Grape views & tastes

In vino Veritas – and brett 27 October 2005

Competitions really shouldn't be rewarding tainted wines as much as they do,
says Angela Lloyd

There are many reasons why people don’t drink wine – cultural and religious grounds immediately come to mind, but health and social circumstances can also be issues. And I suppose one shouldn’t discount the possibility of genuine dislike, though I can’t recall yet having met anyone who inherently can’t stand the taste.

All these are understandable and acceptable reasons but no one should be put off imbibing because of faulty wine. Leaving aside personal preferences, (wine being the subjective beverage it is), the sort of defect, often recognised only as ‘oh, this doesn’t taste nice’, may turn consumers away from wine altogether.

Until recently, the hot topic of debate has centred on the dusty, mouldy character imparted by cork taint, a problem over which the winemaker has little control, apart from changing to another type of closure.

Now a more contentious bug has ousted cork from spitterati conversation. While no one argues the undesirability of cork taint – even at low levels, it can leave a wine flat and uninviting – there is less solidarity of opinion about the presence of limited quantities of brettanomyces. This spoilage yeast can leave a wine stinking of barnyard or Band-aid, two of the most common descriptors; it can also increase with age. On the other hand, for those with a more tolerant approach, brett adds a level of complexity.

A Master of Wine Dissertation has been devoted to the latter possibility, particularly in shiraz, which presumably lends some legitimacy to this view. Even if the results were not totally negative, I can’t believe it’s anything but a dangerous route to follow. It is so easy for the microbe to run riot, much depending on the winemaker first knowing his or her cellar is host to brett, then having the ability to control it. But why have to resort to a fault, one that can potentially ruin a wine, for so-called extra dimension? And I doubt any winemaker would deliberately introduce brett into the cellar.

Perhaps I’ve lost the plot, but surely the elements of complexity should derive from the grape, its vinification and the wine’s interaction with oak where this is involved, as well as its evolution over time, if it is of a style intended for aging? All are deliberate intentions of the winemaker; brett is not.

Brett on the podium

Yet, bretty wines are increasingly climbing on to the winner’s podium, sometimes with the judges’ full knowledge and support of its presence. The Bellevue Tumara Titan 2002 gained a Silver medal (17-18.4/20) on this year’s Decanter Awards with the comment: ‘Lots of oak and leathery brettanomyces. Underlying sweet, ripe fruit. Lots of cassis and cedar and also leather. Very sweet fruit, counterbalanced with the brett. Good complex structure.’

Malodorous brett was also in plentiful evidence among the double gold and gold medallists (scoring 17 or more out of 20) on this year’s Veritas Awards, the shiraz category especially. The irony here is that the international judge on the shiraz panel was from Australia, a country where judges are renowned for their ability to detect microcosms of brett a proverbial mile off and usually condemn even a hint. Whether or not Yalumba’s Brian Walsh did or didn’t identify this problem, he was, as he points out, only one of seven judges on the panel, a number that militates against the dominance of any one of them; he neither got his way nor expected to. (One wonders, whether the organisers of competitions, who spend plenty on flying in international judges, all presumably tasters of repute, give careful enough thought about what role they are supposed to play. It’s understandable they don’t want to dominate the judging, but surely their expertise should carry some punch.)

The point here is that the majority of the South African judges on the shiraz panel, several winemakers among them, either didn’t recognise the brett or its presence didn’t trouble them. Neither option is heartening. Consumers look to competitions, maybe Veritas in particular, as a guide to quality. And that’s what worries me – awarding a wine with any fault but perhaps something as potentially nasty as brett, runs the totally avoidable risk of turning consumers away from wine just because it doesn’t taste nice. This at a time when consumption is falling. Isn’t it time we got smart and cleaned up this particular act?

COMMENTS

From Clive Sindelman:
It would be great if some clever biochemist could invent a dipstick test for common wine faults especially TCA [the taint most associated with corks] and brett. I am sure that this would add a bit of science to any judging debate. However, as brett is on the skins of grapes and is killed only by good sulphuring, I would not be surprised to find positive tests on most of our red wines that take a long while to ferment or to barrel mature, conditions that favour the growth of more of the fungus.

