The Difference between Brett and Sweat?

WINE TALK
21

It is interesting to read this discussion and read how the same aroma can be described in such different ways - but then again it’s not surprising. It’s human nature.

There is no doubt that brett is a spoilage yeast as Peter has said. Whether it should be ‘eradicated’ or not comes down to one’s ‘enjoyment’ or ‘tolerance’ of it.

As a winemaker, I do not want to find brett in my wines. If I do, and it would be in barrel only, I get concerned about ‘cleanliness’ issues around the winery. Luckily for me, I’ve had very few isolated barrels than have been affected, and these are culled out and marked accoringly.

My biggest issue with brett it is not controllable in bottle unless the wine is sterile filtered. What I mean by that is that if a wine has brett and is sterile filtered, that brett will not have a chance to ‘bloom’ and will therefore not get worse, regardless of provenance or travel conditions.

The same cannot be said for wines that exhibit brett but are bottled unfiltered. If those bottles are exposed to heat of any kind during travel or storage, there is a good chance that a ‘bloom’ will occur and the brett will ‘worsen’, Now if you were to ask any winemaker (at least I think this would be the case) whether the wine with excess brett was what he or she was attempting to achieve, my guess would be that their answer would be no . . .

Can ‘reduction’ smell like brett? I guess this comes down to how you define ‘brett’. As recent studies have shown, brett can exhibit itself in MANY ways. That said, when I think of brett, I generally think of three aromatic ‘markers’ - bandaid (or 4EP), liquid smoke (or 4EG), or extreme barnyard.

Cheers . . .

22

Well, they both STINK.

But you knew that.

I agree with what Greg wrote. TCA is cleary a defect, brett is one too, but less so. Some winemakers even toy with the idea of it adding complexity to wines, but when it’s bloomin’ onion time in the bottle, not so much. There are degrees, and some wines seem more afflicted with this than others: Loire cabernet franc, Rhone syrahs, Musar, Pegau. On the west coast, I’m not sure who has a reputation for brettanomyces, so I am of no help there.

23

Markus,

Winemakers may ‘play’ with it, but unless they are either sterile filtering OR adding Velcorin before bottling, there is a chance that they ‘little bit that they want to add complexity’ becomes a full bloom - and there is nothing they can do about it once it leaves the winery’s doors.

THIS is where I have a problem with it. I’m not ‘anti brett’ in general, but ‘bottle variation’ due to sporadic blooms and unfiltered wines is, to me, not acceptable . . .

As is noted in another thread, TCA certainly is a defect, though my guess is that more ‘general wine drinkers’ take offense at small amounts of brett more than they do TCA . . . because they don’t know what TCA is!

Cheers

24

Larry, I agree that the key point about brett is that you cannot control it once a bottle leaves the winery. I used to be perplexed when people reported different levels of brett in drinking the same wine a few days apart … it had to be more than just palate preference for some ‘savoury complexity’. I thought there must be an absolute, unchangeable amount of brett in each bottle. Then someone explained the heat issue and the possibility of brett blooms in some bottles and it all made sense. Since winemakers cannot expect optimal handling for all of their bottles ex-winery they’re best to try to eradicate it in the winery …

I’d disagree a bit on your TCA v brett point. TCA is always unpleasant and always has a negative effect on taster experience. Even if the taster does not recognise the fault as TCA they will probably say ‘that wine isn’t as good as everyone says’. On the other hand, as we all agree a little brett can be seen as added interest and complexity …

Cheers, Howard

25

Howard,

I am simply amazed how our industry as a whole has gone backwards over the past decade educating the general consumer as to what a ‘corked’ wine is. In my small tasting room, I’m always asking people if they know what a ‘corked’ wine is, and the answers I’ve received recently include the following:

when the cork goes ‘bad’
when the cork is crumbly and won’t come out in one piece
when the wine smells like ‘sherry’
when the wine smells like vinegar

Therefore, I think it’s important to differentiate those perhaps who frequent boards like this and ‘the general wine consumer’. And look around at posts that discuss distributors, brokers, and even wineries who pour wines that the servers have no idea are corked - and consumers usually have no clue . . .

