting the importance of fining in the juice stage.

A higher preliminary addition with a subsequent fining had the highest levels of the 3SHA, an acetylated thiol reminiscent of passionfruit. Depending on the style of W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

wine desired, subsequent additions can be beneficial and important for aroma.

ROSÉ Fining in rosé is crucial as any effect on browning or aroma will be evident.

Trials were conducted with a specific combination of PVPP and potato protein (Polymust Rosé®), which stabilises hue and reduces phenolic acids. The synergic effects of PVPP and extract of potato protein can tackle the larger phenolic compounds that form o-quinones, making it ideal for most rosé. Figure 6 demonstrates that different combinations of both pea protein with PVPP (Polymust®V) and potato protein with PVPP (Polymust Rosé) at incrementing levels had a significant effect on colour measured at 420nm, 520nm and 620nm, V33N1

FINING

WWI INN E M M AAKKI NI GN G

Figure 6. Trials conducted at Cave de Landerrouat 2015, fining on Rose juice juice stage, higher doses are less likely to strip the wine.

REFERENCES Cheynier, V.; Masson, G.; Rigaud, J. and Moutounet, M. (1993) Estimation of must oxidation during pressing in Champagne. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 1:44(4):393-9.

Control

Pea protein/PVPP 30 g/hL A620

Pea protein/ PVPP 50 g/hL

PVPP, vegetal protein (patatin) 30 g/hL

A520

A420

Pea protein/PVPP 50g/hL

Figure 6. Trials conducted at Cave de Landerrouat 2015, fining on rosé juice. thereby decreasing the amount that can subsequently oxidise, change colour and neutralise thiols.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WINES AREN’T FINED? With the tendency towards producing a more ‘natural’ product with minimal intervention, some producers are skipping the fining stage. Aside from possible ramifications with colour and aroma, fining takes away harsh, astringent phenolics which often give the wine a ‘phenolic’ palate. As discussed previously, fining in the wine is often too late, as the fining agent will have a much harsher impact on desirable compounds.

Rosé colour will drop out if there are oxidisable phenolics present that aren’t taken out via fining, leading to colour instability in tank and bottle.

CONCLUSIONS Wine aroma is made up of thiols produced by yeast from precursors

in the grapes, esters produces by microbial interaction, grape-derived methoxypyrazines and terpenes which are liberated/volatilised via microbial interaction, chemical or enzymatic hydrolysis. Thiols are highly susceptible to oxidation and important in many white and rosé wines. Fining during fermentation is critical to remove oxidisable phenolics which can bind to thiols produced by yeast to irreversibly remove them. Fining agents and combinations thereof can have a targeted effect on undesirable compounds, and can be tailored to increase certain volatiles depending on the desired wine style. Glutathione will scavenge oxygen in general, and the oxygen on the o-quinone to form a stable compound. It is important to note that if the nutrition in the ferment is not sufficient, glutathione levels will decrease and take away protection from oxidation.

Removal of oxidisable phenolics in the juice stage will prevent negative impacts on colour and aroma – when done in the

Dubourdieu, D.; Tominaga, T.; Masneuf, I.; des Gachons, C.P. and Murat, M.L. (2006) The role of yeasts in grape flavour development during fermentation: the example of Sauvignon Blanc.

American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 1:57(1):81-8.

Marais, J. (1994) Sauvignon Blanc cultivar aroma - a review. South African Journal for Enology and Viticulture 15(2):41-5.

Roland, A.; Vialaret, J.; Razungles, A.; Rigou, P. and Schneider, R. (2010) Evolution of S-cysteinylated and S-glutathionylated thiol precursors during oxidation of Melon B. and Sauvignon Blanc musts.

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 3:58(7):4406-13.

Rigou, P.; Triay, A. and Razungles, A. (2014) Influence of volatile thiols in the development of blackcurrant aroma in red wine. Food Chemistry 1:142:242-8.

Singleton, V.L. (1987) Oxygen with phenols and related reactions in musts, wines, and model systems: observations and practical implications. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 1:38(1):69-77.

Swiegers, J.H.; Capone, D.L.; Pardon, K.H.; Elsey, G.M.; Sefton, M.A.; Francis, I.L. and Pretorius, I.S. (2007) Engineering volatile thiol release in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for improved wine aroma.

Yeast 1:24(7):561-74.

Murat, M.L. and Dumeau, F. (2003) Impact of fining on population levels of certain spoilage microorganisms in red wines. Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker 478:92-4.

Ammirati, L.; Lartigue, L. and Glories, Y. (1996) Recent contribution to the study of clarifying of red wines. Revue Francaise d’Oenologie Mateo, J.J. and Jiménez, M. (2000) Monoterpenes in grape juice and wines. Journal of Chromatography 9:881(1):557-67.

Rusjan, D.; Strlič, M.S.; Košmerl, T. and Prosen, H. (2016) The response of monoterpenes to different enzyme preparations in Gewürztraminer (Vitis vinifera L.) wines. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 12;30(1):56-64.

Sumby, K.M.; Grbin, P.R. and Jiranek, V. (2010) Microbial modulation of aromatic esters in wine: current knowledge and future prospects. Food Chemistry 1;121(1):1-6.

WVJ

Don’t miss a

THING! An essential snapshot of wine business, research and marketing news from Australian and international wine media sources.

Distributed to over 12,000 subscribers.

Subscription is free and easy!

Visit www.winetitles.com.au to sign up today.

Join the list of leading suppliers who use Daily Wine News for an instant advertising message to the industry!

Contact Nicole Evans on +618 8369 9513 or n.evans@winetitles.com.au for details V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

33

A WW I N RE I MR A EK PO I NR G T

Influence of wine polysaccharides on white and red wine mouthfeel

By Richard Gawel, Alex Schulkin, Paul Smith*, Stella Kassara, Leigh Francis, Markus Herderich and Dan Johnson, The Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond SA 5064, Australia *Formerly AWRI, now Wine Australia Managing director Dan Johnson INTRODUCTION

AT A GLANCE

The style and quality of wine is partially determined by its mouthfeel, which includes the sensations of viscosity, astringency and warmth or hotness. Previous work at the AWRI has focussed on the effects of phenolics on wine texture (Gawel et al. 2014a). It showed that low molecular weight (MW) phenolics contribute to the perception of viscosity, astringency, palate hotness and bitterness in white wines, but their effects were strongly dependent on the wines’ pH and ethanol content. The focus of more recent work has shifted to investigating the effects of polysaccharides on mouthfeel and taste. Earlier work (Dupin et al. 2000, Vernhet et al. 1999) showed that polysaccharides can act as ‘protective colloids’ that assist in achieving protein and tartrate stability, thereby reducing bentonite use and energy costs. From a sensory perspective, polysaccharides have the potential to affect all aspects of mouthfeel including perception of astringency, viscosity and hotness. This occurs via interactions with phenolics and most likely by changing the molecular interplay between water and ethanol, which ultimately affects how the polysaccharides interact with the taste and tactile receptors in the mouth (Gawel et al. 2017).

WHAT ARE POLYSACCHARIDES AND WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? Polysaccharides are an abundant and diverse group of wine macromolecules (Figure 1). They are found at concentrations of 100-250mg/L in white wines and up to 600mg/L in red wines. As their name suggests, they are made up mostly of sugars (typically 80-90% by weight), and are the highest MW compounds found in wine, ranging from around 10,000 to 250,000 units (which for perspective is up to 100 times greater than the average MW of a red wine tannin).

MW: 5,000-10,000 Source: grape cell walls

MW: 50,000 - 200,000 Source: grape cell walls intracellular space

MW: 50,000 – 250,000 Source: yeast cell walls

Figure 1. Polysaccharides in wine. The size of the text indicates the typical relative concentrations found in white wines.

34

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

• Mouthfeel attributes such as viscosity, astringency and hotness play an important role in wine quality and are known to be influenced by the macromolecules present in wine • Several studies investigated the sensory impact of adding polysaccharides to a range of model and real wines • While some impacts were seen on the perception of viscosity and hotness, the basic wine matrix (pH and alcohol) had a much greater effect on mouthfeel and taste than the polysaccharides • Higher pH wines generally had greater perceived viscosity, bitterness and lower astringency, and higher alcohol wines were perceived as more bitter, astringent and hot • Winemaking practices that increase the concentration of certain polysaccharides have potential to mask palate hotness in both white and red wine, but practices that change wine pH and alcohol will probably have a greater impact.

They can be classified into three major groups based on the relative proportions and specific types of sugars they are made from, and their likely source during winemaking. These are: Mannoproteins (MPs), which are extracted into wine from yeast cell walls during fermentation and later during contact with yeast lees. At up to 250,000 MW units, they are the largest polysaccharides, and can be differentiated chemically by the presence of their ‘signature’ sugar mannose Arabinogalactan proteins (AGPs), which are grape derived and are easily released during juice processing and the early stages of fermentation. As their name suggests, they contain a significant proportion of the sugars arabinose and galactose Rhamnogalacturonan-2 polysaccharides (RG-2), which are the lowest MW polysaccharides and are released from pectins found in the grape cell wall when skins are in contact with juice or fermenting must. They are the most negatively charged of all polysaccharide types at wine pH and contain a high proportion of the sugars galacturonic acid and rhamnose, as well as their unique (and therefore identifying) sugar, fucose.

This report summarises the results of trials investigating the impact of polysaccharides on the mouthfeel and taste of red and white model wines and ‘real’ white wines.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

A WW I N RE I MR A EK PO I NR G T

ADDING POLYSACCHARIDES TO DIFFERENT WINES Total (whole) polysaccharides were extracted from Chardonnay, Riesling and Shiraz wines after being stripped of phenolics, and in the case of white wines, proteins. The whole polysaccharides were fractionated on a scale necessary to obtain sufficient quantities for sensory assessment into high molecular weight MW (>93kDa), medium MW (13-93kDa) and low MW (5-12kDa) fractions. The composition of the fractions was determined by their sugar profiles and reported MWs (Figure 2). The fractions were added to different types of wine (real and model), and sensory evaluations were conducted.

The sensory evaluations of the different wine types were conducted separately, but essentially used the same panel and profiling methods. A panel of 10-12 trained tasters profiled the taste, mouthfeel (viscosity, astringency and palate hotness) and overall flavour of the wines with and without added polysaccharides (Gawel et al. 2016) using descriptive analysis methods.

SENSORY EFFECTS OF ADDED POLYSACCHARIDES Whole white wine polysaccharides at the wine-like concentration of 150mg/L were added to a low phenolic white wine and an equivalent wine with added white wine phenolics.

This addition of polysaccharides, which effectively doubled their typical concentration, increased perceived viscosity,

A Whole Chardonnay PS Low MW PS Medium MW PS High MW PS 0

20

40

60

80

100

60

80

100

%

B Whole Shiraz PS Low MW PS Medium MW PS High MW PS 0

20

40

%

Mannose

Arabinose

Rhamnose

Glucose

Galactose

Galacturonic acid Glucuronic acid Fucose

Figure 2. Monosaccharide composition of the whole polysaccharides and fractions derived from (A) Chardonnay and (B) Shiraz wines. Brown/orange indicates mannoproteins, green indicates AGPs, and red/pink represents RG-2.

V3 3N 1

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

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

www.winetitles. com . au

35

A WW I N RE I MR A EK PO I NR G T

with a greater effect seen in the higher phenolic white wine (Figure 3). This suggests that phenolics and polysaccharides may interact to produce a perception of increased viscosity in white wine. Polysaccharides are used in many food and beverage industries as ‘thickeners’ and texture modifiers.

However, viscosity increases from polysaccharides are thought to occur when they become molecularly entangled, which only occurs when they are present in higher concentrations than those found in wine. As such, the observed increases in perceived viscosity in wine probably result from another mechanism, likely involving interactions with phenolics.

Other effects that were noted from the addition of the whole polysaccharides to white wine included decreases in perceived hotness in both high and low phenolic wines and an increase in perceived bitterness in the low phenolic wine (Figure 3). The reason for the increase is unclear. However, in the red wine model system, the medium MW polysaccharides reduced bitterness, particularly in the case of the model wines representing lighter bodied (i.e., lower alcohol and lower pH) styles.

Adding the same amount of whole red wine polysaccharides (150mg/L) to a model red wine that included 0.5g/L grape tannins did not increase its perceived viscosity. Red wine polysaccharides generally differ in composition from white wine polysaccharides by having significantly more (skinderived) rhamnogalacturonans (Figure 2) which could explain the difference in their effect on perceived wine viscosity.

Any increases in viscosity of the model red wines due to polysaccharides may have also been masked by astringency.

However, further work showed that certain types of polysaccharides in red wines can increase perceived viscosity under the conditions of higher alcohol and higher pH. Most importantly from a winemaking perspective, white and red wine polysaccharides were shown to significantly reduce the perception of palate hotness – a result which may explain why some wines appear to be less hot on the palate than others even though they have the same or higher alcohol content.

DELVING DEEPER The next questions to explore were: Which of the polysaccharide types found in wine could have caused the reduction in palate hotness and increase in viscosity? And how can they be better incorporated into wine through winemaking practices? To find out, further studies were conducted that involved tasting polysaccharide fractions taken from white and red wine, in model wines with different wine pH and ethanol levels. This work also examined the contribution of polysaccharides to mouthfeel compared with that of the wine matrix components of pH and alcohol.

All results to date point to medium MW (13-93kDa) polysaccharides being implicated in increased perceived viscosity and reductions in perceived hotness. However, it is noteworthy that their effects are dependent on wine pH and alcohol level. These polysaccharides increased the perceived viscosity of both red and white model wines when pH and alcohol were higher (pH 3.6 and alcohol 13.5%v/v), and decreased perceived hotness only when the alcohol content of the model wine was low (data for white model wine shown in Figure 4).

The sensorially significant medium MW fraction contained

36

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

Figure 3. Effect of adding whole white wine polysaccharides on the mouthfeel and taste of a low and high phenolic white wine.

AT = aftertaste, PS = polysaccharides a high proportion of AGPs (Figure 2), which in the case of red wine ferments are known to be rapidly extracted during the early stages of fermentation but are lost thereafter. Whether the same dynamics apply during white wine fermentation and whether the dynamics change following fermentation is a subject of a current study at the AWRI. This work aims to give winemakers leads as to how to retain palate-cooling polysaccharides during winemaking.

Earlier work by AWRI researchers showed that the astringency produced by seed tannins was suppressed by rhamnogalacturans, and their bitterness was suppressed by a mixture of mannoproteins and AGPs (Vidal et al. 2004a,b).

Polysaccharides are thought to suppress the astringency and bitterness of tannins by forming complexes that cannot interact with salivary and other oral proteins involved in astringency and bitterness perception.

The current work went further by investigating if and how the wine matrix influences these interactions. It was found that the astringency of only the higher alcohol model red wines was reduced by polysaccharides, with the low MW fraction being the most suppressive. The medium weight polysaccharides reduced bitterness of the lower alcohol and higher pH wines.

EFFECT OF THE WINE MATRIX The wine matrix can be considered the ‘elephant in the room’ in this work. All the data collected show that the basic wine matrix had a comparatively much greater effect on mouthfeel and taste than the polysaccharides. Higher pH mostly resulted in greater perceived viscosity, bitterness and lower astringency, and higher alcohol wines were more bitter, astringent and hot.

Polysaccharides tended to modulate the effects of the wine matrix on mouthfeel, but pH and alcohol levels were the main drivers of mouthfeel and taste (Figures 4 and 5).

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

A WW I N RE I MR A EK PO I NR G T

Figure 4. Interactive effects between polysaccharide MW fraction and pH or alcohol in model white wines. * indicates significantly different from the no polysaccharides control (p<0.1). PS = polysaccharides.

The relative influence of wine matrix composition and polysaccharides has significant winemaking implications. The pH and alcohol content of a wine can be easily influenced by applying standard winemaking practices (e.g. acid, tannin and water additions or malolactic fermentation). Achieving a significant increase in polysaccharide concentration in wine is more difficult.

For example, it was previously found that an extensive range of white juice extraction methods representative of commercial winemaking only yielded differences in polysaccharide concentration in the order of 15% (Gawel et al. 2014b). Although higher polysaccharides in wine can be achieved using other winemaking approaches, such as fermenting juices on grape solids and maintaining wine on yeast lees, results from this work suggest that the mouthfeel effects of these increases in polysaccharides are unlikely to rival that of the wine matrix itself.

Gawel, R.; Smith, P.A. and Waters, E.J. (2016) The influence of polysaccharides on the taste and mouthfeel of white wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 22:350-357.

Gawel, R.; Godden, P.; Williamson, P.; Francis, L.; Smith, P.; Waters, L.; Herderich, M. and Johnson, D. (2014a) Influence of phenolics on white wine quality and style. Wine Vitic. J. May/June:34-36.

Gawel, R.; Day, M.; Van Sluyter, S.C.; Holt, H.; Waters, E.J. and Smith, P.A. (2014b) White wine taste and mouthfeel as affected by juice extraction and processing. J. Agric. Food Chem. 62:10008-10014.

Vernhet, A.; Dupre, K.; Boulange-Petermann, L.; Cheynier, V.; Pellerin, P. and Moutounet, M. (1999) Composition of tartrate precipitates deposited on stainless steel tanks during the cold stabilization of wines. Part I. White wines. Am. J. Enol.

Vitic. 50:391-397.

Vidal, S.; Courcoux, P.; Francis, L.; Kwiatkowski, M.; Gawel, R.; Williams, P.; Waters, E. and Cheynier, V. (2004a) Use of an experimental design approach for evaluation of key wine components on mouthfeel perception. Food Qual. Pref.

15:209-17.

Vidal, S.; Francis, L.; Williams, P.; Kwiatkowski, M.; Gawel, R.; Cheynier, V. and Waters, E. (2004b) The mouthfeel properties of polysaccharides and anthocyanins in a wine like medium. Food Chem. 85:519-25.

WVJ

SUMMARY In-mouth textural attributes play a significant role in the perceived quality of both white and red wine. Polysaccharides, which are a chemically diverse and relatively abundant group of compounds in wine, were shown to influence wine mouthfeel and taste. However, it was clear that different polysaccharide types affected mouthfeel differently and their effects were strongly influenced by wine pH and alcohol level. Work is currently under way at the AWRI that seeks to understand how winemaking practices affect different types of polysaccharides.

If practices can be identified that specifically enhance the concentration of medium MW polysaccharides, they could be used to mask negatively perceived ethanol-derived hotness, and enhance perceived viscosity in some wines. Overall, however, changes to the wine matrix – namely pH and ethanol – are likely to have a greater influence on mouthfeel than polysaccharides.

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 in Adelaide. Ella Robinson is thanked for her editorial assistance.

REFERENCES Dupin, I.V.S.; Stockdale, V.J.; Williams P.J.; Jones, G.P.; Markides, A.J. and Waters, E.J. (2000) Saccharomyces cerevisiae mannoproteins that protect wine from protein haze: evaluation of extraction methods and immunolocalisation. J. Agric.

Food Chem. 48:1086–1095.

