Wine Flavor 101: The Impact of High Ethanol, Saignée and

Extended Maceration on Wine Phenolic Composition

Jim HarbertsonAssociate Professor

Washington State University

INTRODUCTION• INTRODUCTION

– Color– Tannins– Polymeric pigments

• TRENDS IN VITICULTURE/WINEMAKING– Saignée– Alcohol

• EXPERIMENTAL DATA• ASSESMENT• FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Phenolics-why we care

• Several Classes

• Contribute Sensory Characteristics of Wine

• Color- Anthocyanins and co-factors

• Astringency – Tannins and LPP

• Bitterness - Catechins

• Anti-oxidant Capacity- All phenolics especially those with ortho configuration.

Anthocyanins• pH Dependent• Copigmentation

– Self-association– Co-Factors

• Color Change– Hyper chromic shift (more

color)– Bathochromic shift (blue

color)• Ethanol?

– Disrupt association– Bathochromic shift– Partitioning of flavonols?

• Water?– Disruption, dilution

Seed Tannins• Very Abundant

– 3-5 mg/berry– Amount per seed

does not vary much• Decline During

Ripening• Average Length

– 10 sub-units• Astringent• Gallic Acid Ester

– Alters protein ppt.• Winemakers usually

avoid seed tannins

Skin Tannins• Not so abundant

– 0.5 -0.9 mg/berry

• Ripening: No specific pattern

• Average Length– 32 sub-units

• Astringent

• Unique sub-unit

• Winemakers want skin tannins

Polymeric Pigments

• Wine Artifact• Mixture

– Anthocyanins+ (tannins, keto-acids, cinnamates, etc.)

• More resistant to Sulfur dioxide

• Less pH sensitive• Color: brick-red

Rate of Extraction Graphic

REDRAWN FROM RIBÉREAU-GAYON 1970

Skin and Seed Tannin Extraction

• Pinot noir• Miniature (3L)• Skin Tannin

Extraction Fast and Plateaus

• Seed Tannin Extraction Slow but Linear Increase Demonstrated Redrawn from Calderon and Kennedy 2008

Polymeric Pigment Formation

ENHANCING PHENOLICS: TRENDS VITICULTURE

• VITICULTURE– SMALL BERRIES ARE DESIRED

• CLONAL SELECTION, SITE SELECTION• EXTENDED MATURATION

– SEED MATURATION– REMEMBER BERRY SHRINKS!

– IRRIGATION• EARLY STRESS, MORE TANNIC FRUIT

– LOCATION• EXAMPLES AVAILBLE

THE TREND in WA, CA?• Cab Family Fruit

– Want Brown Seeds, Less green aromas– Result: High Brix– Result: High pH—more K+, lower Malic

• Resulting Wine– High Ethanol– High pH, Low TA– Big Extraction– Lots of color, plenty of tannins– Astringency is muted by ethanol, acidity

How are tannins influenced by ethanol?

• Higher ethanol extracts more tannins?– Consensus says more “bad” seed tannins

• Bitterness?– Catechins are more bitter with more [EtOH]

• Astringency?– Thought that ethanol lowers astringency by

making protein-tannin complexes soluble– So more tannins but less “tannic?”

Hang Time Fruit Trend-2

• Small Berries with 25 Brix and above– Increase Skin/Seed: Juice– Problem: Water back necessary to avoid

stuck ferment– How to keep skin/seed: juice from hang time

fruit?

• Answer: Water back and Saignée at the same rate.– Sounds simple enough, right?

Complicated• Wait overnight for dried fruit to rehydrate• Take Brix Measure, Determine total

volume of tank– Convert all values to metric it is way easier!

• Calculate % of water to achieve target Brix• Bleed that percentage of juice• To calculate the amount of water to

achieve target Brix you must subtract amount bled off from total first.

• So the amount you bleed is greater than what you add back.

Math involved

• M1V1=M2V2

• [Brix]V1=[Brix]V2

• Brix = g/100 mL

• Convert Tank volumes to L

• Or you could convert Brix into pounds of sugar per gallon.

• Ewww.

Calculate the Run-off

Tank #1 Metric

1569.6 gallons 5940.9 L

28.4 Brix 284 g/L

Target Metric

1569.6 +X 5940.9 +X

24.1 Brix 241 g/L

So you bleed off 1060.L or 280 gallons for a total of 4840.9 L or 1289.6 gallons

X=1060.0 L

or 280 gallons

Now for the water addition

Tank #1 Metric

1289.4 gallons 4880.9 L

28.4 Brix 284 g/L

Target Metric

1569.6 +X 4940.9 +X

24.1 Brix 241 g/L

x=870.9 Lor 230 gallons

Experiment: High Ethanol

Treatment

Juice Removal

Water Addition (%)

Volume Change (%)

Initial Brix

Brix at Inoculation

Control 0 18.7 ±0.6 +18.7 28.3 ±0.2 24.3 ±0.9

High Ethanol

0 4.5 ±0.8 +4.5 28.0 ±0.2 26.8 ±0.6

Low Saignée

18.1 ±1.2 18.1 ±0.2 0 28.1 ±0.3 24.1 ±0.4

Low Saignée EM

16.8 ±0.4 16.8 ±0.4 0 27.8 ±0.1 24.2 ±0.2

High Saignée

32.7 ±1.7 16.4 ±0.8 -16.4 27.7 ±0.2 24.2 ±0.8

10 ton Scale Duplicates Merlot Columbia Valley pH 3.9 TA 0.33 g/100mL

Winemaking Details

• Mechanical harvest-Yield 170 gallon/ton• 30 ppm SO2 at destemming• YAN adjusted to 225 ppm with DAP• Yeast Strain “Premier Cuvee”-S. cerevisiae bayanus• Mix after water/SO2 1 minute per ton• Pump-overs 1 minute per ton 3 times a day