Cheers

26

Larry,

Makes sense. I’d still think that if you put a genuinely corked wine in front of general wine consumer he or she would think the wine is bad, even if the person did not realise it was due to TCA. But I don’t think you’re saying anything different.

I’ve been to tastings of older wines where a corked wine has been deliberately served to illustrate TCA.

I also know a Hawkes Bay winemaker who produced a very highly rated 1998 Bordeaux blend that was put on a couple of restaurant lists well above $100. He hated that because he knew his cork failure rate was as high as 20% and he worried about uneducated consumers paying that sort of money, not understanding TCA and just assuming he made bad, overrated wine. (He switched to 100% stelvin for the next vintage).

Howard

27

Going back to Merrill’s original post, I think it’s important to note that Brett ain’t just one thing. At different temperatures, with different substrates and under different conditions, different strains of wild yeasts including Brett give off a number of aromatic compounds.

I have had, in the same night, a 2005 Stags Leap Fay that had a clear and pure band-aid smell and a 2010 Cornelissen Contadino that had a clear and pure clove aroma. The former is associated with ethyl phenol and the latter with ethyl guiacol. Neither was unpleasant. I’ve also had other tainted wines that have more cheesy or rancid odors, and some with more barnyard and baby poo. These combine several chemicals attributable to bacterial or yeast contamination. Subtlety is often a virtue here, as notes of smoke or saddle leather, bacon and clove give way to excrement piled in a barn. As one who grew up around horses, I know these smells and have no interest in drinking them.

I find I’m just as sensitive to sulfur and reduction. Rarely do I see mercaptan-heavy wines, but there’s a bitter matchstick on both nose and palate with reduction that I find undrinkable. Can’t tell you the last time I got the cabbage or eggy smell.

28

Hmmm, brett. Smoke, clove, game, leather, barnyard, band-aid, etc. I generally consider it a fault in all but the smallest noticeable concentrations (to me, which is very little). There are exceptions, though, where it seems to integrate well, it doesn’t enter barnyard or band-aid territory (hardly at all, anyway), and I actually enjoy it. I call many wines, some that are widely praised, undrinkable for me, yet I love some vintages of reds from Musar and Beaucastel. Go figure. It all seems so personal.

You seem, Merrill, to be talking specifically about how it manifests in Pinot Noir and how small amounts of that are often seen as positive attributes. I guess that is common, but I think it’s also common with so many other grapes, and again comes down to individual taste. For me personally, it’s the same with Pinot Noir as it is with some other things. I almost never like it, but every once in a while I find it charming. I am really intolerant of it with Grenache-based wines, where so many people seem to enjoy it.

Someone told me a story of tasting wine with a couple of prestigious winemakers in Bordeaux, and a legendary older Bordeaux (a 1989, so not super old) tasted to him overwhelmingly bretty. The other people were raving about the wine. He asked if they thought brettanomyces was a problem there and they basically chastised him, saying everything that was there was a pure expression of terroir and not even related to brett. He had a sample of the wine tested and levels of 4-EG/4-EP were extremely high. Of course, there would have been no convincing the winemakers of any problem with this superstar wine. He never mentioned the results to them.

29

Sorry, I haven’t read through each post so some of what I’m about to add may have already been stated.

“…Two critical volatile phenol compounds have been isolated from Brett activity; 4-EP and 4-EG. 4-EP is often described as introducing an ‘animal’ and ‘sweaty saddle’ flavor to wine. Its presence is an almost certain indicator of a Brett infection and this is what most diagnostic laboratories test for to verify the presence of Brett. 4-EG in wine has a more appealing smoky, spicy, clove-like aroma.”

This from Jancis Robinson’s Oxford Companion To Wine.

On a personal preference level… small quantities of Brett are okay, particularly of the 4-EG variety. Not big on barnyard or band aids.

30

The wine that I opened was a gift. If it had not been a gift, and I had purchased it from a mailing list and returned it, I was pondering whether the winery would open it and say, “Yep, you got Brett, there,” or “this is just indicative of our wine’s profile, and I guess it does not appeal to you.” I can imagine it going either way. So I was opening the conversation to get some input and feedback on a real situation, and one I wanted to learn from.

