Wine Flavor 101: The Impact of
High Ethanol, Saignée and
Extended Maceration on Wine
Phenolic Composition
Jim Harbertson
Associate 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, ketoacids,
cinnamates, etc.)
• More resistant to
Sulfur dioxide
• Less pH sensitive
• Color: brick-red
0.7
Rate of Extraction Graphic
4.5
4
0.6
Abs @520nm
0.5
3
0.4
2.5
0.3
2
1.5
0.2
1
0.1
Anthocyanins AU@520nm
Tannins (g/L)
0
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Days of Skin/Seed Contact
REDRAWN FROM RIBÉREAU-GAYON 1970
Tannins (g/L)
3.5
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
3.50
Absorbance @ 520 nm
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Day 1
Press
Barrel
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
Target
Metric
1569.6 gallons
5940.9 L
1569.6 +X
5940.9 +X
28.4 Brix
284 g/L
24.1 Brix
241 g/L
5940.9L ´ 284g 241g
=
´ (x + 5940.9L)
L
L
(1687225.8 -1431765.6)
= xL
241
gallons
xL ´
= x gallons
3.785L
X=1060.0 L
or 280 gallons
So you bleed off 1060.L or 280 gallons for a total of 4840.9 L or 1289.6 gallons
Now for the water addition
Tank #1
Metric
Target
Metric
1289.4 gallons
4880.9 L
1569.6 +X
4940.9 +X
28.4 Brix
284 g/L
24.1 Brix
241 g/L
4880.9L ´ 284g 241g
=
´ (x + 4880.9L)
L
L
(1386175.3 -1176296.7)
= xL
241
gallons
xL ´
= x gallons
3.785L
x=870.9 L
or 230 gallons
Experiment: High Ethanol
Water
Addition
(%)
Volume
Change
(%)
Initial
Brix
Brix at
Inoculati
on
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
Treatme
nt
Juice
Removal
Control
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!
•Row 73-74
•VINEYARD SIZE
•Row 81-82
Sampled•Row
Rows89-90
•20 acre~8 hectare
•Row 97-98
•16 REPLICATES
•Row 9-10
•Row 105-106
•Row
17-18
•SAMPLE SIZE
•Row 113-114
•Row
25-26
• 15 clusters per rep
•Row 121-122
•Row 33-34
•Row 129-130
•Evenly spaced across vineyard
•Row 41-42
•Row 49-50
•Fruit from alternate sides of canopy
•Row 57-58
•15 Clusters dissected into berries
•Row 65-66
•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
Data
STD
ERROR
Treatments
AVE
STDEV
Berry weight
(g)
1.18
0.073
0.018~1.5% 1.06-1.26
16
Seed number
per berry
1.68
0.115
0.029~1.7% 1.53-1.87
16
Skin Tannin
mg per berry
0.78
0.094
0.024~3.0% 0.53-0.91
16
Seed Tannin
mg per berry
3.30
0.223
0.056~1.7% 2.89-3.65
16
1
2
3
4
3.45 mg/g FW ~ 3450 mg/L wine potential
19 % Skin Tannin 81% Seed Tannin
Berry Weight Variability less than fruit tannin
Overall variability similar
RANGE
N
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 ±0.03
0.52 ±0.03
13.8±0.23
High Saignée
Extended
Maceration
3.81 ±0.04
0.51 ±0.03
3.84 ±0.04
0.50 ±0.02
13.8±0.13
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 SaignéeEM
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.
mg skin
tannins per
g FW
mg seed
tannins
per g FW
% Skin
Tannins
Extracted
% Seed
Tannins
Extracted
Wine
Proportion
Skin
Wine
Proportion
Seed
0.66 A
3.29 A
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.36 B
2.77 B
46%
16%
42%
58%
0.40 B
2.45 B
40%
25%
26%
74%
0.36 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%
Treatment
Harvest
Fruit
Control
High Ethanol
Low Saignée
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