Gawel, R.; Smith, P.A.; Cicerale, S. and Keast, R.J. (2017) The mouthfeel of white wine. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2017.1346584

V3 3N 1

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

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

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

www.winetitles. com . au

37

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

ORGANIC/BIODYNAMIC

Integrated, organic and biodynamic viticulture: a comparative 10-year study

By Randolf Kauer1, Matthias Friedel1, Johanna Döring1, Georg Meißner1,2 and Manfred Stoll

»

German researchers report on the results of a 10-year study into the effects of integrated, organic and biodynamic vineyard management systems on the growth of Riesling vines and the resultant wine quality.

THE SYSTEMS COMPARISON Following the adoption of the EU regulation for organic farming in 1991, organic viticulture has attracted more and more attention. In Germany, 2000 hectares of organically managed vineyards were certified between 1992 and 2006, and the area has grown exponentially since then. In 2014, about 7500ha were managed according to organic standards.

This represents 7.5% of the total vineyard area in Germany. Globally, the viticultural area managed according to organic and biodynamic standards has tripled in the last 10 years. The countries with the largest surface area of vineyards managed according to organic standards are Italy, Spain and France. Outside Europe, the United States, Chile and Argentina are other major producers of organically grown grapes.

In recent years the biodynamic farming system has gaining increased attention from both producers and consumers.

»

1

Positive experiences of winegrowers working biodynamically have stimulated discussion within the wine sector, and there is interest to further understand the benefits for the vineyard system.

However, the potential effects of the biodynamic preparations on the resilience of vines, the quality of wines, or capacity to reflect terroir, are less easy to quantify and can divide opinion. This is one reason why, in 2006, a long-term field trial under the project name ‘INBIODYN’ was established at Hochschule Geisenheim University. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effects of the respective management systems on vegetative and generative growth as well as on wine quality. A summary of the main results is presented here.

EXPERIMENTAL SITE AND MANAGEMENT The field experiment compared the management systems ‘integrated’ (code of good practice), ‘bio-organic’ (EU and

Department of General and Organic Viticulture, Hochschule Geisenheim University, Germany 2

38

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

ECOVIN guidelines) and ‘biodynamic’ (EU and DEMETER guidelines) (Table 1).

It had four field replicates and is located in the Geisenheimer Mäuerchen, a sub-region of the Rheingau between the towns of Geisenheim and Rüdesheim. The experimental site was 0.8ha in size and planted in 1991 (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling, grafted on Vitis berlandieri Planch. x Vitis riparia Michx. cv. SO4 and Vitis riparia Michx. x Vitis cinerea Engelm. cv. Börner rootstock, respectively). The vines were planted at a spacing of 1.2m within rows and 2m between rows using a vertical shoot positioning system (VSP). Until the end of 2005 the vineyard was managed according to the code of good practice.

Conversion to organic and biodynamic viticulture started in 2006.

In the organic and biodynamic treatment, Wolff-mixture was used as cover crop (Figure 1, see page 40).

This mixture is frequently used in cool-climate organic viticulture and

Weingut Lageder, Magreid, Südtirol, Germany

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

▶

V33N1

MILES AHEAD

THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

Over 25 years of proven hands free growth straight to the wire, with quick and easy assembly using our Zip-Safe seal. It’s no wonder GroGuard is Australia’s biggest name in vine establishment technology.

Designed and manufactured locally for Australian conditions, our legendary strength and reliability is backed by a 3-year guarantee.

Contact your local rural store or

freecall 1800 644 259 www.groguard.com.au

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

ORGANIC/BIODYNAMIC

comprises 10 different species of legumes and, beyond that, a series of herbs and flourishing components.

In addition to the system comparison, the effects of the biodynamic preparation horn silica (501) were investigated within the biodynamic management system in five variants with different application times (data are not presented in this paper). The statistical evaluation of the results presented here takes into account the management system, and the influence of the rootstock and year.

in the bunch zone. There were no statistically significant differences between the bio-organic and biodynamic variants. Nevertheless, in eight out of 10 experimental years, biodynamic management showed a tendency towards lower vigour compared with bio-organic management.

RESULTS FROM 2006-2015 Growth During the investigation period, the canopy growth of the two organic variants, as measured by pruning weight, was significantly lower than in the integrated variant (ca.10-15%, Figure 2). The significantly lower secondary shoot leaf area also contributed to the lower pruning weights within the organically managed plots (Dรถring et al. 2015, Meiร ner 2015). However, even under long-term organic farming, pruning weights did not decline below a value of 2t/ha, which is considered a minimum vigour requirement in the region. In further investigations, a positive influence of the reduced growth in the organically managed plots on canopy structure could be demonstrated. Shoot length of primary shoots and the number of secondary shoots, as well as secondary shoot length, was significantly reduced under organic and biodynamic management and contributed to a better microclimate

Figure 1. Wolff-mixture rich in species often used in organic viticulture in Germany.

One of the reasons for the decline of growth in the organic variants was reduced transpiration rate and photosynthetic activity, and not a lack of nitrogen (Dรถring et al. 2015). Continuous measurements of mineralised nitrogen in the soil and the nitrogen content of the leaves demonstrated a better N-supply

in the organic variants after conversion because of a cover crop mixture rich in legumes (Wolff mixture as rotation cover crop) compared with the sward in the integrated treatment (every second row).

The organic and biodynamic variants, however, had a more negative water potential in the leaves during drought periods. An explanation of these lower water potentials in the organically managed variants could be the increased water consumption by the leguminous, deep-rooted cover crop mixture.

However, overall the level of water stress was not severe (Dรถring et al.

2015).

Yield and quality The reduced photosynthetic activity and reduced growth in the bio-organic and biodynamic variants resulted in a 20-25% lower yield compared with the integrated treatment over the years (Figure 3). In six out of 10 experimental years, the yields of biodynamic management were slightly lower than those of the bio-organic variant.

The decline in yields was mainly due to a significantly reduced berry size in the bio-organic and biodynamic plots.

In addition, the grapes showed a lower number of berries per cluster in the respective treatments (Dรถring et al.

2013). Over the entire period of the field trial, no significant increase in juice sugar concentration was achieved by a specific system. This also applied to the long-term data on total acidity and pH. In contrast, the bio-organic and the biodynamic treatments showed

Table 1. Management of the compared systems.

Integrated

Organic

Biodynamic

Cover crop

Sward (every 2nd row cultivated)

Wolff-mixture (every 2nd row cultivated)

Under-vinemanagement

Herbicides

Mechanically

Fertilisation

Green waste compost + Mineral fertilisers (according to Nmin analysis)

Plant protection

Systemic fungicides botryticides

Farmyard manure + Rolling or cultivation of cover crop

farmyard manure with biodynamic preparations (or cow pat pit preparation) + Rolling or cultivation of cover crop

Copper (max. 3kg/ha and year), wettable sulfur Plant resistance improvers

Mating disruption method against grape berry moth Biodynamic preparations

40

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

-

-

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

Horn manure and horn silica (3x per year) Compost preparations V33N1

ORGANIC/BIODYNAMIC

V I T I C U LT U R E

Figure 2. Pruning weight [t/ha fresh weight] in the field trial INBIODYNGeisenheim from 2006-2015.

Figure 3. Yield [kg/ha] in the field trial INBIODYN-Geisenheim from 2006-2015.

Figure 4. Disease incidence of sour rot in the field trial INBIODYN-Geisenheim from 2006-2015

significantly increased nitrogen contents (NOPA) in the berries in four out of six years when assessed between 2010 and 2015.

status of the plants are likely to result in drought stress tolerance by activating polyamine oxidation, resulting in a higher tolerance to biotic stress (Hatmi et al.

2014). These results are in accordance with other studies, since it is assumed that the biodynamic preparations stimulate secondary metabolism of the vines by reducing the water potential (Botelho et al. 2015). Some more favourable values for biodynamic farming could also be determined for the canopy structure (vegetative growth, secondary shoot leaf area), as well as for disease incidence of sour rot and downy mildew.

Over many years the juices and wines from the field trial were examined not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. In collaboration with J. Fritz (University of Bonn and University of Kassel, Witzenhausen), they were examined for their quality by means of biocristallisation (biocrystallisation, capillary dynamolysis and circular chromatography image analysis; see Huber et al. 2010, Zalecka et al. 2010).

Samples of the integrated cultivation method needed the most juice or wine to those of the bio-organic and biodynamic variants and showed more signs of increased ageing. The samples of the biodynamic variant were almost exclusively ranked better than the bioorganic variant (Meissner 2015, Fritz et al. 2017).

differences were found (Table 2, see page 42).

In 2014, the wines from the years 2009-2013 from the comparative experiment were examined in a comprehensive tasting program for sensory differences (Nikolaus 2014).

The samples were tasted by a trained panel within a ranking test, an extended triangle test, and descriptive sensors.

The tastings were conducted in duplicate with the exception of vintage 2010.

The results, as expected, strongly influenced by the vintage and the different storage times of the wines.

In the triangle tests, the tasting panel was able to distinguish the integrated variant significantly from the other two biological variants in two out of four years (2009 and 2013). In one year (2011) the biodynamic variant could be differentiated significantly from the other two variants. In the descriptive sensory test for the years 20092013 the wines from the biodynamic management were significantly fruitier, cleaner and significantly more fullbodied compared with the integrated variant. The wines from 2009-2013 from the bio-organic management and biodynamic management were evaluated as significantly more intense in flavour, compared with the wines from the integrated management in the descriptive sensory test. In the ranking tests, the biodynamic variant was most frequently ranked number one (in four of eight ranking tests) and the integrated variant ranked number three (in six of eight ranking tests).

Botrytis cinerea and sour rot The effects of the management systems on plant health also showed interesting results. Despite the usual use of botryticides in the integrated variant twice a season, no benefits for the incidence of Botrytis cinerea could be documented. This can be explained by the more open canopy structure, lower average berry size, and the lower cluster compactness of the organically managed variants. Defoliation treatments were not carried out in any of the treatments.

In the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2014, an increased incidence of sour rot could be observed due to humid weather conditions during the ripening phase. The organically managed plots exhibited a significantly lower disease incidence of sour rot than the integrated treatment (Figure 4).

The smaller berries as well as the improved cluster structure of the grapes combined with the bactericidal effect of the continuously used copper preparations in the bio-organic and biodynamic treatment can account for these differences.

Bio-organic and biodynamic management Compared with the differences between bio-organic and integrated management, the differences between bio-organic and biodynamic management were rather small. Nevertheless, significant differences between these two farming systems were observed. These included a more negative water potential in the biodynamic treatment in some years compared with the bio-organic plots. Seasonal variations in the water

V3 3N 1

Sensory evaluation of the wines Within the framework of the dissertation by Georg Meissner (Meissner 2015) for the comparison of the wines from the three management systems of the vintages 2006-2008, a total of 13 tastings were carried out with different tasting panels at home and abroad. In six of 13 ranking tests, no significant differences were found among the management systems. In seven tastings,

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH QUESTIONS These results of this experimental study over 10 years show that a conversion into bio-organic or biodynamic viticulture has significant

www.winetitles. com . au

41

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

ORGANIC/BIODYNAMIC

Table 2. Summarised results of the ranking tests of vintages 2006-2008 (Meißner 2015).

Int Vintage 2006

2007

2008

Date of Tasting

n

Mean

Significance

Mean

Bio-dyn

Significance

Mean

Significance

9-Jul-2007

35

2.4

a

1.7

b

1.9

ab

11-Dec-2007

23

2.6

a

1.8

ab

1.6

b

19-May-2008

55

2

ns

2

ns

2

ns

21-May-2008

27

1.9

ns

2.3

ns

1.8

ns

22-May-2008

18

2.1

ab

2.4

a

1.6

b

12-Aug-2008

19

1.7

ns

2.3

ns

1.9

ns

22-Oct-2008

17

2.4

ns

2

ns

1.6

ns

27-Nov-2008

50

2.4

a

2

ab

1.6

b

30-Mar-2010

16

2.1

ns

2.3

ns

1.6

ns

2-Dec-2010

52

2

ab

2.3

a

1.7

b

26-Apr-2009

76

2.2

a

1.7

b

2.1

ab

21-Oct-2009

29

1.6

b

2.4

a

2

ab

30-Mar-2010

17

1.56

ns

2.06

ns

2.38

ns

effects. Differences among the systems can be observed in the soil, in vegetative and generative growth, and in grape quality. The nitrogen supply of the biologically cultivated vines could be could attributed to the higher content of legumes in the cover crop mixtures of the organic treatments. The water and nutrient competition from the cover crop might be one reason for the lower growth of the bio-organically and biodynamically managed plots which had lower canopy density and smaller berries with higher N content. The results of the physiological and water potential measurements indicate that a slight adaptation of growth takes place as shown in the slightly reduced water availability in the biologically managed plots. Other studies (Lopes et al. 2004, Monteiro and Lopes 2007) show that the type of cover crop and its transpiration is the management parameter that highly influences water availability and growth of vines in the existing systems.

Another reason for the differences in growth of the respective systems could be the regulation of phytohormones, especially through levels of gibberellic acid. In future studies, phytohormone levels in the respective management systems should be carried out. Fritz (2000) found sensitivity of bush beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. nanus) to phytohormones increased with the use of the biodynamic preparations, in particular the horn silica preparation.

Despite the use of botryticides in the integrated variant twice a year, no lower incidence of Botrytis cinerea could be

42

Bio-org

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

observed in this variant. However, the incidence of sour rot was significantly lower in the bio-organic and biodynamic variants. Juice sugar content, acidity and pH values showed no significant differences among systems. Comparative sensory evaluations (vintages 2009-2013) revealed a preference for the wines from the bio-organic and especially for the biodynamic variant (Nikolaus 2014).

This comparative trial on organic, biodynamic and integrated management practices in viticulture is still running.

For the following years, further research is planned on canopy structure, because differences in vigour might have implications for canopy porosity and leaf angle. On the other hand, differences in vigour might influence the aromatic potential of the berries, which as consequence should be investigated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The experiment is supervised by an advisory team of representatives of German consultants for organic viticulture, from Justus-Liebig-University Gießen, University Bonn and KasselWitzenhausen (Fachgebiet Ökologischer Land-und Pflanzenbau), Landbauschule Dottenfelder Hof, Forschungsring für Biologisch-Dynamische Wirtschaftsweise e.V., Stiftung Ökologie und Landbau, Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau (FIBL) and the associations ECOVIN, BIOLAND and DEMETER. The project is funded by Forschungsring des Deutschen Weinbaus (FDW), Software-AG foundation and Hochschule Geisenheim University.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

REFERENCES Botelho, R.V.; Roberti, R.; Tessarin, P.; Garcia-Mina, J.M. and Rombolà, A.D. (2015) Physiological responses of grapevines to biodynamic management. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 31:402-413.

Döring, J.; Frisch, M.; Tittmann, S.; Stoll, M. and Kauer, R. (2015) Growth, yield and fruit quality of grapevines under organic and biodynamic management, PLoS ONE 10(10):e0138445. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0138445.

Döring, J.; Kauer, R.; Meißner, G. and Stoll, M. (2013) Lockerere Trauben durch biodynamischen oder ökologischen Weinbau? Lebendige Erde 6:42-44.

Fritz, J. (2000) Reaktionen von Pflücksalat (Lactuca sativa L. var. crispa) und Buschbohnen (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. nanus) auf das Spritzpräparat Hornkiesel.

Verlag Köster, Berlin, Dissertation Universität Bonn.

Fritz, J.; Athmann, M.; Meissner, G.; Kauer, R. and Köpke, U. (2017) Quality characterisation via image forming methods differentiates grape juice produced from integrated, organic or biodynamic vineyards in the first year after conversion. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 1-19.

Huber, M.; Andersen, J-O.; Kahl, J.; Busscher, N.; Doesburg, P.; Mergardt, G.; Kretschmer, S.; Zalecka, A.; Meelursarn, A.; Ploeger, A.; Nierop, D.; van de Vijver, L. and Baars, E. (2010) Standardisation and validation of the visual evaluation of biocrystallisations. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 27:25-40.

Meißner, G. (2015) Untersuchungen zu verschiedenen Bewirtschaftungssystemen im Weinbau unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der biologisch-dynamischen Wirtschaftsweise und des Einsatzes der biologischdynamischen Präparate Geisenheimer Berichte Bd.76, Dissertation, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen.

Nikolaus, F. (2014) Sensorische und analytische Untersuchungen zu Weinen aus verschiedenen Bewirtschaftungssystemen. Bachelor thesis, Studiengang Weinbau und Oenologie, Hochschule Geisenheim University, Sommersemester.

Lopes, C.; Monteiro, A.; Rückert, F.E.; Gruber, B.; Steinberg B. and Schultz, H.R. (2004) Transpiration of grapevines and co-habitating cover crop and weed species in a vineyard. A ‘snapshot’ at diurnal trends. Vitis 43:111-117.

Monteiro A. and Lopes, C. (2007) Influence of cover crop on water use and performance of vineyard in Mediterranean Portugal. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121:336-342.

Zalecka, A.; Kahl, J.; Doesburg, P.; Pyskow, B.; Huber, M.; Skjerbaek, K. and Ploeger, A. (2010) Standardisation of the Steigbild Method. Biological Agriculture and WVJ Horticulture 27:41-57.

V33N1

S U S TA I N A B L E V I T I C U LT U R E

V I T I C U LT U R E

GiESCO international meeting: sustainable viticulture in climate change scenario

By Julia Gouot1,2*, Jason Smith1,3, Bruno Holzapfel1,4 and Celia Barril1,2

SUMMARY OF THE MEETING

use of new technologies such as robots and phone applications are areas of great expansion and presentations focussed on early yield predictions.

At the conference, five out of the 60 oral presentations were given by Australian scientists and three out of the five presentations were given during the professional day showing the strong industry relevance of Australian research: Simple trait measurements across rootstock genotypes indicates performance as field grown, grafted vines (Peter Clingeleffer, CSIRO Plant Industries, Adelaide); Early yield prediction through grapevine bud image analysis (Cassandra Collins, The University of Adelaide); Late pruning can delay maturity and preserve wine chemical and sensory attributes in Barossa Valley Shiraz (Martin Moran, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide); The development of a low-input under-vine floor management system which improves profitability without compromising yield or quality

The 20th Group of International Experts of Vitivinicultural Systems for Cooperation (GiESCO) meeting was held in Mendoza, the main wine region in Argentina, from 5-10 November 2017, and was dedicated to promoting the sustainability of viticulture and winemaking under future climate change scenarios. A total of 60 oral presentations were given at the conference, and together with more than 130 posters, the program covered diverse topics such as climate change, sustainability, breeding, vine physiology and vineyard management. ‘Vineyard management and mechanisation’ was the largest session with 16 oral presentations and 45 posters, followed by ‘climate change, sustainability and zoning’, and ‘vine physiology’, each with 13 oral presentations, and 26 and 27 posters, respectively. The professional day focussed on precision viticulture, modelling and new technologies as well as vineyard management and mechanisation. The

»

2

1

» (Chris Penfold, The University of Adelaide) and Locally applied high air temperature significantly altered bunch stem and berry physiology (Julia Gouot, National Wine and Grape Industry Centre, Wagga Wagga).

CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY For the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV), environmental protection and preservation are the most important concerns at the world scale. Preservation of natural resources, such as energy and water, as well as protection of the environment via reduction of phytosanitary product usage and management of by-products or waste are essential. But by far, the most important environmental threat for modern viticulture is climate change as this will affect grapevine physiology, yield and berry quality. Climate change scenarios predict an increase in average temperature by 2-4.8oC as well as an increase in the frequency of extreme events (storms, heatwaves, hail) and possible increase in

National Wine and Grape Industry Centre, Charles Sturt University, Mambarra Drive, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia

School of Agricultural and Wine Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Boorooma Street, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia 3 4

Hochschule Geisenheim University, 65366 Geisenheim, Germany

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Pugsley Place, NSW 2795, Australia *Corresponding author: jgouot@csu.edu.au

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

Get The Best Of Both Worlds.

From inter-row to undervine Meet the acclaimed Fischer BV2 + BV3 expandable deck vineyard mower

V3 3N 1

10 YEARS

• Make it the ideal host for the seamless • Attach the New RH3-S Roller Hoe TWISTER W2 weeding system

al

s of Fi

ch

BRAT

• Equip it with HDS-2T-600 undervine mower heads

is

LE

G IN

CE

• Trademark quality equipment from Fischer Australis

er Austr

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

contact us at fischeraustralis.com.au

Use code fischer10 for our anniversary discount. www.winetitles. com . au

43

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

S U S TA I N A B L E V I T I C U LT U R E

Figure 1. Julia Gouot presenting PhD research on the impact of high temperature on grapevine physiology at the GiESCO meeting in Argentina. Photo: Melanie Brandt and (right) experimental results of the effect of low, high and very high temperature on berry fresh weight. Photo: Julia Gouot. rainfall in winter but decrease in summer (IPCC 2014). Several strategies to adapt to climate change were presented during this conference and, in particular, how to adapt to rising temperatures and successfully maintain grapegrowing sustainability.

Viticultural practices such as shading, irrigation and hydrocooling are already being used, but these may be difficult to afford or justify on a large scale as the consequences of climate change on the world’s warmer and hot climate regions become more pronounced. In the mediumterm, adaptation of canopy and floor management practices may help offset the effects of climate change on both vineyard water balance and temperature. However, moving vineyards to higher altitudes or cooler latitudes, as well as identifying thermo-tolerant varieties and breeding new ones may be the type of approaches needed for long-term industry adaptation.

CLIMATE CHANGE THREATS Increased average temperature is shifting grapevine phenology all around the world. Studies in Australia (Martin Moran, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide), Chile (Carolina Salazar-Parra, Instituto de Investigacinoes Agropecuarias, Santiago, Chile) and Greece (Stephanos Koundouras, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece) presented similar results on slight increases in temperature throughout grapevine development and advancement of ripening and harvest. Short spells of extreme high air temperature are also critical for berry composition and survival (Webb et al.

2009). In a glasshouse experiment on

44

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

potted Shiraz vines (Julia Gouot, National Wine and Grape Industry Centre, Wagga Wagga), a few daylight hours (12 or 30h) of extreme high temperature (VHT) (maximum temperature reached was 53°C), applied at the bunch level 14 days after veraison, led to severe bunch stem and berry desiccation. However, low air (LT) and high air temperature (HT) (maximum temperature reached was 37 and 45°C, respectively) had no effect on berry size (Figure 1).

Climate risks impacting on grape and wine quality are not only limited to high temperature. An interview conducted

by Dr Mercedes Fourment (Facultad de Agronomia, Montevideo, Uruguay) in Southern Uruguay identified high temperature but also other climatic factors that could contribute to yield loss, shift in phenology and grape quality in this region. These risks were reported by grapegrowers with increases in extreme events, decrease in cold units in winter, increase in hours with temperatures above 35°C, precipitation increase during the vegetative cycle and/or during the ripening period were all perceived as potential risks due to climate variability. Examples of damage and subsequent suggested adaptation strategies are summarised in Table 1.

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION METHODS Current projects around the world are investigating strategies to mitigate the effect of climate change on grape production, and a number were presented at the conference. As an example of short-term adaptation, in Israel, in the Negev desert, shade cloths were used to

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

mitigate the effect of high solar radiation and temperature (Noam Reshef, University of the Negev, Sede Boqer, Israel). The experiment was performed at the bunch level to gain a mechanistic understanding of the combined effect of reduced light and temperature on berry metabolism, independently of the canopy. Lower light intensity led to a reduction of amino acids and flavonols but increased yield, acids (malic acid), precursors of tannins and anthocyanins. Microclimate directly affected grape berry metabolism and significantly changed grape chemical composition at harvest. Shading bunches in the vineyard could be successfully used to maintain colour and acidity while increasing yield in case of extreme heat events.

In Montpellier, France, Laurent Torregrosa and colleagues (Montpellier SupAgro, France) are now looking at long-term adaptation with breeding programs (Torregrosa et al. 2017).

However, phenotypic and genetic diversity for berry traits impacted by temperature is not yet well known. The aim of this study was thus to first characterise the phenotypic diversity of 33 selected grapevine varieties. By following the accumulation of organic acids and sugars during berry growth and ripening, a considerable phenotypic diversity for malic and tartaric acid contents as well as for sugars and berry size was observed. These findings could be used to breed varieties capable of maintaining acidity under high temperature. In addition, as part of a project on spatial conceptualisation at vineyard scale, Laure De Resseguier, Coralie Laveau and colleagues (Bordeaux

V33N1

S U S TA I N A B L E V I T I C U LT U R E

V I T I C U LT U R E

Table 1. Examples of damage and subsequent suggested adaptation strategies.

Risk perceived

1.

Increase in extremes events

2.

Decrease in cold unit during winter

3.

Increase in hours of temperature above 35oC

4.

Precipitation increase during the vegetative cycle

5.

Precipitation increase during the ripening period

Yield

Phenology

Berry composition (primary metabolites)

Berry composition (secondary metabolites)

Pest and disease pressure

Direct loss due to grape damage and indirect loss due to foliar area damage.

Cycle delay due to canopy damage leading to the generation of other points of growth (laterals)

Problems in synthesis and accumulation of compounds, which may lead to lower TSS.

Loss of aroma and colour

Increase in incidence and severity of diseases due to berry splitting

Avoid severe defoliation reducing cropload or exposing bunches

Avoid severe defoliation

Vinification management such as chaptalisation for inadequate ripeness

Adaptation of preventive disease management to decrease sanitary pressure

Decrease in reproductive differentiation (number of flowers and subsequent number of berries)

Budbreak heterogeneity

Maturation heterogeneity

N/A

Use of chemicals to homogenise budbreak and increase number of shoots per plant

Time of pruning.

Use of chemicals to homogenise budbreak

Vinification management such as chaptalisation for inadequate ripeness

Adaptation of preventive disease management to decrease sanitary pressure

Reduction of berry size by dehydration

Advanced and/or shorter phenological phases and maturation

Canopy management such as defoliation and shoot thinning to decrease canopy

Decrease due to reduction of berry setting if rain occurs during flowering

Avoid severe defoliation on white grapes

Increase in TSS and decrease of acidity. Severe water stress might cause blockage of maturity

Change to rootstock which tolerate better root asphyxia or are less vigorous

Increase due to berry hydration and increased berry volume

Promotion of vegetative growth which can delay phenology and maturation

Bunch thinning to favour adequate ripening

Change to rootstock which tolerate better root asphyxia.

Change to early varieties

Adaptation of preventive disease management to decrease sanitary pressure and decrease the number of spraying Increase in incidence and severity of diseases due to berry splitting

Loss of aroma and colour

Vinification management such as chaptalisation when grapes are inadequately ripened

Probability of negative consequence

Adaptation of preventive disease management to decrease sanitary pressure

Adaptive capacity

Low

Adaptive responses

Medium

Tactical reactive

High

Tactical anticipatory

V3 3N 1

Increase in incidence and severity of diseases which affect leaves and grapes

Loss of aroma and colour

Favour adequate leaf area to improve ripening

Dilution of TSS. Imbalance of primary compounds

N/A

Adaptation of preventive disease management to avoid spraying at extreme temperature

Night harvest to avoid compound degradation and vinification management.

Improvement of transport to winery

Stimulation of vegetative growth Dilution of TSS. and delay of Imbalance of primary phenology. Spring compounds rainfalls impact on flowering and fruitset

Bunch thinning to favour adequate ripening

Increase of polyphenol synthesis if blockage does not occur. Loss of anthocyanins by degradation

High

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

Low

Moderate

www.winetitles. com . au

45

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

S U S TA I N A B L E V I T I C U LT U R E

A

B

C

D

Figure 2. Potrerillos artificial lake, main source of water for Mendoza (A), Clos de los Siete vineyard in the Valley de Uco with Andes mountain range in the background (B), Santa Julia vineyard in the Mendoza wine region under flood irrigation (C), and vines grown under double Ramé trellis system in the INTA experimental vineyard (D). Photos: Julia Gouot Sciences Agro, Bordeaux, France) studied two wine regions in France: Irouleguy, vineyard at the foot of the Pyrenees mountain range, on the border between France and Spain, and Saint-Emilion, 20km east of Bordeaux, the latter larger in area but lower in altitude. With the use of numerous temperature sensors, diverse temperature parameters were recorded at the meso scale. Differences in minimum temperature were measured between sites with an amplitude of up to 11°C on a given day. Grape sugars and acids were correlated with altitude so moving vineyards to higher altitude could be a sustainable adaptation to maintain acidity in the subsequent wine.

EXAMPLES OF ADAPTATION IN ARGENTINA In Argentina, the main threat of climate change is an increase of average and extreme temperatures as well as a potential lack of water. Annual rainfall in Mendoza, one of the main wine regions of the country, is only 250mm and water used for irrigation in this region and others comes from melted snow from the Andes Mountains. Water is a precious and scarce resource in this hot region (MJT= 26°C) and the work ahead will consist of significantly improving water management as flood irrigation is the main system used to grow commercial grapes. For example, with climate change, glaciers, a potential reserve of water, are melting but rainfalls are also expected to increase during winter in the Andes mountain range so one

46

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

strategy will be to build reservoirs to store water (Figure 2A and 2B). Also, the establishment of a meteorological station network would help track precipitation variations and increase efficiency in water usage for irrigation according to crop requirements. Research at the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (INTA), in Mendoza, is also investigating the use of different trellis systems (e.g. Pergola, Ramé) to maintain berry quality while increasing yield and protecting berries from sunburn (Valeria et al. 2016) (Figure 2).

CONCLUSION In summary, many preventive mitigation methods for climate change are already available in the vineyard for short-term adaptation (shading, hydrocooling, kaolin berry sunscreen) but further research is needed for long-term adaptation. In addition, adaptive methods in the winery can also be used if the harvested grapes do not match expected quality. In particular, wine processing such as dealcoholisation and yeast strains using more sugar to produce less ethanol or non-Saccharomyces strains can be used to reduce the amount of ethanol in the final wine to match requirements (Ristic et al. 2016). The next GiESCO meeting will be in Thessaloniki, Greece, in 2019 and scientists and students are looking forward to meeting again and discussing research and present innovations in the field of viticulture.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thank Wine Australia and the National Wine and Grape Industry Centre for funding Julia Gouot’s travel to the GiESCO conference in Mendoza. Julia Gouot’s PhD research is funded by a Charles Sturt University Postgraduate Research Scholarship. The authors also thank Mercedes Fourment (Facultad de Agronomia, Montevideo, Uruguay) for the matrices of vulnerability and adaptation of Southern Uruguay vineyards.

REFERENCES IPCC. (2014) Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Ristic, R.; Hranilovic, A.; Li, S.; Longo, R.; Pham, D.-T.; Qesja, B.; Schelezki, O. and Jiranek, V. (2016) Alcohol: Integrated strategies to moderate the alcohol content of wines. Wine & Viticulture Journal 31(5) :33.

Torregrosa, L.; Bigard, A.; Doligez, A.; Lecourieux, D.; Rienth, M.; Luchaire, N.; Pieri, P.; Chatbanyong, R.; Shahood, R.; Farnos, M.; Roux, C.; Adiveze, A.; Pillet, J.; Sire, Y.; Zumstein, E.; Veyret, M.; Le Cunff, L.; Lecourieux, F.; Saurin, N.; Muller, B.; Ojeda, H.; Houel, C.; Peros, J-P.; This, P.; Pellegrino, A. and Romieu, C. (2017) Developmental, molecular and genetic studies on grapevine response to temperature open breeding strategies for adaptation to warming. OENO One 51(2):155-165.

Valeria, B.; José, R.; Ignacio, G.; Hernán, V.; Natalia, C.; Andrea, C. and Francisco, G. (2016) Evaluation of a new vine trellis system called Ramé/ Evaluación de un nuevo sistema de conducción de la Vid denominado Ramé. In: Proceedings BIO Web of Conferences.

Webb, L.; Watt, A.; Hill, T.; Whiting, J.; Wigg, F.; Dunn, G.; Needs, S. and Barlow, E. (2009) Extreme heat: managing grapevine response. GWRDC and University of Melbourne: Melbourne.

WVJ

V33N1

ROOTSTOCKS

V I T I C U LT U R E

Longevity and sustained performance of rootstocks for Australian vineyards

By Tim Pitt1*, Mark Skewes1, Rob Stevens2, Jessica Tan1, Phil Nicholas2, and Michael McCarthy1

SARDI recently revisited some of its mature rootstock comparison trials to examine the stability of grafted vine performance over time. Investigations identified age-related yield changes and interactions between rootstock genotype and various vine health issues. Results show that the long-term performance of grafted vines should be considered when selecting rootstock planting material.

S

YIELD OF GRAFTED VINES CAN CHANGE WITH AGE A comparison of rootstock yield rankings, based on yield harvested in the first and third decades of commercial field production, showed that rootstock yield ranking changes with vine age.

At a Shiraz rootstock trial at Coonawarra, yields were measured when the vines were between three and six years of age and then again at 24 and 25 years of age (Stevens et al. 2011).

When young, the yields of Shiraz on own roots and grafted to a range of rootstock genotypes were very similar, excepting those grafted to Petit Verdot which were lower. Over time, the picture changed (Figure 1). At 24 and 25 years of age, the yields of vines on Teleki 5C (8344), 10114, Teleki 5C (8343), 420A, 1616 and Petit Verdot were less than those on own roots and Teleki 5C (A6V18).

At a Riverland Cabernet Sauvignon rootstock trial, yields measured at three to six years of age were compared with those measured at 22 and 23 years of age (Figure 2). Whilst yields were stable for most rootstock genotypes, ageing reduced yields from vines grafted to Ramsey, K51-40 and Teleki 5C by 16%, 17% and 34%, respectively.

At a Riverland Shiraz rootstock trial, yields measured at four to six years of age were compared with those measured at 22 and 23 years of age (Figure 3).

Although the average yield of grafted vines remained high throughout the assessment period, in excess of 28kg/vine, some rootstocks demonstrated significant age-related yield decline. Most notable yield reductions were Shiraz grafted to 140

ARDI has an extensive network of replicated rootstock comparison trials (24+ years in age) which are distributed across all of South Australia’s principal wine growing regions. Many of these trials were assessed within 10 years of planting. These data sets have been used in conjunction with recent measures to assess the longevity and stability of rootstock performance over time. This article summarises the key findings from revisiting rootstock comparison trials that are now in their third and fourth decades of production, including the most recently completed investigations by Pitt et al. (2017).

WHY INVESTIGATE THE PERFORMANCE OF OLDER ROOTSTOCK TRIALS? More than a quarter of vineyards in SA’s major wine regions are grafted to rootstocks. For regions such as the Riverland, grafted vines represent 50% of plantings (Vinehealth Australia 2016). For new vineyards, the proportion of grafted vines is considerably higher. Decisions on which rootstock genotype to select for new plantings are currently guided by overseas research or by field trials that were evaluated when the vines were relatively young. Local information about the performance of rootstocks beyond their first 10 years is scarce.

Since 2010, SARDI has been revisiting some of its mature rootstock trials to: • investigate the effect of ageing on sustained rootstock performance • test drought tolerance and salt exclusion characteristics of mature grafted vines • evaluate vine health and whether longevity is dependent upon rootstock.

1

Figure 1. Rootstock effect on the yield of Coonawarra Shiraz vines aged 3-6 and 24-25 years.

Figure 2. Rootstock effect on the yield of Riverland Cabernet Sauvignon vines aged 4-6 and 22-23 years.

Figure 3. Rootstock effect on yield of Riverland Shiraz vines aged 3-6 and 22-23 years.

South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) 2

Former employees of SARDI

* Corresponding author. Email: tim.pitt@sa.gov.au

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

47

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

ROOTSTOCKS

Table 1. Effect of two seasons of lethal water stress on canopy growth and mortality of Riverland Chardonnay grafted to eight rootstock genotypes. Grid cell size on photo backdrop = 0.5m x 0.35m

Rootstock

Canopy following two seasons of lethal water stress

Ramsey

140 Ruggeri

Mortality (%)

0a

0a

110 Richter

10 ab

1103 Paulsen

20 ab

K51-40

30 ab

101-14

40 ab

J17-69

40 ab

J17-48

60 b

Values followed by same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05) Ruggeri and Ramsey, reducing by 18% and 12%, respectively. Vines grafted to J17-69 and J17-48 displayed stable yields across the three-decade assessment period.

RAMSEY AND 110 RICHTER SHOW SIGNS OF DROUGHT TOLERANCE At a Chardonnay rootstock trial in the Riverland, measurements of vegetative growth and inflorescence number were collected during a period of 100% irrigation allocation (2004, age 11 years).

These same measures were repeated

48

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

Table 2. Rootstock effect on deliverable yields from a BSN affected Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard in Langhorne Creek (2015).

Total bunch count (n/vine)

BSN incidence (%)

Deliverable fruit (kg/vine)

Own roots

88.0 c

38.1 a

2.8 c

Schwarzmann

98.1 bc

37.4 a

3.8 bc

5C Teleki

107.4 abc

35.6 a

5.0 b

110 Richter

122.9 a

25.1 ab

7.3 a

Ramsey

109.4 ab

12.5 b

7.4 a

LSD (P=0.05)

20.1

17.6

1.9

Rootstock

Different superscript within columns indicates significant difference between means towards the end of the Millennium Drought, following two years of near zero irrigation (2010, age 17 years).

Rootstock genotypes that had high inflorescence counts under non-stressed conditions did not necessarily perform well under stressed conditions. For example, vines grafted to either Ramsey or 110 Richter retained fruitful, healthy canopies that were more tolerant of the 98% reduction in irrigation than those on 1103 Paulsen and K51-40, many of which collapsed through water stress (Table 1). Vines grafted to 140 Ruggeri retained reasonable vigour but their inflorescence counts were low.

These results conflict with previous recommendations suggesting that 1103 Paulsen and 140 Ruggeri are drought tolerant rootstocks. Neither performed well at this drought-affected Chardonnay rootstock trial.

Results from this drought tolerance investigation are detailed further in Stevens et al. (2013) and suggest that the rootstocks Ramsey and 110 Richter can tolerate high levels of water stress and may be relevant to irrigators considering a strategy of vineyard â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;mothballingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to sustain their operations through future droughts.

of BSN. BSN affected 38% of bunches on own-rooted vines compared with 12.5% of bunches on vines grafted to Ramsey (Table 2).

