Tradition Meets Technology At The Williamsburg Winery
he Williamsburg
Winery sits comfortably in historic
Virginia on a 320acre farm known as
Wessex Hundred.
The use of the word “hundred” in the
name dates back to the Colonial era,
indicating a parcel of land sufficient
to support 100 families.
It’s certain that the winery is indeed
holding up its end of the deal; with production exceeding 55,000 cases per
year, it’s likely that well over 100 families are enjoying the wines produced
on Williamsburg’s historic estate.
Yet in today’s competitive marketplace,
even a modest winery with Colonial
ties must cope with the very modern
challenges that virtually every business
must face—those of cost and quality.
In Williamsburg’s case, the goal was a
simple one: how could the winery
deliver the highest quality product while
still maintaining favorable economics?
Though the challenge is as clear as a
finely filtered Chardonnay, the solution is usually a bit more elusive.
“We were using an old, rundown DE
(diatomaceous earth) machine,” explains
Matthew Meyer, winemaker at Williamsburg Winery. “It was very abusive
to the wine, and we were experiencing
a lot of wine loss. We simply were looking for a better filtration system to
protect the integrity of our product.”
DE, though a prevailing industry
method of wine clarification, has sometimes been associated with health and
environmental hazards, equipment
damage, reliability issues and significant product loss—a critical concern
in Williamsburg’s case.
Searching for a way to minimize product loss, Meyer first encountered the
Pall OenoFlow wine clarification system
while attending the Wineries Unlimited
show in March 2004. Designed specifically for wine filtration, Pall’s system contains hollow fibers with a skin
that can withstand high transmembrane
pressures in either flow direction, permitting reliable long-term operation
and reverse flow filtration.
Williamsburg Winery planning director Patrick Duffeler, Jr.; founder/CEO Patrick
Duffeler, Sr.; winemaker Matthew Meyer.
the fact that the wine now requires
only one filtration result in reduced
costs. Additionally, the amount of
time monitoring the unit during
filtration is greatly reduced.
After some internal discussion, Williamsburg arranged to have a demonstration at the winery, choosing a fourmodule unit. (OenoFlow systems typically feature 1 to 36 filter modules.)
Meyer says there was one element of
the demonstration that stood out. “As
a winemaker,” he says, “the thing
that grabbed my attention was the
retention of organoleptic qualities.”
The resulting wine, Meyer says, was
brighter and more full-bodied than it
was under Williamsburg’s DE filtration system. But the wine still had a
major test to pass. The winery bottled
a small portion of each filtered wine
and enlisted the help of test groups.
The results, according to Meyer, were
impressive.
“In all three groups, averaging approximately 10-15 people per group, the
wine filtered with the OenoFlow system was preferred 100% of the time,”
he reports.
“Not only did the wine show better,
but it was ultimately more stable. At
such a tight porosity, we’re removing
any yeast and bacteria as well as microbial agents which can lead to spoilage.”
The winemaker also found that the
wine had a shorter time overcoming
bottle shock—a reassuring thought
considering the universe doesn’t
always cooperate with release dates.
Though Williamsburg’s new system
has lower throughput capacity than
the DE filter, the ease of set-up and
“Saving approximately $1,250 a year
on filter cartridges and another
$1,800 on not having to purchase
DE was definitely encouraging,”
Meyer says. Also, not exposing
cellar personnel to the dangers of
spent DE (and not having to dispose of it) were added bonuses.
However the real potential for
savings came from improvements
in process loss.
“We were averaging 1.5% process
loss with our DE filter,” Meyer says.
“The OenoFlow system is averaging
0.2% process loss.” In the initial
proposal to determine cost effectiveness, the winery based its calculations
on 60,000 cases (150,000 gallons)
of wine yearly, with an average value
of $10 per gallon. With 1.5% loss,
that cost calculates to $22,500
annually, while the 0.2% loss
comes to $7,500.
“We’re obtaining wine with greater
stability and organoleptic qualities
over our old DE filter system,” Meyer
says, “and the system has delivered
myriad positive results regarding both
cost and quality.”
(For a complete listing of filter suppliers, consult the Wines & Vines
2005 Annual Directory/Buyer’s Guide.)
WINES&VINES • JULY 2005 䊳 Regional Feature 45