– Until drain and press (~ 8.5 minutes)• Drained to Tank- Press Fractions Recombined-finish

primary in tank• Sent to Barrel to undergo ML• Sensory on wines 1 year after crush

Columbia Basin Vineyard•Merlot BIG CANOPY CLONE 3 9 year old 5 TON/ACRE

•Read Veggie to the point nobody likes it!•VINEYARD SIZE

•20 acre~8 hectare•16 REPLICATES•SAMPLE SIZE

• 15 clusters per rep•Evenly spaced across vineyard•Fruit from alternate sides of canopy

•15 Clusters dissected into berries•30 Berries per replicate for tannins•Harvest date Oct 12-13 •Harvest Data 28 Brix 0.33 g/100mL TA pH 3.9•Tannin by protein ppt

•Row 73-74•Row 81-82•Row 89-90•Row 97-98•Row 105-106•Row 113-114•Row 121-122•Row 129-130

•Row 9-10•Row 17-18•Row 25-26•Row 33-34•Row 41-42•Row 49-50•Row 57-58•Row 65-66

Sampled Rows

Data

1 3.45 mg/g FW ~ 3450 mg/L wine potential2 19 % Skin Tannin 81% Seed Tannin3 Berry Weight Variability less than fruit tannin 4 Overall variability similar

Treatments AVE STDEV

STDERROR RANGE N

Berry weight (g)

1.18 0.0730.018~1.5

%1.06-1.26

16

Seed number per

berry1.68 0.115

0.029~1.7%

1.53-1.87

16

Skin Tannin mg per berry

0.78 0.0940.024~3.0

%0.53-0.91

16

Seed Tanninmg per berry

3.30 0.2230.056~1.7

%2.89-3.65

16

Basic Wine Chem

Treatments pH TA EtOH %

Control 3.81 ±0.02 0.50 ±0.05 14.0 ±0.31

High Alcohol 3.89 ±0.04 0.52 ±0.03 15.9 ±0.16

Low Saignée 3.86 ±0.030.52 ±0.03 13.8±0.23

High Saignée3.81 ±0.04 0.51 ±0.03

13.8±0.13

Extended Maceration

3.84 ±0.04 0.50 ±0.02 14.2 ±0.33

Anthocyanins-

Anthocyanins-Low Saignée

Anthocyanins-High Saignée

Anthocyanins-High Ethanol

Anthocyanins-Low Saignée Ex Mac.

Anthocyanins-All Muddled

Tannin Extraction

Anthocyanin, tannin and iron reactive phenolics at press and 185 days

Anthocyanins (mg/L) Tannins (mg/L) Fe Phenolics (mg/L)TREATMENT PRESS 185 Days PRESS 185 Days PRESS 185 Days

Control 468 C 418 C 469 B 399 D 1145 D 1338 D

High Ethanol 656 B 401 C 577 B 512 C 1338 C 1578 C

Low Saignée 687 B 461 B 549 B 500 C 1300 CD 1291 D

Low Saignée-EM

528 B 352 D 985 A 980 A 2026 A 2353 A

High Saignée 750 A 558 A 686 B 658 B 1690 B 1783 B

Letters within a column indicate significant differences at p<0.05

Error bars excluded for space.

Treatment

mg skin tannins per

g FW

mg seed tannins

per g FW

% Skin Tannins

Extracted

% Seed Tannins

Extracted

Wine Proportion

Skin

Wine Proportion

Seed

Harvest Fruit 0.66 A 3.29 A NA NA NA NA

Control 0.36 B 2.77 B 46% 16% 42% 58%

High Ethanol0.40 B 2.45 B 40% 25% 26% 74%

Low Saignée0.36 B 2.74 B 45% 17% 40% 60%

Low Saignée-EM 0.31 B 1.83 C 53% 44% 21% 79%

High Saignée 0.44 B 2.54 B 33% 22% 27% 73%

Polymeric Pigments

Polymeric Pigments Treatment Effect

Sensory

Courtesy of Dr. Carolyn Ross WSU PULLMAN

Principle Components Analysis

Assessment

• Saignée at the same rate as water back– No effect on phenolics– No effect on sensory– Complicated– Time Consuming– Potentially Wasteful

Assessment

• Want more Color or More Tannins?– High Saignée

• More anthocyanins, tannins, more SPP

– Extended Maceration• More tannins, more LPP• Sensory: Can be more drying

Assessment

• Higher Ethanol Wine– More Tannins– Not less astringent than control with large increase in EtOH– More Seed Tannin Extraction– Some Color enhancement– Hot Description– Less Fruit Flavor!

• Solubility of aromas in alcohol found in other work– Trending towards less smooth, more dry but more dynamic

~ stats indicate not significant– Is it worth it?– Dilution is the solution?– Greater Volume, lower taxes

–

Acknowledgments

• Linda Bisson UC Davis

• Chateau Ste. Michelle

• Winemaking: Josh Maloney, Bob Bertheau

• Sensory: Carolyn Ross, Karen Weller

• Family: Eileen and Andrew Harbertson

Vineyard Data By Row

Based on variation across vineyard the winemaking reps should be consistent. No ability to separate rows because of mechanized harvest.

Vineyard Data By Row

Based on variation across vineyard the winemaking reps should be consistent. No ability to separate rows because of mechanized harvest.

Tannin/seed vs. seeds per berry

Shows that berries with fewer seeds seem to compensate.No relationship between seed tannin/berry and seeds per berry.Good relationship (r=0.81) seed weight and berry weight