Whilst high vigour vines, such as those grown on Ramsey, are reported to be more susceptible to BSN than low vigour vines, this was not the case at this trial.

SALT EXCLUSION BY MATURE GRAFTED VINES At a 38-year-old Colombard trial in the Riverland, the salt excluding properties of some rootstocks persisted longer than others. Schwarzmann, 140 Ruggeri, 110 Richter and others had lower chloride concentrations at age 38 compared with their first assessment at four to six years. Over the same period, chloride concentrations in vines grafted to K5140 and Teleki rootstocks increased. In their fourth decade the juice chloride concentrations were from two to five times those measured in other grafted vines (Figure 5). Whilst the sodium concentrations reduced significantly over the four decades in all grafted vines, the reduction in vines on Harmony was much

REDUCED INCIDENCE OF BUNCH STEM NECROSIS ON VINES GRAFTED TO RAMSEY During the 2015 vintage, a Cabernet Sauvignon rootstock trial at Langhorne Creek was subjected to elevated levels of bunch stem necrosis (BSN) (Figure 4). Yield assessment protocols were modified to account for shrivelled bunches and investigate the influence of rootstock on the incidence and severity

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

Figure 4. BSN at a Cabernet Sauvignon rootstock trial in Langhorne Creek, age 33 years. Ramsey rootstock (L) and own rooted (R).

V33N1

ROOTSTOCKS

less than in other grafted vines.

At other Riverland trial sites, vines on Teleki 5C and K51-40 consistently had higher concentrations of both sodium and chloride in plant tissue and juice sampled at harvest.

VINE HEALTH AND ROOTSTOCK LONGEVITY In the spring of 2016, a survey of vine survival and cordon dieback was conducted across multiple rootstock trials within the Riverland and Langhorne Creek irrigation districts. Rootstock incompatibility was not an issue and most trial sites had zero or very few missing vines. Those sites that did present significant missing vines comprised rootstocks no longer used on a commercial scale (e.g. 3309 and R.St. George).

Riverland rootstock trials showed minor cordon dieback, but no observable trunk or foliar disease symptoms. Where present, dieback tended to be equivalent across all rootstock genotypes and was concentrated along the lower cordon, most likely due to shading. Rootstock

trials located in Langhorne Creek presented a higher proportion of dead cordon which was most likely associated with trunk diseases such as Eutypa dieback. An example of cordon dieback in relation to historic yields at a 24-year-old Langhorne Creek Shiraz rootstock trial is presented in Figure 6 (see page 50).

At this site, vines grafted to 140 Ruggeri and 99 Richter had significantly lower incidence of dieback relative to ownrooted vines and those grafted to 110 Richter. As expected, the higher yielding rootstock combinations were those that presented with the lowest incidence of cordon dieback.

SARDI pathologists are currently integrating rootstock genotype as a variable of interest in their Eutypa dieback investigations.

SUMMARY OF ROOTSTOCK CHARACTERISTICS Table 3 (see page 50) summarises current recommendations for the most commercially applicable rootstocks and integrates with previous recommendations from Nicholas (1997

V I T I C U LT U R E

Figure 5. The effect of rootstock genotype and vine age on the juice concentrations of chloride (L) and sodium (R) Riverland Colombard aged 4-6 and 38 years. LSD bars represent difference between rootstocks across four decades (P=0.05). and 2006) and Dry (2007). It highlights new knowledge produced from SARDI’s recent investigations of rootstock comparison trials in their third and fourth

TIME FOR A CHANGE?

If you’re thinking about diversifying your vineyard, why not speak to Chalmers?

Future proof your vineyard today by selecting the right grape variety and rootstock combination for your site and use smart viticulture to reduce your inputs and increase grape and wine quality.

With over 30 years experience propagating, grape growing and winemaking with their collection of over 90 different clones and varieties, mostly of Italian origin, Chalmers can offer unique insights and absolute premium quality vines for the next exciting phase of your business.

For more information or to enquire about ordering visit the nursery pages at www.chalmers.com.au or email nursery@chalmers.com.au

Aglianico | Ansonica | Barbera | Colorino | Dolcetto | Falanghina | Fiano | Garganega | Greco | Lambrusco Salamino Lambrusco Maestri | Malbec | Malvasia Istriana | Marzemino | Merlot | Montepulciano | Moscato Giallo | Nebbiolo Negro Amaro | Nero d’Avola | Nosiola | Pecorino | Piedirosso | Pinot Bianco | Pinot Nero | Pinotage | Prosecco Refosco | Ribolla Gialla | Sagrantino | Sangiovese | Schioppettino | Teroldego | Uva di Troia | Verdicchio | Vermentino Chalmers WVJ Ad January 2018.indd 1

V3 3N 1

4/1/18 11:57 am

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

49

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

ROOTSTOCKS

Table 3. Summary of published characteristics for phylloxera resistant rootstocks. Cell colour describes level of agreement between published rootstock characteristics and SARDI’s observations at its mature rootstock trials (green cells = agree; orange cells = disagree*; clear cells = not assessed). Final column reflects long-term yield trends in SARDI’s mature rootstock trials (measured at 23-38 years) Table adapted from Nicholas (1997 and 2006) and Dry (2007) Longterm yield trends

Tolerance/Resistance

Salinity

Ramsey

••

••

H

••

○

Δ

101-14

○

••

L-M

••

•

-

Schwarzmann

○

•

L-M

••

•

Δ

3309

○

○

L-M

○

○

▼

Teleki 5C

○

○

M

•

○

Δ

110 Richter

••

•

M

•

•

-

1103 Paulsen

••

••

M-H

•

•

-

99 Richter

•

•

M-H

•

○

-

140 Ruggeri

••

••

M-H

••

○

Δ

K51-40

○

○

M-H

••

?

-

○ Poor

L=Low

M=Medium

H=High

Key:

•• Good • Moderate

Moderate decline

Δ

- No change

Vigour Nematodes

Water logging

Drought

▼ Severe decline

*Differences between published recommendations and findings from SARDI’s mature rootstock trial sites: Ramsey

hilst salt uptake was not excessive, vines grafted to Ramsey often W contained higher concentrations of Na+ and Cl- than vines grafted to other rootstocks.

Significant age related yield decline observed at a number of sites

Schwarzmann

ield decline is based on one site only. Rootstock not available at Y other sites.

309

igh mortality and constrained vigour at Langhorne Creek Cabernet H Sauvignon.

Teleki 5C

Smaller canopies than vines grafted to other rootstocks.

Significant age related yield decline observed at a number of sites.

10 Richter

Smaller canopies than vines grafted to other rootstocks.

1103 Paulsen

Vegetative decline and yield collapse under severe drought stress.

140 Ruggeri

etained good vigour under severe drought stress, but yield potential R (inflorescence counts) collapsed.

Significant age related yield decline observed at a number of sites.

decades since planting and potential changes in performance with age. Green cells show agreement between young vine rootstock recommendations and mature vine performance. Orange cells highlight disagreement between young vine rootstock recommendations and mature vine performance. For example, both 1103 Paulsen and 140 Ruggeri are recommended as drought-tolerant rootstocks but SARDI field investigations

of older vines found both these rootstocks collapsed under drought stress.

Table 3 also shows long-term yield trends, predominantly measured within high yielding Riverland vineyards. While results are specific to the regions studied, the implications of age-related changes to rootstock performance may yet have relevance for those regions currently dominated by own-rooted vines, viz., Barossa, Clare Valley and McLaren Vale.

Figure 6. Effect of rootstock on the incidence of cordon dieback (at age 24 years) and yield performance across three decades, Langhorne Creek Shiraz.

SARDI’s mature rootstock comparison trials are also planted in these regions and remain available as an industry resource for future assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SARDI’s most recent rootstock investigations were supported by the South Australian River Murray Sustainability (SARMS) Program, under the Industry-led Research Sub-Program (IRSP). Past and current investigations were also made possible through support from various SA vine improvement committees, Vinehealth Australia (previously the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of SA), Wine Australia (previously the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation), Riverland Grape and Wine, Langhorne Creek Grape and Wine and the Limestone Coast Grape and Wine Council. Thanks also to the many private and corporate growers for provision of trial sites and ongoing vineyard management.

REFERENCES Dry, N. (2007) Grapevine Rootstocks – Selection and management for South Australian vineyards.

Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of SA. Lythrum Press, Adelaide.

Nicholas, P.R. (1997) Rootstock characteristics.

The Australian Grapegrower & Winemaker 400:30.

Nicholas, P.R. (2006) Grapevine rootstock trials in South Australia. Adelaide, Australia: South Australian Research and Development Institute.

Pitt, T.R.; Skewes, M.; Tan, J. and Cox, J. W (2017) Longevity and sustained performance of rootstocks in Lower Murray horticulture: Viticulture and Citrus.

Final report to the SA River Murray Sustainability (SARMS) Industry-Led Research Sub-Program.

Project number IRSP-R1-008. www.pir.sa.gov.au/ research Stevens, R.M.; Pitt, T.R.; Dyson, C.; Pech, J.M. & Skewes, M. (2011) Salt tolerant rootstocks for longterm sustainability in the Limestone Coast. Final report to the GWRDC. Project number: SAR 09/03.

Stevens, R.M.; Pitt, T.R.; Skewes, M.; Pech, J.M. & Nicholas, P.R. (2013) Variation amongst rootstocks in the tolerance of grafted Chardonnay vines to lethal water-stress. Wine and Viticulture Journal 28: 45-49.

WVJ

50

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

UNIRAM XR FOR SUB-SURFACE APPLICATIONS â&#x201E;¢

CHEMICAL FREE RESISTANCE TO ROOT INTRUSION

UNIQUE DRIPPER DESIGN 1

EXTERIOR

2

The exterior has been designed with a chemical free root intrusion barrier by incorporating Copper Oxide in the mold of the diaphragm cover.

NETAFIM AUSTRALIA 213 - 217 Fitzgerald Rd Laverton North, VIC 3026 Australia

Tel: 1300 307 407 Fax: 03 9369 3865 Email: au.net.info@netafim.com Web: netafim.com.au

INTERIOR The interior has been designed to allow water to flow without being blocked by fine feeder roots or by sediment built-up in the dripperline.

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

IRRIGATION

Seppeltsfield lays the foundations for a secure water supply

By Sonya Logan

S

eppeltsfield will soon emerge from its second irrigation season with its own secure water supply for irrigating its western Barossa Valley vineyards after the wine company became the foundation customer of a $21.4m project that is harvesting urban stormwater runoff from the nearby Gawler River for reuse.

The wine company committed to buy the bulk of the water from the Gawler Water Reuse Scheme (GWRS) in 2014 - a project instigated in 2011 by the Light Regional Council, which borders the Barossa Valley wine region, in a bid to reduce its reliance on the River Murray by 800ML a year.

In 2012, the council secured $10.7m of funding from the Federal Government’s National Urban Water and Desalination Plan to establish the scheme, which it would match to bring the total cost to $21.4m.

But the council experienced some hiccups in finding enough users of the GWRS water, which was originally intended for irrigating reserves, sports fields, school ovals, industrial and agricultural operations within the boundaries of the Light Regional Council and three other regional councils around the township of Gawler. At the time, the councils were anticipating significant urban growth as part of the South Australian

HydroPlan’s technical director John Gransbury at the storage basin for the Gawler Water Reuse Scheme, just west of Gawler, when the first stormwater was pumped from Gawler River in 2016.

Global

Irrigation

Simple, Smart Irrigation Management • • • •

Automating vineyards for over 21 years Saves time, money and water Remote control from your smart phone or device Helps to prevent frost damage, heat stress and disease

"Angove Family Winemakers are proud and privileged to have had a long and successful relationship with WiSA" Angove Family Winemaker "With our WiSA system every aspect is integrated to ensure maximum efficiency" Andrew Peace Wines

•• •• ••

Serving customer in vitaculture: Andrew Peace Wines Angove Family Winemakers Brown Brothers Coriole Vineyards Dayleswood Wines Jaengenya Wines

52

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

•• •• ••

Kendal Jackson Wines- USA Nyah Vineyards Otuwehero Estates- NZ Rymill Coonawarra Snobs Creek Estate Wines Yarra Valley Vineyards

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

IRRIGATION

V I T I C U LT U R E

An aerial view of the 680ML dam on Seppeltsfield-owned land on Gomersol Road, in the western Barossa Valley, used to store the stormwater pumped from the Gawler River and the recycled water from the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant, just north of Adelaide, where it is used to irrigate Seppeltsfield vineyards.

Government’s 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. But following the submission of the Light Regional Council’s Federal funding application, the SA Government wound back its planned urban growth around Gawler. This resulted in a substantial drop in the forecast demand for water reuse in the area so the four council’s brought in a private partner to the GWRS project to find other users for the water. When the private partner withdrew from the project in mid-2014, it advised that the majority of water reuse sites it had received a commitment from, mostly municipal sites and nearby schools, would only yield a marginal return, and that a larger site from primary industry was needed for the project to succeed.

It was at this point that Seppeltsfield entered the picture, with the clock ticking on the commencement of the project for the Light Regional Council to retain its Federal funding.

The other three council’s left the project, largely due to their concern at not being able to collectively secure viable customers for the water. Taking its cue from the former private partner’s recommendation, the Light Regional Council identified Seppeltsfield as the foundation customer. Needing around 3GL of water a year for irrigation, the wine company was keen to not only reduce the volume of water it used to satisfy this demand from the River Murray but drought-proof its vineyards.

In 2015, the Light Regional Council signed an agreement with Bunyip Water, the company established by Seppeltsfield to design, construct and operate the Gawler Water Reuse Scheme. Water engineering consultancy firm HydroPlan made substantial changes to the concept plan for the GWRS and was engaged to complete the detailed design and manage the ▶ construction phase.

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

53

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

IRRIGATION

Completed in 2016, the main components of the GWRS are a 430ML water storage basin just west of the township of Gawler for capturing the stormwater from the Gawler River bypass channel, a 680ML dam on 16ha of Seppeltsfield-owned land on Gomersol Road, and 42km of pipeline that connect the two. As the name suggests, Hill Dam - as the Seppeltsfield storage is known – was built on a hill on partially constructed vineyard and is surrounded by other company vineyards. Water stored here can be gravity fed to the surrounding vineyards as well as those lying 5km north and 8km south of the dam. Some water is also distributed to vineyards on its way from the storage basin in Gawler to Hill Dam. “We realised fairly early on that the Gawler River, being fairly ephemeral, doesn’t always flow, so we had to source other water,” Mike Allen, water systems engineer with HydroPlan, told the Wine & Viticulture Journal. “So, one of the enhancements to the GWRS was to connect to the Virginia Pipeline Scheme.”

The Virginia Pipeline Scheme (VPS) provides recycled water from the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant, just north of Adelaide, for horticultural irrigation in the nearby area.

“VPS has been used each season so far, which enables water security for the system,” Allen said.

Indeed, it was the VPS water that first flowed through the GWRS in the 2015-16 irrigation season. Bunyip Water asked HydroPlan to prioritise the laying of the pipeline from the storage dam so VPS water could be used for vineyard irrigation in that season given the dry 2015 winter and Seppeltsfield’s water allocation from the River Murray running

out in early January 2016. A further benefit was that this ‘early water’ could be used to construct the Hill Dam, meaning savings in construction water as well as crop yield were realised.

The pipeline was largely installed by the end of December 2015 with about 300ML of water flowing to vineyards from January 2016 with the help of temporary diesel pumps to shift the water from the VPS to the Seppeltsfield dam.

Meanwhile, construction of the rest of the GWRS proceeded and was completed in 2016 with the first harvested water reaching vineyards in the 2016-17 irrigation season. While Seppeltsfield is by far the largest customer of the GWRS, the Light Regional Council retains a small portion of the water that flows through the system – less than 10% - which is distributed to four council reserves and a school oval in the township of Hewitt.

As part of its agreement with the Light Regional Council, Seppeltsfield has the option of purchasing the GWRS infrastructure after six or 10 years by repaying the capital loaned by the Light Regional Council to establish the scheme.

Allen said there was also some capacity in the system for it to be expanded in the future, assuming additional water resources could be secured.

REFERENCES

Final Report for Gawler Water Reuse Scheme to Light Regional Council, August 2016. Accessed 29 January 2018. http://www.light.sa.gov.au/webdata/ resources/files/GWRS%20Final%20Report%20-%20Revision%202.pdf

Effective water treatment for : • Dripper Scale • Pipe scale • Iron scale

WVJ

• Salinity • Canopy growth • Brix & Baume

www.hydrosmart.com.au

HYDROSMART

1300 138 223

I am happy to recommend use of Hydrosmart to any grower considering adapting it to their site’s water as it has added real value to our business. After using it for well over adecade we plan using Hydrosmart on all d’Arenberg bores well into the next successful decade of growing and winemaking.

- Giulio Dimasi Viticulturalist / Grower Relations d’Arenberg Osborn Road McLaren Vale SA

54

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

V I T I C U LT U R E

Dolcetto: stepping out from the shadows of Nebbiolo and Barbera at Parish Hill

By Andrew Cottell, Parish Hill Wines, Adelaide Hills, South Australia

W

e grow Dolcetto at our Parish Hill Vineyard, in the Piccadilly Valley, in the Adelaide Hills.

Our vineyard is at an altitude of around 500 metres on a steep slope with a westnorthwest aspect that picks up a lot of afternoon sunlight and heat to enhance ripening. This is in contrast to the other side of the valley that faces mainly east and gets less solar radiation. The vineyard receives an annual rainfall of 1100mm and has a mean January temperature of 19.5°C. Our vines are Matura selections from Chalmers Nursery and were planted in about 2005 on Richter 110 rootstocks.

After looking at the performance of all the Matura clones from Chalmers’ trials we chose Matura clones 3, 4 and 5 as they achieved the highest and earliest Baume, meaning they would be most likely to fully ripen between 12.5° to 13° here in our cooler site, which they do.

Prior to this we trialed clones CN 69 an CN 275 which were okay but had bigger bunches, ripened later than their Matura counterparts and made a less intense wine.

Our rows are 2.3 metres apart and have a 1.2 metre vine spacing. Vines are VSP cane pruned to a single cane of six to eight buds on a cordon wire at 900mm.

The canopy is held in four sets of foliage wires to give a tall canopy to maximise photosynthesis.

Dolcetto seems to get powdery mildew

just after harvest but otherwise seems no more susceptible to disease than any other of the varieties we grow and is not treated any differently.

Dolcetto is not a vigorous grower and can be a bit weedy and brittle with fragile buds and multiple shoots per bud at budburst. Many buds give two or three shoots that need to be hand thinned. We don’t do much shoot or bunch thinning apart from that as the crop always seems about right.

Bunches and berries seem to vary in size.

The leaves of Dolcetto show characteristic red veins and red petioles which can be quite pretty. In autumn, Dolcetto has attractive reddish/orange autumn foliage which makes the vines stand out from the rest of the mainly yellow autumn colours of the vineyard. Leaf shape varies from sharp tri-lobed lanceolate to more like a Chardonnay leaf.