From Sean Skibbe:
I'm the last person who would condone dirty winemaking but there are a few realities that seem to have been missed. Wine by its very nature, is not sterile. Even wine that has been cross flow filtered will still have a very small microbial population. Brettanomyces is but one of a number of ‘wild’ yeasts present to some extent in all cellars and hence wines. Something we wine drinkers need to understand is that wine is a living product. It is alive with many different types of bacteria and yeasts. Some die during fermentation, but some remain and the byproducts of their metabolic processes affect the flavour and aroma of wine.

The key here is management. In order for a wine to be complex, to my mind at least, no one aroma or flavour should dominate. It is quite possible that these various byproducts will add to the complexity of wine, if they are managed carefully, including, dare I say it, those caused by brett. Before you throw your hands up in horror, consider the case of volatile acidity (VA) which is produced by acetobacter. No one will dispute that high levels of VA is undesirable and even illegal above 1.2g/l in all wine other than dessert style. No one could dispute, either, that ALL wines contain some degree of VA, it is just not possible to avoid it. The interesting part to this, however is that VA, in moderation, does enhance the perceived fruitiness of the wine on both the nose and palate. The problem only occurs when it can be identified as a dominant character which causes the wine to be one dimensional.

If one accepts this as being the case, why should this not hold true for other faults? By the same token, why is over-wooding not considered a fault, it too can lead to one dimensionality in a wine and is due to poor winemaking.

From Christian Eedes:
I came across the Domaine du Cayron recently which I considered to be so riddled with Brettanomyces as to be undrinkable. However, the biggest celebrity wine critic of them all, namely Robert Parker scored the wine 89/100 and came up with this effusive if somewhat loaded description: 'The FUNKY 1999 Gigondas possesses an opaque plum/purple color as well as KINKY notes of incense, roasted meats, sausage, herbs, licorice, truffles, and black cherries. Its full bodied and super-rich, with copious glycerin, no hard edges, and a 30+ second finish. This sumptuous, OLD STYLE Gigondas is filled with personality. Drink it over the next 10-12 years. (own capitals; Wine Advocate, December 2001)

Personally, I like my sex kinky and not my wine.

Angela Lloyd responds:
I deliberately avoided going into too many of the realities, as Sean describes them, so as not to sidetrack from the main issue, which was to highlight the number of badly brett-infected wines being highly awarded on competitions and the risk of turning consumers off wine simply because it doesn't taste nice.

I understand from the many winemakers I've spoken to on the subject that brett is resident in virtually every cellar, but all echo Sean's view that 'The key is management' (as I said – 'much depending on the winemaker first knowing his or her cellar is host to brett, then having the ability to control it').

An issue I didn't carry beyond saying brett 'can also increase with age' is what happens to a brett-infected wine years down the line, mainly because most South Africans open and consume their wines within a year or two of release. A prime example of the ravages brett can wreck with time is the 1990 Ch de Beaucastel Châeauneuf-du-Pape, a glorious wine in its youth, but, if the last bottle I opened is anything to go by, it is now a ruin instead of a maturing marvel. This might be an extreme example (I don't know what happens chemically to brett over time), but it's interesting to note that this problem, even among the most prestigious of producers, can get out of control. Given the combination of higher harvesting sugars, often some residual sugar, minimal sulphuring and no filtration, each or all the approach many winemakers adopt today, brett has a base from which it can run rampant.

I'm 100% with Sean's views on VA, which, dare I say it, at balanced levels and at my threshold of detection (another variable that determines the pleasant from the unbearable!), for me has a more pleasant effect than brett. I also couldn't agree with him more about over-wooding, especially of the all-dominant American oak kind.

From Carl Schultz:
As a winemaker [at Hartenberg] and consumer of wine, I have serious doubts about whether any compound or organism that (a) changes the character of the wine from what was intended by the winemaker (sometimes in the bottle) and (b) has the ability to make all wines taste the same, regardless of the variety, like Brett is able to do at higher levels, could in any way seen as positive. Brett is a potent spoilage yeast and while an assertion that it would be present in many or most cellars could be correct there would be very few informed winemakers who would not take ongoing preventative measures to ensure that it is either eradicated or its two compounds kept at below threshold levels. Awarding spoilt wines sends the wrong message to both consumers and winemakers.

