Just to keep things conceptually well-organized, I would advocate that cellar populations, being by definition not part of the vineyard environment, not be counted as part of terroir. And vineyard yeast populations – which are of particular interest since they include strains that have major aromatic influence prior to dying-off as alcohol rises and the Saccharomyces genus of yeasts takes over – should be considered part of terroir to the extent that they prove to be associated with a given site from one year to the next, and considered part of vintage if they vary significantly according to the weather in any given year.
Yeast specialist Matthew Goddard has demonstrated that yeasts on incoming grapes would be sufficient to complete fermentation absent any cellar population. But he emphasizes that we are far from identifying efficacious, site-specific, vintage-invariant yeast populations such as could justify being called part of terroir.
Phobia of brett is ridiculous in the same way as is phobia of volatile acidity or oxidation. Because these attributes are inherently bivalent. (A wine in which no oxidation has taken place or one that is free of volatility is going to strike most tasters as boring and far from pleasurable.)
Since Simon has missed an opportunity to do so, permit me to blast the concept one hears and reads continually from those who rely on yeast cultures: “neutral yeast” as in “we utilize a neutral yeast so as not to influence the flavor.” Not to influence the flavor of what? Obviously, fermentation influences the flavor of grape juice otherwise we wouldn’t have wine. And once we have wine, it’s a beverage whose aromas, flavors and textures have been influenced by those yeasts that performed the fermentative labors. The most charitable and plausible interpretation one can place on claims to utilize “neutral yeast” is this: “The particular yeast culture we utilize was not chosen for its ability to bend the resultant aromas in some especially obvious way.”
Thank you David! I am not sure I so much missed the opportunity, rather than just kept my piece focused. But I'm very glad to have you point this out and of course I agree. There cannot be any such thing as a neutral yeast.
The topic of yeast populations in wineries is interesting. To me, if the yeasts that congregate in a winery are regionally specific, why shouldn't they be considered part of terroir?
They would be in the case of lambic/gueze production, because the Senne valley is apparently rife with Brettanomyces strains such as bruxellensis.
Where this argument breaks down is if a winery *ever* used selected yeasts. Then of course what you have in the cellar is highly likely to be dominated by those yeasts rather than anything regional.
Thanks, I take your point in principle about cellar yeast populations as plausibly being considered part of terroir. But to the extent that I comprehend these matters (with the help of Goddard and others), I believe that yeasts that come in on the grapes can be very beneficially efficacious (one of the principle factors in favor not just of eschewing cultured yeasts but also of eschewing sulfuring of one's grapes or musts) whereas cellar yeasts, dominantly Saccharomyces, almost inevitably take over the fermentation once 3-5% alcohol has been reached, a level that inhibits or kills off the non-Saccharomyces. So I am inclined to think of vineyards yeast populations, whether as part of terror or as part of vintage character, as in opposition to cellar populations.
As long as yeasts are under discussion, it's worth broaching the encouraging topic of non-Saccharomyces strains being less efficient converters of sugar to alcohol, i.e. diverting more carbon down alternate metabolic chains. (Brett, incidentally, metabolize certain sugars that Saccharomyces can't, thus adding very slightly to finished alcohol.) This inefficiency suggests that reliance to the extent possible on vineyard yeasts can be a tool for alcohol reduction. There is a lot of winemaker anecdotal evidence claiming that effect: a plus-plus (first being of course taste per se) for techniques favoring vineyard flora.
And I saw a recent paper, "Evaluation of Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts for the Reduction of Alcohol Content in Wine" that buttresses the claim. (Now, please, all you "naturalists" - don't start clutching your pearls if you Google that title and begin reading ;- ) Yes, the study in question involved inoculation, and it is certainly addressed to a class of vintner that would consider inoculation normal. But consider that in order to generate controlled study of the efficiency of specific yeast strains, one almost by definition of "control" has to inoculate and otherwise manipulate. The results are still relevant to a "natural" environment to the extent that the environment includes the strains under investigation.)
I totally agree with your and David's point that the way people pillory Brett is absurd. Especially when fermentation is such a complex and barely understood combination of chemical processes.
I love David pointing out that wine without any oxidation or VA is boring. I actually heard that same point from a winemaker at a very conventional winery. He pointed to one of his analysis machines and said "any wine that these things tell me is perfect is undrinkable". I would say the notion of "perfect" or even "acceptable" is either just broken or, to connect back to Simon's previous piece about language in wine, a device for asserting dominance over a domain of discourse.
And that is before you get to the implication that the conventional winemaker considered his job to ensure there was imperfection. I guess because he's in the club he knows the "right" imperfections? Or the fact that he is introducing them makes them OK because they are controlled? I'm trying to be charitable because, to me, policing imperfections out while simultaneously tacitly bringing them in is the height of hypocrisy. Is that uncharitable?