Budburst is about five days after Nebbiolo, flowering occurs in the third week of September, veraison in the middle of February and harvest in the third or fourth week of March The vines yield six to seven tonnes per hectare at harvest when grapes are handpicked into crates.

The timing of harvest is based mainly on flavour which seems to develop late in our vineyard even though the sugars seem

good. We get sweet flavours of fruit cake/ Christmas pudding.

Dolcetto is prone to berry drop when mature so this would be a potential problem for machine harvesting.

The wine is made conventionally: crushed, destemmed and inoculated with a commercial yeast which changes from year to year. No acid additions are needed.

Macerating and colour enzymes are not used as Dolcetto gives up most of its colour in the first few days and is only left on skins for a week after fermentation.

A malolactic culture is added near the end of the ferment while warm and after a week on skins post-ferment is pressed into stainless steel and kept at 20°C until malolactic fermentation is finished. MLF is rapid as Dolcetto is not only low in tartaric acid but also low in malic acid.

The alcoholic ferment is kept at 25-30°C. Dolcetto, like Nero d’Avola, can sometimes be reductive and smelly during fermentation and is given several aerating pump-overs and rack-and-returns if needed.

After MLF is finished, PMS is added and the wine monitored over the next few months with several rackings. The finished wine usually has a final pH of 3.5 to 3.6 and is bottled unfined and unfiltered in November of the same year.

Dolcetto is not a wine for long ageing and is best while young and fresh over the

Dolcetto vines and grapes in the Adelaide Hills vineyard of Parish Hill Wines, (right) the characteristic red veins of a Dolcetto vine leaf.

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

55

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

ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES

DOLCETTO

By Peter Dry Emeritus Fellow, The Australian Wine Research Institute BACKGROUND

VITICULTURE

Dolcetto (doll-CHET-oh) literally means ‘little sweet one’—perhaps a reference to its low berry acidity. It was first mentioned in the late 16th century in southern Piedmont, in north-west Italy, where it is widely grown—although the area under vine has declined in recent times at the expense of Barbera. Today it is most important in the provinces of Cuneo, Alessandria and Asti.

Dolcetto is also grown in Liguria, Lombardy and Umbria. Synonyms include Nibièu, Nibiò (Lombardy, Piedmont) and Ormeasco (Piedmont, Liguria). The global area in 2010 was 6333ha (down 12% since 2000) of which Italy has 97%. In Piedmont, Dolcetto comprises 13% of the total planted area of Piedmont where it is used as a single variety in many DOCs, e.g., Asti, Alba, Langhe and Monferrato, and at least one DOCG, Dogliano.

It is also authorised as a blending partner with Barbera in several Piedmont DOCs. There is also a white Dolcetto Bianco but this is not genetically related to the blackfruited Dolcetto. There is a small area in USA (California, Oregon and Washington). Dolcetto has been grown in Australia for many years; in the 1970s most of the so-called ‘Malbec’ in Victoria was discovered to be Dolcetto.

Despite the small planted area, there are at least 40 wine producers in Australia, mainly in Victoria and SA (16.6ha).

Budburst is mid-season and maturity is early, thus making it suitable for the coolest sites in Piedmont where Barbera and Nebbiolo do not ripen satisfactorily. Vigour is moderate with semi-erect growth habit. Bunches are medium and well-filled to compact with small to medium berries. Yield is moderate and regular. Wines are said to lack intensity if yield is excessive. Spur pruning is used in Australia.

Bunches are susceptible to bunch rot. There are at least seven clones available in Australia.

first two to three years, although if made at 14° ABV and aged in oak it might.

We don’t blend any other varieties with our Dolcetto as it is easy to mask its true varietal characters.

Some producers use Dolcetto for sparkling wine or as a component of a rosé so it has some versatility even for a pet-nat.

The wine itself shows intense violet and ruby colours when young and fragrant and spicy aromatics. Other features include cherry, chocolate, ink, leather, marzipan, almond, dark plums and violets. Dolcetto produces juicy ripe fruit with medium to lightweight tannins.

The home of Dolcetto is the Piedmont in northwest Italy where it co-exists with Nebbiolo and Barbera. To the east it’s planted in Lombardy and to the south in Liguria, where it’s called Ormeasco, as well as in Sardinia.

Because of increased international interest in Nebbiolo many Italian growers

56

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

WINE Dolcetto wines have medium colour with light to medium body, and are soft, round and fruity. They may be best consumed when young. Descriptors include cherry, liquorice, almonds, savoury and spice. Its unusual combination of low acidity and high tannin requires careful blending. Dolcetto is mainly used for varietal wines in Australia, but can also be a useful blending partner, e.g., with Barbera in Italy and Lagrein in Australia.

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.

are replacing their Dolcetto vineyards with Nebbiolo, so much so that the hectares of Dolcetto have decreased 18% between 2000 and 2010.

I doubt there are any close homoclimes in Australia; the continentality of Piedmont is much greater than at our site.

Although not many vineyards of Dolcetto exist in Australia it has been here a long time, first introduced by James Busby into the first Sydney Botanic Gardens. Later, when that collection was dispersed, some found its way to the Adelaide Plains and Barossa Valley where it was probably used in fortified wine production.

The oldest plantings are at Best’s Great Western, in Central Victoria, where it was planted in the late 1800s.

Dolcetto is a good everyday drinking wine, even chilled in the summer, and goes well with food such as pasta, pizza, antipasti and prosciutto for example.

Dolcetto has traditionally been

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

downgraded by wine enthusiasts, critics, writers and opinion makers as a lesser wine than its companions Barbera and Nebbiolo but I think it’s time they took a break from serious Barolo and Barbaresco sniffing and enjoyed a glass of Australian or Italian Dolcetto, reset their thinking and become an advocate for the variety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Bastianich, J. and Lynch, D. (2002) Vino Italiano: The Regional Wines of Italy. Clarkson Potter.

Cernilli, D. and Sabellico, M. (2001) The New Italy: A Complete Guide to Contemporary Italian Wine. Wine Appreciation Guild.

D’Agata, I. (2014) Native Winegrapes of Italy.

University of California Press, Berkerley, United States Hyland, T. (2013) Beyond Barolo and Brunello: Italy’s Most Distinctive Wines. Createspace.

McKay, A.; Crittenden, G.; Hardie, J. and Dry, P. (1999) Italian winegrape varieties in Australia: exploring the potential of Barbera, Nebbiolo, Sangiovese, Vernacci di San Giminano, Dolcetto &​Arneis. Winetitles, South Australia.

WVJ

V33N1

WINE PRODUCTION

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

Drop in global supply presents opportunities for Australian wine

By Mark Rowley, Senior Analyst, Wine Australia

W

orld wine production in 2017 is expected to be 24.6 billion litres – 2 billion litres (8 per cent) below last year’s figure and the lowest production for at least 20 years, according to the recent announcement by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). This equates to 222 million fewer cases of wine. To put this in perspective, Australia’s total production in 2016 was 1.3 billion litres.

The OIV reports that there were falls in production in the three top producing countries – Italy, France and Spain – which recorded historic low harvests. Chile experienced another small vintage, compounding an existing short supply (see Figure 1). While the USA’s harvest was slightly down on 2016, the size of the crush is not expected to be significantly impacted by the recent wildfires. Argentina recorded significant growth from a very low crop in 2016, but production in 2017 is still well below the long-term average. The only major wine-producing country to record an above-average harvest in 2017 was Australia.

Since the drought of 2007, Australian wine production has been consistent. The 2017 vintage was the largest crop since 2006, but pricing firmed, helped by favourable global supply and demand dynamics (Figure 2). If given the global situation of 2013, such a large vintage would surely have had vastly different pricing outcomes.

Australia – particularly at higher price points. "It’s like playing whack-a-mole," said Austwine’s 'chief enthusiasm officer' Jim Moularadellis in a recent Wine Australia Market Bulletin.

"Supply of one product from one country disappears, and you can’t be quite sure where demand for another product will pop ▶ up."

Figure 1

GLOBAL CONSUMPTION LIKELY TO MATCH OR EXCEED PRODUCTION FOR THE FIRST TIME The drop in global production comes at a time when consumption is on the rise after a period of decline following the global financial crisis. The OIV estimates that consumption will be between 24.1 and 24.6 billion litres in 2017 – which will bring it equal to, or above, production for the first time ever, putting pressure on existing stocks and prices (Figure 3).

EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES The lowest global harvest since 1961, combined with the increase in global consumption, presents a significant opportunity for Australia.

In 2017, Australia had its largest harvest for at least 10 years and moved ahead of Chile and Argentina to be the fifth largest wine producer in the world. Australia is well positioned to take advantage of the opportunity, with stocks at reasonably high levels and well-established routes to market in the four largest wine markets in the world: the United Kingdom, China, Germany and the United States. All are significant net importers of wine and rely heavily on Italy, France and Chile.

The Australian Government’s $50 million Export and Regional Wine Support Package will further enhance the sector’s ability to develop new export opportunities.

However, the opportunities are not entirely predictable. It’s not necessarily a matter of replacing French Syrah, Italian Pinot Gris or Chilean Merlot with the same variety from

V3 3N 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

57

BUSINESS BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING

WINE PRODUCTION

Figure 4

Figure 5. Export prices versus grape purchase prices over time.

Table 1. Average purchase prices for Australia’s three major varieties in the three warmer inland regions in 2017.

Shiraz

Cabernet Sauvignon

Chardonnay

$/t

Change

$/t

Change

$/t

Change

Riverland

396

18%

391

13%

310

6%

Riverina

344

-3%

366

-1%

321

13%

Murray Darling - Swan Hill

395

23%

403

22%

310

10%

The main driver is lower supply. This means that sellers are under less pressure to discount, which increases the average price and reduces competition among suppliers. Compound this with lack of availability, and suddenly buyers may look more favourably at a different product to fill a gap on the shelf or the menu. For example, an Australian Chardonnay may replace an Italian Pinot Gris, if it fills a similar style and price point specification. “The last time we had an opportunity like this was in 1986 after Chernobyl,” Moularadellis said.

“Australia was seen as clean and green, which opened the door for us and led to sustained export growth for many years.”

This supply pressure in the market may be short-lived – depending on what happens with harvests in the next few years in Australia and its competitor countries. However, it may be a launching pad to establish new products firmly in the market, which may then have an advantage over products trying to re-enter.

EFFECTS ON THE LARGE INLAND REGIONS Arguably the poor vintages in Europe will have the largest positive impact on Australia’s three warmer inland regions of the Riverland, Murray Darling–Swan Hill and Riverina, which are the engine room of the Australian grape and wine community’s production volumes. Combined, the regions account for around 40% of Australia’s winegrape vineyard area but more than 70% of the national winegrape crush.

The grapes from these regions produce some of Australia’s biggest selling wine brands both domestically and in overseas markets.

At least two-thirds of wine produced from the warmer inland regions is exported. As a result, the global wine supply and demand situation is a major determinant of winegrape pricing in the warmer inland regions. The biggest influence on bulk wine prices over the last few years was the huge crop

Spain produced in 2013. According to the OIV, Spanish wine production increased by 44% to 4.6 billion litres in 2013. Such a large volume of wine had a deflationary effect on prices for commodity wine, not just for Spain but for other producers such as Australia. In 2015–16, Spain exported 1.3 billion litres of bulk wine at US$0.41 per litre – this is more than Australia’s total wine production and it was exported at around half the average bulk wine price of Australian wine.

However, the global supply and demand situation is changing quickly. There is strong demand for Australian wine stemming from China in particular and Asia in general, as well as the United States. Furthermore, margins in the United Kingdom may improve as the pound appreciates.

While China is the biggest and fastest growing market for Australia’s premium wines, there has also been an increase in exports of commercial wines. This is the market segment that the warmer inland regions predominantly supply. This reflects a broadening of the base of Chinese wine consumers.

More Chinese can now afford to buy imported wines, moving from domestic to imported wines. There has also been a shift from gift-giving to personal, everyday consumption. As this demand has risen, Australian exporters have pivoted toward Asia (Figure 4).

The 2017 vintage saw mixed results in the three warmer inland regions for Australia’s three major varieties (Table 1).

All three varieties recorded increased average prices in the Riverland and Murray Darling–Swan Hill, but only Chardonnay increased in the Riverina. Indicative prices for 2018 for the Riverland are up on 2017 prices, with demand for Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon somewhat stronger than for Chardonnay.

There is a strong correlation between export prices and grape purchase prices (Figure 5). If the warmer inland regions can lift the price of the wines exported from the region, then this is likely to flow through to the prices paid for their grapes.

WVJ

58

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

PHILANTHROPY

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

Philanthropy in the wine industry: an exploratory study

By Armando Maria Corsi1, Sharon Forbes2, Rosana Fuentes Fernández3, Armand Gilinsky4 and Marc Dressler5

»

Does your winery donate wine, cash, or staff time to not-for-profit causes? If so, what’s been the value of that donation as a percentage of your earnings and what or who have been the main beneficiaries? A recent study has attempted to quantify and compare the philanthropic practices of the wine industries in Australia, Spain, Germany, New Zealand, and the US.

B

usiness engagement in philanthropy improves both firm reputation (Seifert et al. 2003, Williams and Barrett 2000) and the management of relationships with important stakeholders (Brammer and Millington 2005). There is also evidence that consumers give support to those businesses choosing to support charitable causes (e.g. Barone et al. 2000, Lorge & Brewer 1998). Whilst philanthropy as a subset of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature has been the focus of academic researchers for several decades, major gaps in knowledge remain with respect to actual company behaviours. Prior investigations have been primarily devoted to examination of philanthropy by large corporations in the United States (Schaper and Savery 2004, Thompson et al. 1993), but research has yet to compare philanthropic practices in the wine industry.

The present study attempts to fill this gap by quantifying and comparing philanthropic practices in the wine industry of Australia, Spain, Germany, New Zealand, and the US. In particular, we examine whether wine businesses are actually undertaking philanthropy, and if so, what type of philanthropic activities they provide, the value of their philanthropy (as a percentage of earnings before income and taxes - EBIT) and the main beneficiaries.

Each researcher administered a structured questionnaire among wine businesses in his/her own country. The questionnaire was developed following a review of the philanthropy literature, as well as exploratory interviews with several wine businesses in the US, Spain and New Zealand. The instrument used categorical items to measure the characteristics of the wine business (e.g. location, size and ownership structure), the philanthropic activities they engaged with in 2015, the recipients of these activities, and the amount spent (measured as a percentage of EBIT). Likert-scaled items were used to measure the philanthropic motivations, beliefs and strategies of the businesses. The questionnaire was pre-tested in each country before data collection commenced. Whilst every effort was

»

made to collect data using a standardised questionnaire, some minor changes to wording or categories had to be made in some nations to meet local needs.

Data was collected in each nation in 2016 and respondents were asked to refer to their businesses’ philanthropic behaviour in the previous year. The number of respondents and the response rate varied across nations (see Table 1).

First, we examined whether wine businesses are active philanthropically or not. Results show that a majority of wine businesses (min=81% - max=100%) engage in philanthropic activities. Secondly, the questionnaire asked wine businesses to judge the value of their philanthropic activity (in 2015) as a percentage of their annual EBIT. Results show that 41% of US wine businesses donated 1% or more of EBIT, compared with 13% of Spanish, 24% of Australian and 23% of New Zealand wine businesses.

We then examined whether wine businesses felt the level of their engagement in philanthropic activities increased or not compared with the previous year. Results show that the number of requests wine businesses have received to support philanthropic activities has increased from the previous year. This may suggest that charity organisations are needing more and more help in order to address growing social issues. It may also be possible that the more the wine industry is viewed as a substantial supporter of social causes, the more it is being drawn upon to ▶ provide support.

Table 1. Respondent numbers and response rate.

Nation

Wineries contacted

Number of respondents

Response rate (%)

Australia

1896

68

3

Germany

2000

159

7

New Zealand

675

13

2

Spain

4120

68

2

USA

2010

100

5

Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia, Australia

1

Lincoln University, New Zealand

2

3

Universidad San Jorge, Spain

Sonoma State University, United States

4

University of Ludwigshafen, Germany

5

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

59

BUSINESS BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING

PHILANTHROPY

Table 3. Beneficiaries of wine business philanthropy.

Table 2. Types of philanthropic activities.

Activity Donations of wine Donations of staff time Donations of cash Serving on nonprofit boards Donations of facilities to host events Volunteer efforts by staff Sponsorship of a person, event or cause Donations of % of revenue on units sold Matching employee gifts/ donations Other

USA (%)

Spain (%)

Australia (%)

Germany (%)

NZ (%)

95

86

95

86

85

73

44

42

42

54

69

33

38

65

54

59

16

29

23

54

52

40

35

51

46

48

19

42

21

31

42

43

58

12

54

17

10

18

11

8

9

8

4

21

0

nr

6

11

33

0

nr=not recorded

A fourth research question focussed on the types of philanthropic activities wine businesses engage with. Results show that the most common philanthropic activity across the five countries consists of wine donations. This is followed by donations of staff time and cash donations, although sponsorship of events, persons or causes (in Australia and New Zealand), or donations of facilities to host events (in Germany) also seem to play a critical role (see Table 2).

The last research question looked at the beneficiaries of these philanthropic activities. Wine businesses prefer to support local or regional causes, indicating the importance wine businesses play for charities and organisations operating in physical proximity to wine businesses. Australia, New Zealand and the US appear to focus less on international charities compared with Spain or Germany. Education, cultural or arts, health, welfare or community organisations are most likely to benefit from wine business philanthropy in the US. Results are similar in Australia and Germany, except that sports organisations are significant beneficiaries in Australia, while health organisations do not receive wide support in Germany. New Zealand wine businesses are most likely to support educational, health, welfare or community and cultural or arts organisations. The most commonly supported causes in Spain are sports, cultural or arts, education and environmental (see Table 3).

To sum up, this investigation provides an initial exploration of philanthropy across the global wine industry. A majority of respondents (i.e., at least 80%) are voluntarily providing support for the public good through philanthropy. Caution must be used in interpreting the results inasmuch as some questions may have become â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;lost in translationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; or elicited answers that had different shades of meaning due to the cultural and linguistic differences among respondents across country boundaries. Further, respondents may have reported higher levels of philanthropic behaviours than actual practice due to fear of reputational harm.

That said, however, several gaps in knowledge regarding CSR in general and business philanthropy in particular are addressed

60

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

Beneficiaries Local charities Educational institutions Cultural or arts organisations Health-related institutions Regional charities Welfare or community organisations Environmental organisations National charities Individuals in need Relief funds (e.g. natural disasters) Religious organisations Sports organisations International charities Other

USA Spain (%) (%)

Australia (%)

Germany (%)

NZ (%)

94

61

76

66

92

64

37

44

43

54

52

44

60

42

46

49

8

44

16

46

48

39

45

66

54

45

19

49

89

46

32

23

22

18

15

29 25

32 42

31 22

23 31

23 46

23

10

29

10

31

15

16

22

37

0

10

47

51

41

39

4

23

13

23

8

14

6

4

8

23

in this investigation. There appears to be great convergence among respondents from different countries around: (1) nearly unanimous engagement in philanthropy, (2) dominance of wine donations, followed by donations of cash, (3) focus on supporting local and regional organisations in the educational, health, welfare or community, cultural or arts, sports or environmental areas, and (4) inducements to respond to an increasing number of requests for donations on an annual basis, whilst levels of philanthropic activity appear to be more or less constant across all nations under study. With respect to national differences, wine businesses in the US report spending a higher percentage of EBIT on philanthropic activities than do their counterparts in other nations. A possible explanation for this disparity is that US companies can deduct charitable contributions to lower reported income for taxation purposes, whereas companies in some other countries cannot. A future study using the same data sets will (1) ascertain whether or not the motivations for philanthropy are altruistic or strategic in nature, (2) identify any benefits that are gained from philanthropic pursuits, and (3) examine the impact of firm size on giving.