From Trizanne Pansegrouw [of Anwilka, the new Klein Constantia joint venture]:
So glad the subject is being addressed and a lot of agreement on the comments. It is rather disconcerting sitting in a tasting amongst fellow winemakers who score a brett infected wine highly and you have deliberately scored it as a faulty wine. And then comes the argument that it adds to complexity. In my opinion I think Brett has been overseen for too long, due to lack of knowledge of the yeast and thus our palates have grown accustomed to the flavours of Brett.

But as winemakers/ judges I think it our job to admit to the problem of Brett, to train our palates if we do not recognise it at first and try and eliminate the problem and move away from judging it without recognising it as a fault. To acknowledge that Brett is in your cellar and wine is a step ahead, but not to actively do something about it is leading nowhere. Grafting a little bit harder to keep the cellar hygienic and keeping up to date with the research been done – that is a step towards managing the problem. We should constantly strive to improve on our product, even if it means scoring a 'complex, funky, kinky noted' wine as faulty.

From Nick Alabaster:
Some good and interesting points – but if only it were just a 'yes, it's a fault', or 'no it's not'! Low level brett is difficult to detect directly – it tends to subdue the fruit and add spicy/smokey notes -
turning the wine an touch earthy perhaps. (Indeed, it's often misread as 'terroir'). In some cases it comes as a welcome relief that a wine doesn't just represent a singular blast of fruit. Of course, you could argue that if it's different from the norm, then the consumer might be misled... but then what's left if wines can't be individual?

Anyway, I agree, its random nature, its unpredictable development in the bottle, and its ability on the strong side of the spectrum to make all wines seem similar (a good example recently was a high Parker point Cal Cab which was blind guessed to be a great Beaucastel – and it was easy to
see why, it really was a brett stink bomb) makes it easy to see why it's viewed as a villain.

However, that '90 Beaucastel – for me that's showing even better now than say 5 years ago as the brett dies away to more background (albeit still quite obvious) impression with the fruit returning to the fore. Some bottles might take longer for the ideal balance to return, but my belief is the wine itself will win out over the brett, in ideal or close to ideal storage conditions. The world is certainly not a worse place for the likes of, what is for many, a great Rhône wine regardless (Beaucastel) – but that the '89 Beaucastel can be dried out and stinky or a luscious powerfully fruity Châteauneuf-du-Pape, depending on the bottle and storage conditions is equally frustrating.

From Rod Easthope
In response to Nick Alabaster's assertions that "wine itself will win out over brett". My experience has been that if a wine has noticeable effects of Brett in its youth then these effects will increase with bottle age and eventually consume the wine, masking all but the barest remnants of what the wine was meant to be. In the case of Beaucastel, despite it being lauded as the great Chateauneuf du Pape wine, it all too often is consumed by Brett. In their case I believe this to be of their own doing via pasteurisation. Pasteurisation kills all microbial activity, making one think that this would result in less Brett. However, it creates a situation where there is a void of microbial life in the must, allowing the first organism to enter to have free reign on the substrates available, without the killer competition from a more diverse population of yeast. Ironically, this old world wine gains its so called terroir based characteristics from the misuse of technology which thus alters the natural balance in the wine.

Indeed, if we alter the natural forces in wines via the addition of foreign substances or energy such as enzymes, acids, tannins etc, we are setting ourselves up for altering the natural microbial activity in wine.Even warming wine up for the malolactic fermentation can change the natural and balanced course that that wine was taking. My experience has seen that MLF will proceed or not proceed regardless of temperature and seems to be more dependent on forces we can't see or recognise. As soon as we add outside energy in the form of heat, Brett raises its ugly head and monopolises these favourable
conditions resulting in tainted wine. The more I learn and experience about making wine the less I intervene and have discovered that nature will most often impose the balance we are looking for with no one component dominating the other.

