Winophilia

“Natural winemaking” is an issue of great interest these days to many consumers, not least because many wine journalists, retailers and sommeliers are touting its benefits. But they also may be tolerating wine flaws that might have been prevented by judicious use of sulfur dioxide. What do YOU view as the most important role of sulfur products in the winemaking and aging process—IF there is one?

Teddy Hall, Teddy Hall Wines (Stellenbosch, South Africa). The use of sulfur in wine is as old as wine itself. Oxidized wine, and wine with bacterial flaws, are not beneficial to wine quality. The correct use of sulfur is necessary for the making of quality wine and in general sulfur levels are so low that consuming a bottle of quality wine a day should pose no health risk at all to the consumer.

Bob Cabral, Williams Selyem (Russian River Valley, California).  I tend to use extremely small amounts of sulfur at Williams Selyem, primarily for two reasons. We add 20 to 25 parts per million as we destem the fruit. This knocks down the populations of bacteria and yeast that are naturally living on the berries, and allows us to cold soak for 5 to 7 days before fermentation starts. The second addition (10-15 ppm free SO2) is done during the aging process to slow down the production of aldehydes and oxidative compounds. In other words, it keeps the wines somewhat fresher. The second addition also helps slow down film yeast.

Sulfur dioxide is actually produced in very small amounts during alcoholic fermentation by the yeast. Because we add more at various stages of the winemaking process, does this make the wine “unnatural”? To me it makes it no more “unnatural” than the Christmas cookies my ten-year-old daughter made with the addition of 1/4 teaspoon baking soda (sodium bicarbonate). Because she uses baking soda when baking (even though all other ingredients are organic or cage-free) does this make all her yummy treats “unnatural”? In my opinion, no.

Brian Bicknell, Mahi Wines (Marlborough, New Zealand). After tasting through maybe 60 “natural” wines last year in the U.K., I really think the key attribute that SO2 gives is the delaying of oxidation.

The idea behind these wines is to make wines that respect and reflect their vineyards in the most natural manner, to show the sense of place in its truest form. The problem seems to be that if the wine then shows so many “extraneous” notes that the fruit or “character” of the vineyard is masked by yeast and bacterial odors, then you have not achieved what you were aiming at.

I think the varieties that suit “no SO2” are obviously the ones with higher tannins, which work as a preservative themselves, and I suppose it works best when the wines are not subjected to high temperatures, so sending them across the equator in anything but reefer containers is probably not recommended.

I am not a big fan of the name: does that mean that all other wines are by definition “non-natural”?

Olivier Humbrecht, Domaine Zind-Humbrecht (Alsace, France). The new vin naturel charter in France allows up to 50 ppm SO2 total. So it is a false idea to think that vin naturel has zero added sulfites. A recent article published in the Revue des Oenologues from Bordeaux University shows that yeast activity produces between 15 and 80 ppm total sulfur in wine. The average is often around 20-25 but the highest was found in chardonnay grapes.

The Biodyvin charter (biodynamic wines) as well as Vinabio (Alsace Organic Wine Association) allow for about half the EEC legal maximum. So if 210 ppm total SO2 is the legal max for white wines with under five grams per liter of residual sugar, the maximum for Biodyvin will be 105 ppm. There are extra allowances of 30 ppm for over 12 months in wood aging. EEC limits are the following: 160 ppm for red wine, 210 ppm for white wine, 260 ppm for white wine with more than 5 g/l r.s., 400 ppm for vins liquoreux (VTs, SGNs, Sauternes, etc.).

Sulfites are a natural byproduct of yeasts (and thus also present in beers, ciders and so on) and no wine contains zero sulfites unless they have been specifically taken out by a complicated process.

It is possible to make interesting non-added SO2 wines but the wines require exceptional structure, high acid and low pH, and will have to be dry with the malolactic fermentation completed. The consumer will also have to understand that the wine can evolve differently, that it will often develop more oxidized characteristics, that it will most probably be bottled with some sediment for extra protection, and that it will be matured on the lees for more oxidation protection. This latter quality is probably the biggest issue for consumers, as most wine drinkers are used to more “technical,” varietal, fruit-driven styles.

However, a wine is not the final natural transformation of sugars in nature, it is acid (acetic acid for wine). So unless we start to drink balsamic vinegar instead of wine, some technique will be necessary to stop the Kreps cycle, and sulfites are still today the best option (pasteurisation? over-filtration?). The key is to use sulfites as little as possible in order not to kill the wine’s flavors and the person who drinks it!