REFERENCES Barone, M. J.; Miyazaki, A.D. and Taylor, K.A. (2000) The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28:248-262.

Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2005) Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 61:29-44.

Lorge, S. and Brewer, G. (1998) Is cause-related marketing worth it? Sales & Marketing Management 150:72.

Schaper, M.T. & Savery, L. K. (2004) Entrepreneurship and philanthropy: The case of small Australian firms. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 9:239-250.

Seifert, B.; Morris, S.A. and Bartkus, B.R. (2003) Comparing big givers and small givers: Financial correlates of corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics 45:195-211.

Thompson, J.K.; Smith, H.L. and Hood, J.N. (1993) Charitable contributions by small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management 31:35-51.

Williams, R.J. and Barrett, J.D. (2000) Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity and firm reputation: Is there a link? Journal of Business Ethics 26:341-350.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

WVJ

V33N1

INSURANCE

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

Management and cyber liability insurance – can you afford to run your vineyard business without it?

By Phil Keenihan, Senior Insurance Broker, MGA Insurance Brokers, Adelaide, South Australia

Y

ou are running a business.

Whether it’s a vineyard, hobby farm or something similar, it’s a business. You might also be the director of such a business or family trust and therefore you have legislative obligations.

Insurance cover is not usually the first thing on the minds of vineyard owners and operators. Most are too busy running the day-to-day operations of their businesses, or worried about losses or damage to their production.

WHAT IS MANAGEMENT LIABILITY INSURANCE? Management liability insurance protects you and the company against the risks and exposures of running

the company (i.e., your liability for mismanagement). Without adequate protection you could risk losing not only your business, but also your personal assets.

This insurance protects you personally and, consequently, your wealth and lifestyle. Generally, agricultural business operators cover assets such as machinery, motor vehicles, sheds, houses, vines and structures but miss a big threat to their business. The legal costs to defend allegations of wrongful acts alone can be financially crippling for businesses and individuals.

So many things can go wrong on the land – having management liability insurance covers you for a broad range

of things. It really is vital for agricultural business owners and managers.

THE BASICS OF FARM MANAGEMENT LIABILITY Management liability insurance essentially ensures that you are protected from the risks of mismanagement.

Agricultural business managers can face many issues which could include: • employment practice issues leading to legal action (e.g. unfair employee dismissal or harassment) • financial crimes within the business (e.g. embezzlement or employee fraud), including produce, stock or money • tax audit expenses (e.g. an ATO audit or WET audit, superannuation –

®

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

61

BUSINESS BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING

INSURANCE

anything where the Federal or a state government department are involved) • a breach of OH&S rules leading to criminal prosecutions; this area will cover fines or penalties imposed on you by Safework where you have been negligent in your approach to the safety of staff and others • a breach of state or industry regulations in the operation of your agricultural business.

Many agricultural business operators don’t consider this kind of insurance because they don’t think of themselves as a company. Unfortunately, or fortunately, times are changing and there is real need for this coverage. Management liability covers agricultural operations in the same way as commercial or industrial organisations, giving larger agricultural businesses more comprehensive cover.

WHY DO I NEED IT? Farmsafe Australia identified that in the five years between 2008 and 2013, injuries in the agricultural sector cost $438 million and resulted in more than 270,000 weeks of lost work.

Management liability used to be something that only some large businesses considered. But the effects of even one legal case can be crippling.

People in the agriculture industry work on such fine margins – with all things considered, you need to give yourself peace of mind. Can you afford to run your business without this insurance policy? In these times the answer is no. Finding a management liability insurance package that can be tailored to the needs of your business, staff and day-to-day operations can ultimately save you thousands in the event something goes wrong.

WHAT DOES MANAGEMENT LIABILITY INSURANCE COVER? • damages and claimant costs awarded against you • defence (i.e., legal) costs • investigation costs • civil fines and pecuniary penalties.

MANAGEMENT LIABILITY CLAIM EXAMPLES Fidelity and Crime Claims examples Example 1 Background: The owners of a family company were shocked to discover that one of their trusted employees manipulated inventory supply numbers of

62

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

stock to defraud the company. The stock was stolen and onsold by the manager and employee over a two-year period.

Outcome: The total loss to the company was in excess of $20,000. The owners were able to make a claim for this amount under their Management Liability Policy.

Example 2 Background: A bookkeeper of a farming business misappropriated $30,000 by altering cheques received from debtors. The clerk named themselves as a payee and continued a cycle of paying debtors accounts with funds from other debtors over a period of 18 months.

This continued until her absence from work when the fraudulent scheme was discovered.

Outcome: The total loss to the farm was in excess of $35,000 which included the costs of a forensic accountant to uncover the extent of the misappropriation.

Fortunately, this loss was covered under their Management Liability Policy.

Pecuniary Penalties Claims examples Example Background: The owners of a small, family-run farming business were charged with four offences under the Environment Protection Act. These were indictable offences and each charge carried a potential maximum fine of $280,000. The EPA alleged contractors (employed by the farmers) dumped waste into a nearby vacant property which was not determined to be a legal dumping site.

Outcome: Following a one-day hearing, the farmers were found liable and were fined $18,000. Overall defence costs of $12,000 were incurred over the duration of the investigation and prosecution.

Employment Practices Claims Examples Example Background: A claim was made by an employee of a farming business against the proprietors for bullying, harassment, abuse and sexual harassment. The employee claimed the amount of $50,000 in compensation.

Outcome: After protracted litigation, the matter settled for payment by the insured for the amount of $17,500. In addition to this, the proprietors incurred more than $15,000 in defence costs.

Taxation Investigation Claims Examples Example Background: An insured family-run

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

farming operation received a notice from the ATO advising it intended to review the farm’s income tax, capital gains tax and superannuation payments tax records.

The insured then retained specialist tax auditors and accountants to prepare an audit report. The entire process was arduous and took more than nine months to complete. The ATO deemed that all was in order and did not impose any penalties.

The insured, however, was left to pay auditors’ costs totalling $12,500.

Outcome: Upon the assessing this claim, the costs incurred were deemed to be necessary and reasonable and the insured was reimbursed the costs of $12,500 less their deductible.

Occupational Health & Safety Prosecution Claims examples Example Background: A casual employee, whilst working on a farm, was moving equipment.

The employee was severely injured when a pile of debris fell on him. He was airlifted to hospital but unfortunately died two days later. A full Occupational Health and Safety investigation began that eventually led to the owners of the property being prosecuted. During the investigation, it was deemed that they had failed in their duty of care to provide a safe workplace for their employee.

Outcome: Following a one-day hearing, the owners were found liable and were fined $25,000. Overall defence costs incurred were $10,000.

CYBER LIABILITY INSURANCE What is cyber crime?

Cyber crime encompasses almost any criminal activity that can be perpetrated via the internet and computers - something every business, farm and personal home relies on.

Cyber crimes include cyber-stalking, industrial espionage and information theft, fraud, extortion, identity theft, phishing scams and cyber terrorism.

Cyber criminals use malware and viruses, computer and network hacking, denial of service attacks and fraudulent online scams to perpetrate their crimes. They find it relatively easy to access computers and networks inadequately protected by virus software or passwords. They will also directly steal laptops, computers and mobile devices and take advantage of computers left unattended.

The Australian Competition and

V33N1

INSURANCE

Consumer Commission (ACCC) has warned small businesses to watch their online habits in the wake of increased cyber risk activity. “Many small businesses and consumers have reported that their computer has been frozen, with a pop-up alert that claims to be from the Australian Federal Police stating the computer has been locked because they have visited an illegal website or breached various laws,” said ACCC deputy chair Michael Schaper in a media release from 2015. “Scammers claim that they will unlock the computer if a fee is paid. However, even if you pay the ransom, there is no guarantee your computer will be unlocked and you’re likely to be up for expensive repairs to your computer and the loss of your invaluable data.”

“If scammers aren’t after your money, then they’re looking for your personal information,” a report by the ACCC on scam activity in 2014 stated. “In 2014 losses reported to computer hacking scams doubled when compared with 2013 and other identity theft scams continued to be reported in significant numbers.”

WHY HAVE CYBER LIABILITY INSURANCE? Data breaches occur every day.

While hacking incidents are the most recognisable and expensive cause of data loss, they are not the most common. It’s a startling fact that simple human error accounts for three out of four incidents: • 40% of the data breach cases are from people making mistakes, such as losing laptops and flash drives

• 36% are system glitches, such as software updates, which inadvertently expose sensitive private files • 24% are malicious and criminal attacks.

No matter the sophistication of the security system, there is little that can be done to eliminate the risk of human error.

A common, accidental breach is a real business risk worth considering today.

CLAIMS EXAMPLES Some recent claims examples include: • A hotel group’s point-of-sale network was hacked and the credit card details of six million customers were taken.

The hotel experienced high forensic costs to isolate the hack. Additional expenses included mandatory notification costs and fines. The hotel offered all of the individuals two years of credit monitoring services. They also received liability claims for damages from banks.

• An employee of a financial services company left a laptop containing the personal financial details of its clients in a public place. Costs included the hire of a PR firm, notification of all of the customers affected, setup of an ID theft/credit alert service call centre and credit monitoring services.

HOW TO INSURE FOR CYBER RISK Identify the risks your business faces The biggest risk for one business might be completely different to the biggest risk for the next. Would the exposure of your customers’ personal information pose

BUSINESS & & MARKETING MARKETING BUSINESS

the biggest threat to you, or would it be the interruption to your ability to continue providing a service? Make sure you know the problems your business could face.

What sort of cover do you already have?

Some of the insurance you already have in place may provide some coverage for cyber risks.

Get the right level of cover Cyber liability is not a one-size-fits-all type of cover. Concentrate on making sure your policy includes all the basic features, but assess whether some of the tailored options will be necessary. Also, determine if the amount you’re insured for will be enough to cover the costs you’ll incur in the event of a data breach. It’s a good idea to involve all stakeholders from different branches within the company to accurately assess how much cover you’ll need.

Know what’s excluded Knowing what is and isn’t covered on any insurance policy is always essential.

Check your insurer’s list of exclusions to prevent any nasty surprises at some stage in the future.

What about third-party negligence?

If, like many businesses, you outsource tasks like data processing or storage to a third party, check whether negligence from that third-party will be covered by your insurance provider.

WVJ

Save Time & Money Equipment Finance - Made Easy BFL now offer much more than just Finance and Logistics for barrels.

We now offer a competitive finance option for most equipment you may be looking to purchase including crushers, fermenters, presses, racks, fruit bins and bungs.

DWBFL13070

We now also offer finance options for Solar Panels, Insurance Premium Funding, Brewery and Bottling Equipment.

V3 3N 1

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

63

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

The fundamentals of making organic white wine We recently held our first tasting of exclusively organic wines. Open to all white varieties from certified organic vineyards, the tasting highlighted the quality and value-for-money these wines being produced in Australia are offering, with four wines in particular standing out from the 26 in the line-up. We go behind the scenes with the producers of those wines to find out how they came together.

ASHLEY HORNER WINEMAKER HORNER WINES UPPER HUNTER VALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES Wine: Horner Wines 2017 Family Reserve Chardonnay (RRP$24.99/bottle)

VITICULTURE The grapes for this wine are grown in our family vineyard in the Upper Hunter, 3km from Sandy Hollow, on deep red sandy loam soil. The plantings measure approximately 6.5 acres. Organic farming started in 2012 with pre-certification and full accreditation through the ACO (Australian Certified Organic) achieved in 2015. Since organic vineyard management was implemented, my father has said that the vineyard has never felt more alive!

Vine rows run northwest to southeast.

The block gets pretty cold in winter and enjoys long sunny days during the growing season. Hot westerly winds and southeasterly winds blow through the vineyard.

The growing season can be very dry with afternoon storms. It is a drier heat than the Lower Hunter and often we miss the big rain events that can descend on that region, making disease pressure lower and harvesting decisions easier. There is a chance of a late frost when warmer conditions early in the growing season spark budburst. The maximum daytime temperature in the vineyard is 40°C while the minimum is 16oC. The Chardonnay vines were planted in 2002 and are the V1 c lone; they are planted on their own root. The vines are trellised to a VSP, with canopies and cropping low due to the influence of organics, the sandy soil and limited water. They yield between 1.5 and 2 tonnes per acre. Canopies are naturally open without the use of foliage wires.

Irrigation is supplied via drippers from dams which are filled from the creek in winter. We rely on winter and spring rains to maintain soil moisture under the vines and help with strong budburst and fruitset. If

64

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

rainfall in this period is well below average then the canopy is usually stunted and crop levels are down. Frequent, short irrigations during the hot growing season are used leading up to and during veraison to keep root systems cool. In the absence of good rain during this period, longer irrigations of three to six hours are applied once a week.

Two application of an organic biocatalyst (12%N) are applied through the drippers at pre-flowering and post fruitset. Water is a constant battle for our vineyard, but if managed properly we just get through. We also believe that given the sandy soil and age of the vines now, the root systems are well distributed.

Horner Wines winemaker Ashley Horner.

Natural cover crops are maintained in the mid rows and under the vines. We feel the cover crops help maintain the natural environment for the soil and insects such as bees and ladybugs. The cover crops are maintained in the winter by sheep grazing and are slashed during the growing period, depending on the season. The sheep provide a good head start on mid row and under vine weeds plus their manure gives slow release nutrients back into the soil.

Weeds are sprayed using organic oil-based products twice during the growing season at flowering and pre-veraison. This is used as a suppressant rather than to make the under vine area bear dirt. The weeds are then left to mulch back into the soil and

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

we feel this keeps evaporation down and the temperature cooler under the canopy during the hot periods.

Vines are spur pruned to two buds by hand using the knuckle width apart method per spur.

The main pest or disease concern for these vines are downy and powdery mildew.

In the future, we would like to invest in an under-vine mower and use this instead of the organic sprays to manage weeds.

We will also look at using more foliar nutrient sprays which we think will improve nutrient uptake by the vines to overcome our sandy soils. Cane pruning will also be something we’ll look at to improve new season vine growth and crop levels. The use of sunscreen may also be considered to help during the hotter periods which are becoming more frequent.

The grapes are machine harvested at night and transported to the winery as soon as possible. We aren’t looking for the perfect sugar level when harvesting our Chardonnay - more so a balance of acidity and flavour. The riper the grapes get the more acidity we lose and the bolder flavours take over. It has taken some vintages to realise that the V1 clone on our soil is better picked early. We harvest our Chardonnay early around 11.5-12.0 Baume, giving us around 12.5%v/v alcohol.

The grapes and juice are green in colour, and sometimes the grapes are little hard to knock off the stalks. We also must act quickly when deciding to harvest as the Baume level and flavours can move dramatically on sandy soil. Baume testing is done twice a week once the sugar level hits 8Be so we can track the accumulation, which is also based on weather conditions.

We waited until 13-13.5Be in our earlier vintages but found these wines lacked natural acidity, freshness and phenolics and were overblown in flavour. We aren’t after the big, bold, tropical notes that Chardonnay in the Hunter Valley can produce but more the delicate flavours of green apples, lemon/lime and nectarines.

These flavours, we feel, produce a more structured and fresh style of Chardonnay.

V33N1

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

The winemaking approach for our Chardonnay is about building the body and complexity that we love in a good Chardonnay. We know that we have the flavour and quality in our grapes, so it is about using techniques to enhance the unique single vineyard characters. We feel different techniques in the winemaking help this wine as we don’t have other parcels of fruit to call on for blending.

Grapes are machine harvested at night and an addition of 100ppm per tonne of PMS is made to the bins before being transported to the winery in Pokolbin, arriving early in the morning for immediate processing. Grapes are put through the destemmer with the rollers open only slightly, splitting the berries. An addition of 30ppm per tonne of PMS and a pressing enzyme is added at the receival bin.

Free run juice directly from the press is transferred to a portion of new French oak puncheons and one-year-old French oak puncheons for fermentation with a selected organically-approved yeast. The balance of grapes is airbag-pressed and the free run and pressings put together. A settling enzyme is added and the juice is fined and left to settle for 24 hours.

Once settled a portion is racked directly to French oak puncheons for wild yeast fermentation. The balance is racked to another stainless steel tank for fermentation using an organicallyapproved yeast. Six days after starting fermentation it is then transferred with yeast lees into old French oak hogsheads to complete fermentation. Once all portions have fermented to dry they are acid adjusted and inoculated with an organically-approved malolactic bacteria.

Malo is fermented to 0.01g/l. The acid is adjusted if needed, but it usually isn’t and ends up with the following analysis: 3.30pH and 6.0g/l TA. 100ppm of PMS is also added. The wine is then left on yeast lees for five to six months with lees stirring. All components are then blended together to form the wine.

Previously, we used natural yeasts on our solids component but found it too funky. We now use natural yeasts on clean juice. Malolactic fermentation was formerly only used on 50% of the wine. We’ve also played around with selected yeasts. We’ve previously used four different types but now only use two. We have also sourced oak with a longer, tighter grain and a sweeter mid palate to throw into the mix.

Lees stirring is also a fairly recent practice.

V3 3N 1

A view across the Horner Wines vineyard in the Upper Hunter Valley.

MARKETING This wine sits in our Family Reserve range, which are wines sourced from our vineyard in the Upper Hunter Valley.

It has a limited production of around 6000 bottles. The range is sold directly through Naked Wines Australia. Naked Wines markets these wines as limited and unique and are only available to its ‘Angels’.

ASHLEY HORNER WINEMAKER HORNER WINES UPPER HUNTER VALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES Wine: Horner Wines 2017 Family Reserve Viognier (RRP$22.99/bottle)

VITICULTURE The grapes for this wine are grown in our family vineyard in the Upper Hunter, 3km from Sandy Hollow, on deep sandy loam soil on a gravel ridge. The plantings measure approximately 3.5 acres.

The vineyard sits directly opposite our Chardonnay vineyard (see above). The soil type varies slightly to the Chardonnay as it sits more on the end of the mountain ridge. It is one of a handful of Viognier vineyards in the Hunter Valley and the vines do very well in our soil and climate.

We feel that there is a future for Viognier in the Hunter Valley and is one of our most consistent varieties.

Further details about the site can be read in the information for our Chardonnay above.

The Viognier was planted in 2005, HTK clone, on own roots. Grown on a VSP

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

trellis, canopies and cropping are low due to the influence of organics, the sandy soil and limited water. The vines yield around 2-2.5 tonnes per acre. Canopies are naturally open without the use of foliage wires. Bunches are quite long like Shiraz.