Just to keep things conceptually well-organized, I would advocate that cellar populations, being by definition not part of the vineyard environment, not be counted as part of terroir. And vineyard yeast populations – which are of particular interest since they include strains that have major aromatic influence prior to dying-off as alcohol rises and the Saccharomyces genus of yeasts takes over – should be considered part of terroir to the extent that they prove to be associated with a given site from one year to the next, and considered part of vintage if they vary significantly according to the weather in any given year.
Yeast specialist Matthew Goddard has demonstrated that yeasts on incoming grapes would be sufficient to complete fermentation absent any cellar population. But he emphasizes that we are far from identifying efficacious, site-specific, vintage-invariant yeast populations such as could justify being called part of terroir.
Phobia of brett is ridiculous in the same way as is phobia of volatile acidity or oxidation. Because these attributes are inherently bivalent. (A wine in which no oxidation has taken place or one that is free of volatility is going to strike most tasters as boring and far from pleasurable.)
Since Simon has missed an opportunity to do so, permit me to blast the concept one hears and reads continually from those who rely on yeast cultures: “neutral yeast” as in “we utilize a neutral yeast so as not to influence the flavor.” Not to influence the flavor of what? Obviously, fermentation influences the flavor of grape juice otherwise we wouldn’t have wine. And once we have wine, it’s a beverage whose aromas, flavors and textures have been influenced by those yeasts that performed the fermentative labors. The most charitable and plausible interpretation one can place on claims to utilize “neutral yeast” is this: “The particular yeast culture we utilize was not chosen for its ability to bend the resultant aromas in some especially obvious way.”
Thank you David! I am not sure I so much missed the opportunity, rather than just kept my piece focused. But I'm very glad to have you point this out and of course I agree. There cannot be any such thing as a neutral yeast.
The topic of yeast populations in wineries is interesting. To me, if the yeasts that congregate in a winery are regionally specific, why shouldn't they be considered part of terroir?
They would be in the case of lambic/gueze production, because the Senne valley is apparently rife with Brettanomyces strains such as bruxellensis.
Where this argument breaks down is if a winery *ever* used selected yeasts. Then of course what you have in the cellar is highly likely to be dominated by those yeasts rather than anything regional.
Thanks, I take your point in principle about cellar yeast populations as plausibly being considered part of terroir. But to the extent that I comprehend these matters (with the help of Goddard and others), I believe that yeasts that come in on the grapes can be very beneficially efficacious (one of the principle factors in favor not just of eschewing cultured yeasts but also of eschewing sulfuring of one's grapes or musts) whereas cellar yeasts, dominantly Saccharomyces, almost inevitably take over the fermentation once 3-5% alcohol has been reached, a level that inhibits or kills off the non-Saccharomyces. So I am inclined to think of vineyards yeast populations, whether as part of terror or as part of vintage character, as in opposition to cellar populations.
As long as yeasts are under discussion, it's worth broaching the encouraging topic of non-Saccharomyces strains being less efficient converters of sugar to alcohol, i.e. diverting more carbon down alternate metabolic chains. (Brett, incidentally, metabolize certain sugars that Saccharomyces can't, thus adding very slightly to finished alcohol.) This inefficiency suggests that reliance to the extent possible on vineyard yeasts can be a tool for alcohol reduction. There is a lot of winemaker anecdotal evidence claiming that effect: a plus-plus (first being of course taste per se) for techniques favoring vineyard flora.
And I saw a recent paper, "Evaluation of Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts for the Reduction of Alcohol Content in Wine" that buttresses the claim. (Now, please, all you "naturalists" - don't start clutching your pearls if you Google that title and begin reading ;- ) Yes, the study in question involved inoculation, and it is certainly addressed to a class of vintner that would consider inoculation normal. But consider that in order to generate controlled study of the efficiency of specific yeast strains, one almost by definition of "control" has to inoculate and otherwise manipulate. The results are still relevant to a "natural" environment to the extent that the environment includes the strains under investigation.)
I totally agree with your and David's point that the way people pillory Brett is absurd. Especially when fermentation is such a complex and barely understood combination of chemical processes.
I love David pointing out that wine without any oxidation or VA is boring. I actually heard that same point from a winemaker at a very conventional winery. He pointed to one of his analysis machines and said "any wine that these things tell me is perfect is undrinkable". I would say the notion of "perfect" or even "acceptable" is either just broken or, to connect back to Simon's previous piece about language in wine, a device for asserting dominance over a domain of discourse.
And that is before you get to the implication that the conventional winemaker considered his job to ensure there was imperfection. I guess because he's in the club he knows the "right" imperfections? Or the fact that he is introducing them makes them OK because they are controlled? I'm trying to be charitable because, to me, policing imperfections out while simultaneously tacitly bringing them in is the height of hypocrisy. Is that uncharitable?