Reinhard Löwenstein, Weingut Heymann-Löwenstein (Mosel, Germany). Natural wine never existed: it’s a human projection. Even a vineyard is not a natural space. It’s the same as a wine, a piece of civilization. The way humans interact with nature is what we call culture. So wine is a part of culture, and the main question is to find out which interventions are violations of nature and which ones are “beloved accompaniments.” For us, sulfur falls under the second category. We want to give a voice to each terroir we are working with. Without sulfur, the taste of all wines could be quite standardized. We would kill the identity of our wines. So we use sulfur: not that much, but we do use it.

Matt Wenk, Two Hands Wines (Barossa Valley, Australia). An interesting question, and indeed becoming a topic among consumers. In Australia, various major producers have toyed with “preservative-free” wines over the last 20 years. They release them early and always stipulate that the wines only have a shelf life of roughly two years after their release. These wines were put on the market to allow people with allergies to sulfur products and/or asthma to enjoy a glass of wine without the reaction.

Nowadays there is a natural wine movement in Australia that seems to be more about creating wine without intervention at any level. I am happy to listen to their arguments, as my mother always told me to keep an open mind!

Over the years the wine world’s knowledge has increased dramatically, either by accident or as a result of the extensive R&D carried out around the world. For me a lot of it is for interest’s sake as it may not be required in day-to-day winemaking. We put some of this knowledge in the back of our minds as part of the arsenal of wisdom we need when things go wrong and we, as winemakers, need to fix the problems—for example the challenges of laccase [an oxidase enzyme] infested fruit in the 2011 vintage in southern Australia. But some things we use on a day-to-day basis, like using sulfur compounds for preservative measures.

My philosophy is to produce the best wine possible, without unnecessary intervention (only using tools where required), that will stand on its own on the world stage and have longevity.

When making red wine, I follow a principle of minimal intervention and endeavor to allow the fruit to speak for itself. I use neutral yeasts where possible (I have tried the wild yeast thing and never found any significant benefits) and use low percentages of new oak (it’s easier to put more oak character in than take it out and the oxidative benefit of the barrel is what is beneficial). Lastly, our fruit sources are invariably in pristine condition when picked and therefore no sulfur compounds are used until after malolactic fermentation. Nothing is added when the fruit is picked, nothing at the crusher, only after malolactic fermentation, which may be up to 12 months later. And then after being racked cleanly, the wine goes to bottle with a level of 70-80 ppm total sulfur, with no filtration.

When making aromatic whites, I would use sulfur compounds throughout the process to retain freshness and vibrancy, but with oaked whites aged on their lees, I would be happy to use sulfur sparingly as the reductive environment on the lees is quite a safe place.

Ultimately, my view on the use of sulfur is to preserve the character of the wine, minimize the incidence of flaws/faults, and ensure that the wine has a fighting chance to age gracefully.

The “natural” wines of Australia have a place in the market, and I have tasted quite a number of them over the recent years. They have been bottled early in an attempt to capture freshness. Some of them are enjoyable, with minimal flaws, whereas others are cloudy, browning, bitter, flabby due to the high pH, spritzy and completely unpleasant even at under 18 months of age. Of course it is subjective, but when dealing with glaringly obvious faults, I cannot be very forgiving. In many instances natural wines are made as well as they possibly can be without major intervention and fall into the former category, but often natural winemaking = lazy winemaking and the resultant wines (the latter category) may be the downfall of the movement, unless they pull their socks up.

In a previous life, I made merlot in the Adelaide Hills. Although it’s a cool climate, due to the rootstock/variety selection there was always a problem with the pH and TA levels. Every year there was a book running to see how bad the numbers were. From memory the worst numbers were pH 4.2 and TA 2.4 at about 13.5-14 Baumé, and this was with about one gram per liter of malic acid, so after the malolactic fermentation the numbers would have been worse. Assuming I was a natural winemaker and didn’t add any acid before fermentation and no sulfur at all, to anyone else this wine would have been a time bomb waiting to go off. Due to the anthocyanin color equilibrium associated with pH, the wine would have been well into the drab purple spectrum and quickly oxidized to the brown area. With a pH of 4.2+, microbial activity would have been ready to explode and I suspect that in two years the wine would be brownish, possibly fizzy, with elevated VA, extremely flabby due to the lack of acid and undrinkable. If only some acid and sulfur were added during the course of the wine’s life leading up to bottling!

If I can play devil’s advocate for a moment… Progress has occurred everywhere in our lives and we typically take out what we need and want, such as the ability to communicate via this e-mail. Some people are capitalists, some are rational, some are frugal and some cannot benefit from progress. Therefore, do the natural winemakers, who have gone back to winemaking principles of thousands of years ago, use mobile phones and drive cars?

I may sound a little cynical, which I may be, but as I said I am trying to keep an open mind.