Irrigation, cover cropping, pruning, pest and disease concerns and future methods of management for the Viognier is the same as our Chardonnay above.

Grapes are harvested by hand in the early morning to avoid the heat in the middle of the day and transported to the winery as soon as possible. We don’t look for the normal flavours Viognier is known for when harvesting our Viognier, we look for fresh acidity and delicate flavours such as green apple, nectarine, slight apricot and cardamom. The riper the grapes get the more acidity we lose and the bolder apricot and cardamom flavours take over. These flavours are not the ones we like to taste in our Viognier.

It has taken some vintages to realise that the Viognier on our soil is better picked early. We harvest our Viognier early, around the 11.5-12.5Baume, giving us around 12.5-13.0%v/v alcohol. The grapes and juice are green in colour with some orange/purple tinges that you get in Viognier when it’s ripening. We also must act quickly when deciding to harvest as the Baume level and flavours can move dramatically on sandy soil. Baume testing is done twice a week once the sugar level hits 8Be to track the accumulation, which is also based on weather conditions. We have waited until 13-13.5Be in earlier vintages but found these wines lacked natural acidity, freshness, and phenolics and were oily and overblown in apricot

www.winetitles. com . au

65

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

flavour. We aren’t after the big, bold apricot/oily flavours that Viognier can produce but more the delicate flavours of green apples, pears, nectarines, slight apricot/cardamom. These flavours, we feel, produce a more structured and fresh style of Viognier.

WINEMAKING The winemaking approach for our Viognier is about showing the freshness and different flavours that we love in a Viognier. Grapes are hand harvested in the early morning and an addition of 100ppm per tonne of PMS made to the bins which are then transported to the winery in Pokolbin for immediate processing. Grapes are put through the de-stemmer with the rollers open only slightly, splitting the berries. An addition of 30ppm per tonne of PMS and a pressing enzyme is added at the receival bin.

Grapes are airbag pressed with the free run and pressings going into the same stainless steel tank. Acid is adjusted as needed. A settling enzyme is added and the juice is fined using casein and left to settle for 24 hours.

Once settled a portion of the juice is racked into old French oak barrels for fermentation - approximately 30% of the wine. It is then inoculated with an organically approved yeast. The balance of juice is then racked into a stainless steel tank for fermentation using the same yeast. Both portions

are fermented to dryness, with some lees stirring done towards the end of fermentation, around 3-4Be. 100ppm of PMS is added to stop the ferment and acid adjusted if needed, giving an analysis of around 3.25-3.30pH and 6.06.5g/l TA. Both portions are then left off yeast lees with occasional stirring for two months to add body and texture. All components are then blended together to form the wine. This Viognier is different from the typical styles being produced; we would like to think we are changing the style in Australia to one that people want to drink.

The key to this wine has been the early picking. It produces a fresher style of Viognier – one that, we feel, people would rather drink. These wines also age better. We have experimented with more solids in the juice pre-ferment and natural yeast but found these portions to be too funky for the style we are trying to achieve, so clean juice with a selected yeast is the preferred option.

MARKETING This wine sits in our Family Reserve range, which are wines sourced from our vineyard in the Upper Hunter Valley. Production is limited to around 4000 bottles. The range is sold directly through Naked Wines Australia. Naked Wines markets these wines as limited and unique and are only available to its ‘Angels’.

One of Nature’s Step’s two vineyards, which are both located in South Australia’s Adelaide Plains, just north of Adelaide.

66

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

Nature’s Step’s sales and export manager Teresa Trimboli.

TERESA TRIMBOLI SALES AND EXPORT MANAGER NATURE’S STEP ADELAIDE PLAINS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Wine: Nature’s Step 2017 Organic Pinot Grigio (RRP$12.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE Fruit for this wine is estate grown on our two properties on the Adelaide Plains, which lies north of Adelaide and southeast of the Barossa Valley. We are bounded east by the Adelaide Hills and west by the coastal waters of the Gulf of St Vincent.

The cool coastal breezes and abundance of sunshine create ideal weather conditions for this grapegrowing region.

The soil is a mixture of dark heavy loam and sandy loam over limestone. Both are alkaline, and perfect for grapegrowing.

We use drip irrigation sourced from underground aquifers as the annual rainfall in the region is generally low. Irrigation occurs weekly to fortnightly depending on weather.

The average minimum temperature for the area ranges from 6-12°C in OctoberApril, while the average maximum temperature for the same period ranges from 24-30°C. Mild frosts occur but not enough to do any damage. The major concern is the constant change of weather during this time and unexpected heavy downpours of rain as it leaves the vines open to disease.

The Pinot Grigio vines are 25 years old.

They are grown on a two-wire vertical trellis and have a row and vine spacing of 3.0m x 1.8m. Bunch thinning is carried out.

We use barley, wheat, clover and broad beans to name a few varieties for our cover crops to increase nitrogen and maintain

V33N1

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

grapegrowing practices.

This year we are also focussing on the Chinese and US markets as the demand for Australian organic products grows.

RICHARD FREEBAIRN CHIEF WINEMAKER PAXTON WINES MCLAREN VALE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Wine: Paxton 2017 Pinot Gris (RRP$20.00/bottle)

organic matter (humus) in the soil, which helps with water-holding potential.

The vines are hand spur pruned to 30 buds per vine and fruit thinned postveraison. They yield an average of 8 tonnes per hectare.

At harvest, we wait for the first signs of acid flavours changing to sugar flavours.

We pick quite early to reduce colour pick-up in skins.

WINEMAKING VITICULTURE Paxton Wines’ chief winemaker Richard Freebairn. soil health and fertility. The vines are hand pruned leaving 35-40 buds per vine. The Pinot Grigio yields between 4-8 tonnes per acre.

WINEMAKING The Pinot Grigio is machine harvested over two separate nights. We do an early and late pick to reflect the different levels of acidity in the grapes. The wine is crushed, pressed and then fermented without oak in stainless steel tanks before being filtered and bottled. All our inputs are certified organic, vegan and non-GMO.

MARKETING Being a certified organic operator and producer of all our own grapes we are able to be in control of every process from the planting of the vines through to the finished product. Our organic farming practices have enabled us to produce some exceptional fruit and each year we continue to amaze ourselves.

Not only are our wines certified organic, they are vegan friendly and low in sulfur, which makes them attractive to market as more and more consumers are heading towards a healthier lifestyle.

Our wines are sold nationally throughout all Dan Murphy’s stores in the organic section. We also sell to various organic stores in South Australia and Victoria and are beginning to target the on-premise market in SA as well as the eastern seaboard.

We also like to visit local markets where people can try before they buy. We have found this to be a great way to connect with our customers and they can also ask us more questions about our winery and

V3 3N 1

Situated in a little valley 9.5km from the Gulf of St Vincent, our Thomas Block Vineyard was purchased by David Paxton in 1979 and was originally planted in the 1890s with Shiraz. The elevation of the vineyard of 74-85m above sea level means we get very cold mornings in winter and warm days in summer. These conditions are absolutely perfect for our whites and the cooler nights mean slower ripening for our reds, helping to produce a more elegant, softer wine. The vineyard comprises 28 hectares of alluvial soils, with clay/river stone predominant.

The Pinot Gris was planted and grafted in 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008. The new vines are clone D1V7, planted on own roots and 1103 Paulsen, in addition to the grafted vines on Cabernet Sauvignon.

The vines are trellised to a vertical single-wire trellis. Irrigation is used as required based on weekly vineyard observations.

A cover crop of oats is used to increase

The fruit for this wine was harvested at night when sugar and acid equilibrium was optimum. The grapes were whole berry pressed without crushing or destemming.

The juice was racked from the grape solids on the bottom of the tank, and fermented at temperatures between 13-16°C in stainless steel to capture fruit freshness. Once fermented, the wine lees were regularly mixed into suspension for a four-week period, with the aim of building complexity and texture into the wine. The wine was filtered and bottled early in its life to capture the freshness of the variety.

MARKETING With a recommended retail price of $20 this wine is great as a wine by the glass in bars and restaurants plus very popular in bottleshops. There is strong support for this wine on the eastern seaboard and in South Australia. It is picking up a bit of export traction but is predominately a domestic ▶ product.

Paxton Wines’ Thomas Block Vineyard in McLaren Vale, which was first planted to Shiraz in the 1890s.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

www.winetitles. com . au

67

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

STEVE LUBIANA WINEMAKER/OWNER STEFANO LUBIANA WINES TASMANIA Wine: Stefano Lubiana 2017 Riesling ($35.00/bottle)

VITICULTURE This wine is a single vineyard wine with fruit sourced entirely from our property at Granton, in the lower Derwent Valley, Tasmania. Soil in the vineyard is predominantly grey gravelly silt over gravelly clay. The one hectare block of Riesling is on a north-facing, gentle slope ensuring good drainage, at an elevation of 80m. Southern Tasmania’s climate is cool and dry with mild days and cool nights, ensuring a long, slow ripening period with excellent flavour and naturally high acids.

A planting layout of 1.2m x 2.1m seems to be adequate for the low vigour soils and low annual rainfall of around 450mm. All vines are cane pruned, shoot thinned in early spring, crop thinned to 6t/ha in late spring, and trimmed once. The Riesling vines are on own roots, planted to a mix

of clones sourced from around Tasmania.

The vines are 17 years old. Vineyard management is 100% certified biodynamic with all compost made on site and mechanical methods used for under-vine cultivation.

WINEMAKING All grapes are hand harvested early in the morning and arrive at the winery 50m away in very good condition. The grapes are then hand sorted on a vibrating table before being whole bunch pressed in a tank press slowly for many hours using a modified cremant program. Juice is then cold settled, racked, then inoculated before fermentation in large Austrian foudres and stainless steel tanks. The fermentation temperature is between 16-22°C. After fermentation the wine is sulfured and left on lees until bottling where it receives a light bentonite fining prior to cold stabilisation and filtering to bottle. Winemaking over the years has become simpler with a move to more gentler handling of fruit and juice and minimal additions. Much more is done in the vineyard in order to try to achieve these goals.

Steve Lubiana, winemaker and proprietor of Tasmania’s Stefano Lubiana Wines.

MARKETING Our Riesling is distributed Australia wide in a mixture of off and on premise venues as well as at our cellar door. A small amount is exported to various countries in Asia and Europe.

WVJ

Australian organic whites impress For the first time, the Wine & Viticulture Journal held a tasting dedicated solely to organic wines. The tasting focussed on white wines sourced from certified organic vineyards, with the quality of the 26 entries overall impressing the judging panel.

T

he quality of organic wines being made in Australia has taken a great stride in the last five years and headed in a very promising direction, if our recent organic white wine tasting is any indication.

So concluded our panellists when they gathered just before Christmas to blind judge 26 organic white wines entered in our latest tasting: nine Chardonnays, four Rieslings, three Pinot Gris/Grigios, two Sauvignon Blancs, two Viogniers and a Fume Blanc, Semillon, Roussane, Chenin Blanc, Savagnin and a white blend, hailing from as far west as Margaret River, as far south as Tasmania, and as far north and east as the Hunter Valley Making up the panel were Troy Kalleske, winemaker for Kalleske in the Barossa Valley, and McLaren Vale neighbours Shelley Torresan, winemaker for Yangarra Estate, and Paxton winemaker Richard Freebairn.

“Overall [the wines were of] a fairly high standard,” Kalleske said. “I gave the majority a medal. And it was good to see producers putting their own mark on a variety too, rather than just conforming to a particular style. There were real differences within a varietal bracket.”

68

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

The panellists for our organic white wine tasting were (from left) Troy Kalleske, winemaker for Kalleske in the Barossa Valley; Shelley Torresan, winemaker for Yangarra Estate in McLaren Vale; and Paxton winemaker Richard Freebairn, also based in McLaren Vale.

Freebairn said the standard of wines in the tasting indicated Australian-made organic and biodynamic wines were headed in an “impressive” direction.

“If you went back five years, in a tasting like this there would have been five or six different coloured wines, there would have been various faults, and you would have been searching to find a lot of positives in

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

the wine. This was very easy…I awarded a lot of silvers. A lot of wines were very well made. A lot of wines I just wrote, ‘good drink’, that I’d happily sit down and enjoy,” Freebairn said.

He also noted the lack of commercial styles in the line-up. “You’re seeing wines with expression of variety and with life in the wines which was impressive to

V33N1

TA S T I N G N O T E S

see,” he said. “I found the Pinot Gris and Grigios and Viogniers and the Roussanne all really interesting, showing that people are pushing the boundaries and not doing what they’re told do. A good expression of winemaking.”

Torresan described the wines in the tasting as, “All pretty clean, fresh and bright, with good colour, apart from a couple. There was a good range of styles of Chardonnay. There were quite different styles of Riesling in there too. There were definitely some wines in all the varietals that I’d happily drink.”

STEFANO LUBIANA 2017 BIODYNAMIC RIESLING Tasmania Years source vineyard organically certified: 5 12.5%v/v - screwap RRP$30.00/bottle

Best of tasting: Bright pale straw in colour with a green tinge. Attractive, inviting and youthful nose is clean, fresh and very aromatic with notes of citrus blossom, florals, lime, stone fruit, apricot and ginger. Palate is fresh, bright and juicy with lime citrus flavour dominating; lively, well-balanced acidity and good minerality; good length. “A pleasant, lovely drink, especially for summer,” noted one taster.

“A well-made wine,” noted another.

V3 3N 1

Kalleske said the tasting had revealed several examples of good acid use. “Get that acid balance right and the wine really sings and is elevated. If a wine missed the acid it fell short and got a bit flabby and flat. Marmalade was a comment I used on a few wines where they didn’t seal the deal – they had the fruit, they had the front palate but missed that lovely delicate acid drive.”

In contrast, the panel agreed excessive acid was also apparent.

“A couple had excessive acid – added acid, or a result of the vintage - that

NATURE’S STEP 2017 ORGANIC PINOT GRIGIO Virginia, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 12 13.4%v/v – screwcap RRP$12.00/bottle Best of tasting: Bright pale straw in colour. Very pretty, fresh and aromatic nose of lychee, stone fruit, florals, particularly frangipani, and musk with a tropical fruit lift.

Slippery/viscous, oily, juicy and pleasant mouthfeel. Palate is fruit driven with white peach, pear and lychee notes. Good length. “Moreish,” noted one taster. “Very pleasant,” said another.

PAXTON 2017 PINOT GRIS McLaren Vale, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 7 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle Best of tasting: Brilliant pale straw in colour with a slight green tinge. Aromas of ocean spray, lime pith, tropical fruits, including lychee, and a touch of florals and wet slate.

Palate indicates an earlier picked style; nice upfront fruit, particularly citrus, with a touch of viscosity. Good acid and a long finish. One taster questioned if the acid was a touch high. Another didn’t think the wine was particularly varietal.

detracted too much from the wines,” Freebairn said.

Upon revealing the wines, the panel noted many of the 2017 whites had shown a lovely elegance. Freebairn said based on his experience with the vintage this elegance had stemmed from the prevalence of cool nights which had led to wines with more floral lift.

“I used the term ‘floral’ a lot in relation to the 2017s. They really captured those floral aromas and where we can go with white winemaking in a warmer climate,” WVJ he said.

HORNER WINES 2017 FAMILY RESERVE CHARDONNAY

HORNER WINES 2017 FAMILY RESERVE VIOGNIER

Hunter Valley, New South Wales Years source vineyard organically certified: 7 12.5%v/v –screwcap RRP$24.99/bottle

Hunter Valley, New South Wales Years source vineyard organically certified: 7 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$22.99/bottle

Best of tasting: Bright mid straw in colour. Attractive, wellbalanced nose featuring lovely creamy oak, stylish ripe fruit, particularly peach and melon, nuts and a hint of caramel; Chablis-like, noted one taster.

Another thought both the nose and palate were a touch oak heavy. Palate is pleasant and well balanced with lovely fruit, fresh acid on the finish and creamy, toasty complexity.

“Nice, my kind of Chardonnay,” noted one taster. “A tad ‘old style’ but done well. Smart use of malo adds richness,” said another.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

Best of tasting: Light straw in colour with a green tinge.

Elegant, pretty and attractive nose which is very varietal: aromas of apricots, honey, musk and florals. Classy, wellbalanced palate which displays great expression of the variety.

Very well-balanced fruit; chewy, textured mouthfeel; nice acid; lovely finish. “Very smart,” noted one taster.

www.winetitles. com . au

69

TA S T I N G N O T E S

MACAW CREEK WINES 2016 EM’S TABLE ORGANIC RIESLING Clare Valley, South Australia Years vineyard organically certified: 5 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$19.00/bottle Brilliant light gold in colour. Nose is a tad subdued before showing a reasonable lift and signs of age; possible VA at first before subtle aromas of orange, cut grass, lemon, cheesecake, white peach and sweet spice show through.

Broad phenolics on the palate which finishes quite short and hollow but is showing some nice age. “A rich and full-bodied style,” noted one taster.

“Tart but in a moreish way,” noted another, adding, “unusually attractive on going back to it, even after the first impression of volatility.”

FRANKLAND ESTATE 2016 ISOLATION RIDGE VINEYARD RIESLING

MACAW CREEK WINES 2015 EM’S TABLE ORGANIC RIESLING

Frankland River, Western Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 8 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$40.00/bottle

Clare Valley, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 6 12.5%v/v - screwcap RRP$19.00/bottle

Light straw colour with green edges.

Sulfide/struck match character evident on the strong, lifted nose which features notes of melon and pineapple along with a slight cheesy character. Simple, firm palate which lacks acid.

Very brilliant light gold straw colour.

Nose has beautiful attractive lift, some lovely aged notes and a creaminess from some lees stirring or the use of a small amount of oak; characters of toast, lemon curd, melted butter, citrus, lime and florals. Well-balanced, broad palate with an enjoyable, textural/ phenolic aspect, featuring citrus fruits, florals, honeycomb and complexity. Good length. A tad bitter at the end.

ORGANIC HILL 2017 ORGANIC PINOT GRIGIO Victoria Years source vineyard organically certified: 9 12.10%v/v – screwcap RRP$19.99/bottle Pale straw in colour with a pink tinge.

Mineral/slatey aromatics on the nose, along with some earth and wet wool, yet it is somewhat alluring; notes of saline and ocean spray also evident along with some orange blossom.

Palate has a viscous mouthfeel, featuring notes of ginger and lychee. One taster noted the presence of residual sweetness, adding the wine was also “a tad cloying”.

A touch short. “This wine will have fans but is a bit simple and sweet,” noted a taster.

ORGANIC HILL 2017 ORGANIC SAUVIGNON BLANC

STORMFLOWER VINEYARD 2016 SAUVIGNON BLANC

TAMBURLAINE 2017 ORANGE RESERVE FUME BLANC

Victoria Years source vineyard organically certified: 8 12.9%v/v – screwcap RRP$19.99/bottle

Margaret River, Western Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 1 13.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$25.00/bottle

Orange, New South Wales Years source vineyard organically certified: 9 13.2%v/v – screwcap RRP$33.00/bottle

Bright straw in colour with a green tinge. Very alluring, slightly tropical nose with strong varietal aromatics; good balance of sweet fruit with a touch of asparagus and burnt rubber. Palate is also varietal, with tinned tropical fruit predominant and a nice slatey/mineral aspect; somewhat phenolic with a slight hard/metallic edge.