To which Nick Alabaster responds:
Good, plausible hypothesis from Rod re: Beaucastel, but a point of clarification: my comment was 'the wine' - I was specifically talking about the Beaucastel '90 in terms of winning out - i.e. it's purely on a wine-by-wine basis, indeed determined to a large degree by a) the quality and structure of the wine and the degree to which brett's life-cycle lasts (food source) and b) by storage (warmer storage will make the brett more
vigorous but tend to harm the underlying wine anyway meaning that it won't recover. But it's been shown that brett blooms, either in the bottle or cask, and can burn themselves out. The unknown quantity is if the wine has enough in store to 'survive' the brett. The Perrins' tend to say their wine is characterised by 'gamey mourvèdre' - and that given enough age that character integrates. What's really happening of course is the brett runs its course, and for their better wines anyway, the final brett character can drop to little more than a background horse saddle/leathery note after a period when you think they've bottled a farm!

From Maud Letzler
If wine is bought and consumed, as it is, mainly by people who know very little about wine faults, would brett be picked up by them? I have had more than one incident where I would try a tasting sample and tell the promoter the wine is faulty where they would look at me surprised and say; 'O, but the customers loved it'.

I agree that a severely corked wine will be picked up by anyone – but brett? I doubt the public would notice and we make wine for consumers not competitions. I do not condone faults in wine but until the consumer is educated about wine faults they will find a barnyard smell pleasant and complex and a corked wine's label will not be bought again as they will think the wine to be 'awful'. As one customer said to me on Saturday, I love this wine because it has such a nice musty cellar smell. How do you argue with that?

We would like to think that wines are made for experts but only a very small percentage of wine drinkers are educated on wine and they are not the big spenders!

Further from Angela Lloyd
In response to Maud (above): I think we're in danger of letting so-called consumer preferences be an excuse for sloppy vine growing/winemaking. If we pander to tastes for wines with a 'musty cellar smell', which could well be a fault that will increase with age, I believe we'll be on the long slippery slope to wine falling off the map (I won't say extinction, as it has survived everything including various sources of prohibition over the past 4000 - 6000 years).

One has to ask what is it about certain wines that appeals to consumers. If it's smooth, fruity reds, would it not be better, let alone more honest, to harvest the grapes before they're overripe, then to ferment dry without over-extracting the wine or then over-oaking it? Balance can temper high alcohol more agreeably than the residual sugar often found in today's red wines. The bottom line is that the easy route isn't always the right route for the long term; wine demands a level of struggle and effort if it is to retain its artistic as well as scientific being.

A quick update on that Beaucastel: I opened a bottle of the 1990 for our monthly foreign wine tasting group Sunday evening. Members present included the keen winemaking noses of Chris Williams (Meerlust & Foundry), Adam Mason (Klein Constantia), Karl Lambour (Meerendal) and Louise Hofmeyr (Welgemeend) as well as Cathy van Zyl our new MW. We taste blind and not one person mentioned Brett at all – let alone as a dominant factor. It couldn't have been more different from the previous bottle we had opened with Rod & Emma Easthope, where the wine was completely ruined by its presence. This one showed its quality and has plenty of life in it still. We're not sure why this bottle was so different, but the above, highly knowledgeable winemakers, assure that it isn't possible for Brett to decrease over time.

It is good to see constructive criticism and aligning the main source of debate witch is surely the “brett” in this case. Sorry to see that names was mentioned but then again this is an open discussion board.

From Barry Snyman:
Yes Brettanomyces yeast does offer complexity to our wine and ‘brett’ is the only common organism in wine capable of producing 4-EP. 4-EP that gives that specific wine its character. Paul Benade has been involved with wine making for many years and is has created a firm foundation for himself globally. As any wine farm owner or connoisseur, he would naturally defend his hands work so for any person man enough to do what he has done for this industry. Angela (Miss Money Penny) has pulled up her chair in this industry; Paul has earned it over and over. Regarding Carl Schultz’s comment, I think for someone in your position to tell Paul to apologize to Angela is out of hand. Rather take a step back and try to see analyze Paul letter. Some of us would make good politicians and some of us would rather get the job done.