Good length.

Bright straw in colour.

Nose is initially subdued but opens up to reveal notes of stonefruits, including white peaches and apricots, sherbet, green olives, herbs, leafiness, ginger and a slight smokiness.

Nice oak influence on the pretty palate which is dry and crisp, with notes of ginger, spice and some herbs. Nice balance and good acid.

“Really interesting,” said one taster. “A confusing wine; some will love, some will not,” said another.

“Good drinking wine,” another said.

Bright, clear colour of pale straw. Nose is varietal and pretty, featuring notes of cut grass, tropical fruits, including passionfruit, citrus, including grapefruit, and a hint of tinned peas.

One taster noted a touch of flint/sulfide.

Fresh, full-flavoured, mouthfilling palate which is a touch broad; notes of citrus fruits, passionfruit, rockmelon, pineapple and florals. Very pleasant mouthfeel.

Good acid balance. A touch short.

Organic whites 70

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

TA S T I N G N O T E S

KALLESKE 2017 ELENORE SEMILLON

ANGOVE 2017 ORGANIC CHARDONNAY

ANGOVE 2017 WILD OLIVE CHARDONNAY

SALENA ESTATE 2016 ORGANIC CHARDONNAY

STORMFLOWER VINEYARD 2016 CHARDONNAY

Barossa Valley, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 10 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle

Riverland, South Australia

McLaren Vale, South Australia Years source vineyards organically certified: 5/1 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$18.00/bottle

Riverland, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 9 14%v/v – screwcap RRP$24.00/bottle

Margaret River, Western Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 2

Pale yellow in colour with a slight brown tinge. Very fruity nose of lychee, white peach, mandarin, cumquat and apricot. Lovely spice on the palate along with bright fruits, particularly stone fruits, subtle oak influence and good acid. Lovely finish.

One taster thought the wine lacked complexity.

Bright pale straw in colour. Nose has a good fruit lift, subtle oak influence and a touch of lemon butter and wet slate/wool.

Acid a bit high on the palate but it has some lovely fruit, including nectarines and a hint of citrus, and a balanced mouthfeel.

Lovely finish. “Very well integrated wine,” noted one taster.

Another taster felt the wine was a touch too phenolic and sulfidic.

Light golden straw in colour. Lifted, attractive nose which is quite oaky, perhaps too oaky, but with good fruit behind it. Notes of talc and chalk also apparent. Palate is rich and mouthfilling with characters of ripe white fruits, peaches and oranges, but oak remains too overpowering. Nice acid on the finish.

“An old school style,” noted one taster.

V3 3N 1

Years source vineyard organically certified: 10 12.5%v/v – screwcap

RRP$35.00/bottle Bright pale yellow/ straw in colour with a nice green tinge. Nose somewhat subdued initially but reveals stonefruit, citrus and tropical fruits with time. Palate is simple, clean and fresh with nice citrus and tropical fruit characters and a dash of complexity perhaps from lees stirring. Good viscosity and well used oak.

13.0%v/v – screwcap

RRP$30.00/bottle Bright yellow gold in colour. Nose is rather oaky and buttery and showing some age but is intense with lots of ripe fruit, particularly tropicals, and a hint of banana ester and ginger spice. Ripe, rich fruit on the palate along with good malo and oak influences.

One taster thought the oak was too dominant on the palate. Banana and fresh cream also evident. Lovely mouthfeel. Lacks a bit of texture and intensity.

W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

SALENA ESTATE 2016 TWISTED STICKS CHARDONNAY

TAMBURLAINE 2016 ORANGE RESERVE CHARDONNAY

Riverland, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 9 13.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$24.00/bottle

Orange, New South Wales Years source vineyard organically certified: 9 13.6%v/v – screwcap RRP$33.00/bottle

Bright mid-straw in colour. Nose initially subdued before revealing subtle citrus blossom, a pleasant cheese aroma reminiscent of a brie, and nice oak use.

Pleasant minerality on the palate which is crisp with bright fruits, including zesty citrus notes. Perhaps a touch sharp. “Needs time; a bit disjointed at the moment,” noted one taster about the wine.

Bright pale straw in colour. Nose is smoky and charry and has a hint of H2S, but in an attractive way; stone and tropical fruits underneath.

Rich palate has a good weight of fruit upfront and some subtle classy oak; good balance of oak and fruit; slippery mouthfeel with some creaminess. “Perhaps a little heavy on the finish,” noted one taster.

www.winetitles. com . au

71

TA S T I N G N O T E S

FRANKLAND ESTATE 2015 CHARDONNAY Frankland River, Western Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 8 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$28.00/bottle Mid-gold straw in colour. Nose is charry with attractive oak and notes of stone fruits, including peach, hints of tropical fruit, including honeydew melon, and florals.

Intense, rich and full bodied palate. “An older style – will have many fans,” noted one taster. Palate is well balanced with good weight and a viscous mouthfeel; chariness follows through.

Acid slightly lacking.

Lengthy finish.

STEFANO LUBIANA 2013 COLLINA BIODYNAMIC CHARDONNAY

YANGARRA ESTATE 2017 VIOGNIER

McLaren Vale, South Australia Years source Tasmania vineyard organically Years source vineyard organically certified: 6 13.5%v/v – screwcap certified: 5 13.0%v/v – screwcap RRP$32.00/bottle RRP$90.00/bottle Pale straw in colour Light to medium straw in colour.

Very attractive nose showing signs of well-used, classy oak, matched with bright ripe fruit, including tropicals, and a touch of citrus; some nuttiness. One taster detected VA initially giving the nose a sharpness.

Strong but classy and integrated oak on the palate matched with smart fruit, including pineapple and stone fruits. Very pleasant mouthfeel with nice acid. Lengthy finish.

“A big, rich style done well,” said one taster.

One taster felt the palate was a little overpowering noting, “I like this wine but it is a little too prickly on the nose.”

with a green tinge.

Nose is initially a bit reserved before showing characters of slate, white peach, apricot, some florals and tobacco leaf.

Palate has a wellbalanced mouthfeel, good fruit and nice acid. Tasters were divided on the acid: one described it as “nice”, another as “a bit sour”, and the third “quite lean”. One taster felt the fruit on the palate was lacking ripeness.

YANGARRA ESTATE 2017 ROUSSANNE

KALLESKE 2017 FLORENTINE CHENIN BLANC

GEMTREE 2017 MOONSTONE SAVAGNIN

PAXTON 2017 THE GUESSER WHITE

McLaren Vale, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 6 13.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$35.00/bottle

Barossa Valley, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 10 12.5%v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle

McLaren Vale, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 6 11.2%v/v – screwcap RRP$20.00/bottle

McLaren Vale, South Australia Years source vineyard organically certified: 7 12.5%v/v – screwcap

Golden straw in colour.

Slightly subdued nose of white musk, florals, pear, tinned pineapple, talc, ginger and orange peel. Nicely balanced mouthfeel on the palate which has good weight and is well integrated; metallic and savoury.

Typical Roussanne tannins. One taster thought the wine was a bit flabby.

Vivid white straw in colour. Pretty, fresh and floral nose which is quite lifted. Lots of tropical fruits evident too, including lychee. Touch of marmalade and a hint of sulfide. Notes of fresh cut grass and tropical fruits, including honeydew, on the nose. Some creaminess adds complexity. Bit of sulfide and viscosity on the palate too.

A little broad and phenolic on the finish.

“Simple, clean and pleasant,” noted one taster. “Interesting wine,” noted another.

RRP$28.00/bottle

Vivid white straw in colour. Good fruit lift on the nose which is Very pale white in pure and bright and colour - almost has a predominant colourless. Fresh, floral perfume; hint clean, delicate and of tinned peas, pear, rather neutral nose lanolin and cut grass with a touch of with a tropical fruit perfumed fruits, white lift. Palate is quite rich mulberry, and celery. and full flavoured with Lots of lemon and a lovely mouthfeel, lime on the palate with nice citrus, lime, a hint of green apple. melon and pineapple Acid a bit high. characters, some pear and a touch of white peach. Good acid and length. “Really enjoyable drink,” noted one taster.

Organic whites 72

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

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

V33N1

PRODUCTS N E &WSERVICES S

Onsite chemical analysis of wine

C

hemical analysis during all phases of the winemaking process is required to help ensure the quality of finished products. Winemakers will consider a variety of parameters including acids and acidity, sugars, pH, sulfur and alcohol.

Now CDR WineLab® enables onsite testing of these parameters, with results available in just minutes, allowing faster decisions to be made during the vinification process. It is suitable for wineries of any size, and can be run even without previous laboratory experience.

Performing chemical analyses on

wine and must is simple and fast. Wine is analysed as is, while must just requires a basic sample prep.

The equipment includes a photometric analyzer which is capable of testing up to 16 samples at a time. Reagents are provided in ready-to-use format and also have the added benefits of avoiding toxic chemicals, fume hoods, and washing up of glassware.

CDR WineLab is available in Australia from AMSL Scientific.

For further information visit www. amsl.com.au

Wineries no longer need to rely on dedicated external laboratories for chemical analysis of wine and must thanks to CDR WineLab which delivers results in real time so key decisions can be made promptly during the vinification process.

Karcher ensures a fast clean of vineyard equipment and winery

Q

uality wine production requires viticulture and winemaking machinery you can trust and rely on for many years. It is therefore essential for the long-term functionality of these high-performance machines that they are maintained through regular care and cleaning.

Agricultural machinery, in particular, must be able to handle a lot of dirt. With Kärcher high-pressure cleaners, not only stubborn crusts but, with the use of hot water, oil and grease deposits can be thoroughly removed whilst ensuring corrosion protection.

Kärcher provides effective cleaning systems for a wide range of applications, an extensive range of accessories and, last but not least, many innovations, such as the timesaving Barrel Cleaner BC 14/12 spray system and the new patented EASY!Force trigger gun.

The new EASY!Force HD/HDS trigger gun requires zero holding force meaning operators can clean effortlessly for longer. Compatible with all Karcher Professional pressure washers, other features of the EASY!Force trigger gun include: • an intuitive safety lock which is hardly noticeable but ensures the highest of safety during any application • reduced complexity in hose connection • full ceramic valve ensuring five times the lifetime compared with other trigger guns Contact Kärcher for a free site inspection to find out how Karcher products can make a difference.

Visit www.karcher.com.au or phone 1800 675 714

A Karcher high pressure cleaner featuring the new EASY!Force trigger gun which requires no holding force, meaning it has never been so easy to clean with high pressure.

Chalmers back in the nursery business

W

ith a suite of newly-imported winegrape varieties now available, and the established collection more popular than ever, Chalmers is propagating once more from a new boutique nursery operation at its Merbein vineyard for supply to most states of Australia.

With more than 30 years’ experience in viticulture, nurseries and wine, and being named 2014 Gourmet Traveller WINE Viticulturists of the Year, the Chalmers family are working primarily with the proprietary clones and varieties they have V3 3N 1

imported from Italy including 11 new releases in 2017.

Chalmers can offer top quality, dormant, field-grown and containergrown grafted vines or rootlings. Expert advice on the viticulture specifics of these varieties is also available, along with useful winemaking insights on most varieties and clones drawn from the Chalmers family’s 15 vintages of winemaking.

The Chalmers attention to detail, plant quality and customer care as well as free pre-order consultancy and after W I N E & V I T I CULTUR E JO UR N A L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

sales service are all part of the package.

Biosecurity is a high priority so the health of source blocks is monitored frequently.

All orders can be despatched with a virus status certificate and, if required, a hot water treatment and a plant health certificate, so you know exactly what you’re getting.

For more information or to place an order visit the nursery pages at www. chalmers.com.au, email nursery@ chalmers.com.au or phone Bruce Chalmers on 0419 807 283. www.winetitles. com . au

73

PRODUCTS N E &WSERVICES S

Hydrosmart celebrates 20 years cleaning up in vineyards

W

hen it started business 20 years ago, Hydrosmart applied for and received a $ 50,000 Federal grant. The company had designed an electronic water conditioning system that used no filter, chemicals or consumables.

It produced no waste streams while significantly overcoming salinity, scale, iron and hardness issues - all caused by bonds of minerals in water supplies.

At the time, Hydrosmart had no prior history of working commercially other than in small projects and had been finding it hard to gain market acceptance.

In preparing a business plan with a Federal government appointed adviser it was identified that the drip irrigation systems used in vineyards had significant management issues caused by the varied quality of water from bores and dams. So Hydrosmart focussed on gaining successes in the viticulture industry.

Wines by Geoff Hardy managing director Geoff Hardy put in a system or two in the early days which resolved the problems experienced in his dripper and irrigation lines in South Australia’s Adelaide Hills.

Similarly, d’Arry Osborn, from McLaren Vale’s d’Arenberg, fitted a unit which dissolved all iron/calcium scale at a vineyard site with 70,000 drippers, resulting in the vine canopy perking up. d’Arenberg subsequently installed further systems to address salinity, scale and hardness problems in other vineyards in McLaren Vale with equally beneficial results still being realised today.

Other vineyard owners from Wild Duck Creek, Grant Burge, Pikes, Haan, Coriole and many others shared the good news that Hydrosmart was result-producing water technology that worked over the long term. This helped provide the credibility Hydrosmart needed to encourage other agricultural and irrigation groups to adopt the approach. Now Hydrosmart systems are installed in strawberry farms, olive groves, council facilities and sporting clubs where the simple-to-apply and easy-torun technology overcomes the mineral problems in their water supplies - even recycled effluent.

Scientific trials have shown treated water makes the charged minerals

A Hydrosmart water conditioning system at d’Arenberg, in South Australia’s McLaren Vale wine region, which is used to treat saline water. in Hydrosmart-treated water more biologically available to plants. Treatment also helps overcome medium to high sodium chloride in water by moving it downwards and away from plant roots.

For further information about Hydrosmart visit www.hydrosmart.com.au

Brown Brothers boosts wastewater treatment facility

L

ike many Australian wineries, Brown Brothers is known for its innovative nature, particularly when it comes to experimenting with alternative grape varieties.

Along with this experiential nature, Brown Brothers is also committed to the environment and takes pride in its environmental awareness. Recently, the wine company engaged Waterform Technologies to design and install an

ultraBiox biological wastewater treatment upgrade to its existing treatment lagoon.

Not only did this upgrade improve wastewater quality and odour during the most recent vintage but, furthermore, it increased treatment capacity and decreased power usage.

Improved waste management processes in a winery are an increasing priority and Waterform is taking a careful, holistic approach to assessing each winery

An ultraBiox biological wastewater treatment plant application it deals with on its merits to ensure the best possible outcomes for the client.

For further information contact Waterform toll free: 1800 420 145

Seeing Hippos in your vineyard?

S

ome might think they’d had too much Christmas cheer if they saw a Hippo amongst their vines, but vineyard managers know Toro’s stainless steel Hippo Clamps provide a tight fit and strong hold that no other product can match.

With summer well and truly under way, vineyard managers across the country have been busy firing up their irrigation systems and installing Hippo Clamps to repair sections of irrigation pipe and

74

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

damaged tubes during harvest.

Leon Larsen, of Darling Irrigation, has a wealth of expertise in irrigation, and strongly recommends Hippo Clamps for use in all agricultural applications.

“The intuitive latching mechanism has a positive lock which means you can hear when the clamp is locked into place, and once it’s locked in, it’s locked tight. The Hippo Tool is really easy to use too – all you need is one hand and you’re done!”

Larsen said.

W I N E & V I T I C ULT UR E JO UR NA L JANUARY/FEBR UARY 2018

Hippo Clamps feature a distinctive colour coding system, making it easy to identify clamp sizes in the field.

For further information visit www. hippoclamps.com.au and request a free sample.

V33N1

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

PO ST JO VI BS NT NO AGE W

The Wine Industry’s Leading Online Job Site

Go with the site that leading wine industry companies use.

Adelaide

WA

NSW

New Zealand

Choose Choose Choose youryour bouquet your bouquet bouque

EXCITING

TanninsTannins and Tannins fermentation andand fermentation fermentation enhancers enhancers enhanc NEW TECHNOLOGY to express to express to fruity express notes fruity fruity notes notes FROM

Next GeNeratioN FermeNtatioN taNNiNs

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%.

T

T

T

T

T

T

M

M

M

M

T

T

T

T

T

T E

MMR PLUS – DEGASSING 63B64 5 enables 54 5 94 36 R3R 4B 19 1B R B B The Juclas MMR PlusB the control of gases S S S T E

619 R16 R1B ES ES

T E

R16

O O QOU BOUBOUB BOUBOUBQOUQ U BONUB QO QU UQU N B NUB NUB n QO U OEU U nn nn Q U U QU nn nn QU N N U U U n N N N E B N N N E E E a a a a a A A A A A A

T E

M

B OU Q

T E

a

nn

T E

M

Melbourne

E ESEStreatment EE WINE Eand ES EXPREESXSPERSESES NOTES NOT NOT OTE ANCincluding NSOTTHreduction EESWTINH EHSAN impregnation CUETIDESEthe NGO EXEPWRIN ID SGUTH ID R U ENHANCES DENHANECNEHSAENNCHEDASNCEDS N ENH N G E DRUthe SCoxygen S reduction SOFand OTES OOINFTCERS EO EinLDREwine…

ED ofE-gases EIT U U N N N H H H R R A A A S S S of IT IT S S S E E S C C E E E L L E S S S F F F IC IC IC T D D D P P P E E O R R S S S T N N S N A OF OF OFOF WHIT WHITTOW TOWAwines, TOWA deoxygenation OF WHOITFcarbon dioxide inNyoung of S S S S IE IE IE S S S IE IE R R R R N N R R R R IO IO IO E E E IT IT IT E ESRPI E T T T B B B A A A U U U B BO B S SENSRofEDcarbon dioxide S bottling or R Fprior RSENto Fwines RED RERDRTR DARK DARK DARK FR SEN addition A to refresh whites or roses when bottling. The MMR Plus can also be used for dealcoholisation.

For further details, contact us on: New South Wales Melbourne Adelaide Western Australia New Zealand

For further details, contact us on:

New Wales 2/40 Bradmill Ave, Rutherford 2/40 South Bradmill Ave Rutherford Ph. 02 4932 4511 Melbourne 59 Banbury Rd, Reservoir 59 Banbury Rd, Reservoir Ph. 1300 882 850 Adelaide 12 Hamilton Tce, Newton 12 Hamilton Tce, Newton Ph. 08 8365 0044 Western Australia 5/1 Ostler Dve, Vasse 5/1 Ostler Dve, Vasse Ph. 08 9755 4433 New Zealand 3M Henry Rose Place, Auckland 3M Henry Rose Place, Albany, Auckland Ph.Albany, 0800 699 599

E. sales@winequip.com.au www.winequip.com.au www.winequip.com.au www.winequip.co.nz E. sales@winequip.com.au

Ph. 02 4932 4511 Ph. 1300 882 850 Ph. 08 8365 0044 Ph. 08 9755 4433 Ph. 0800 699 599

www.winequip.co.nz