Thanks, everyone, for participating. I am anxious to get my friend’s opinion on it tomorrow evening. And I am going to try the wine again (it’s a nearly full bottle and has been in the fridge since) and see if any of these other descriptors “fit.”

31

Rick,
Can you further explain what reduction is? I have seen the word used, but I have no idea the meaning. And if there are any characteristics associated with this.

Thanks for the post Merrill. Helps me better understand even though you know I couldn’t detect a corked bottle.

32

Merrill, you may find this article helpful:

Brettanomyces Character in Wine - Wine Education Topic: Brettanomyces Character in Wine

33

I had missed Rick’s post earlier, and only caught it when I saw it quoted by Mr. Chin. And Ed, your senses just don’t pick up TCA, because man oh man, those 3 Barolos at the truffle dinner were corked! It does not reflect on your ability to taste and assess wine, it just means you don’t pick up TCA. Lucky you!

I am all ears to learn more about reduction. It is not something I typically have to deal with. I just realized I am going to be at the winery tomorrow where I will have a host of ready and experienced palates - I will tote along a sample (I work from my home office and custom crush at a traditional brick-and-mortar winery). So, stay tuned for an update on the thoughts of others on this particular wine.

34

TIP: Some microbreweries would be very interested in those affected barrels. The brettier the better.

35

Thanks, Counselor. But in the description they mention “wet dog.” To me, wet dog is TCA. What the heck do I know.

36

Note, from the link:

Incidentally Brettanomyces is the only major micro-organism in wine that has the ability to transform 4-vinyl-phenol into the potent band-aid® smelling, 4-ethyl phenol. Hence 4-ethyl phenol is rightly considered to be the “trademark” aroma of Brettanomyces growth in wine. Where you find 4-ethyl phenol you will invariably find Brett, and vice versa.

That 4-EG does have other chemical pathways. I’ve had “bretty” wines from a few wineries that tested free of brettanomyces (and weren’t filtered or velcorin’d).

One problematic issue is we use the term brett for the characteristics it stereotypically imparts, and also for brettanomyces themselves.

Not only are there other chemical pathways to most of those stereotypical characteristics, but brettanomyces strains also act as pathways for the creation of a huge range of positive notes that also can be produced by saccharomyces.

When I combine the various things I’ve read, it seems like the ecosystem of their environment determines their behavior - what they produce. There’s long been an argument that at a controlled level - somewhat inhibited by a moderate SO2 regime, but not killed or inactive - they add complexity without producing perceivable “brett”. But, seeing the claims of some studies, and what some brewers are doing, it seems the proportion of what they are producing depends greatly on the environment they are working in (as well as the strain, of course).

I mentioned in another thread that David Bruce used no SO2 in his first 11 commercial vintages. I had one recently that was a perfect wine - flawless, seamless, complete, ethereal… His idol Martin Ray never used SO2 (I doubt Peter Ray did, either) and there’s indication neither Ray’s mentor Paul Masson nor his friend Louis Latour did, either. Bruce said that made it crucial to protect against oxidation, of course. It also meant meticulous cleaning and testing every single barrel before use.

37

Here’s a good article on reduction: Making Sense of Reduction | The PinotFile: Volume 8, Issue 45

Think of a continuum that ranges from extreme oxidation on one end to extreme reduction on the other. Without sufficient oxygen, various things will bond with sulfur instead. At lower levels of reduction simple sulfur compounds are created that will “blow off” with some air. At a more extreme degree permanent sulfur compounds like mercaptans are produced. Some of the early screwcapped wines became reducted in bottle, apparently using up all the available oxygen, then substituting when the supply was gone.

There’s quite a range of potential sulfur compounds in wine. Some are quite fecal in nature. It’s not always immediately obvious in a just opened wine if its funky character is from brett or reduction. But, if it blows off, it was reduction.

38

Rick,
Can you further explain what reduction is? I have seen the word used, but I have no idea the meaning. And if there are any characteristics associated with this.

Ed - Wes provided a good explanation and link above. Greatly simplified, the idea is that you want to avoid oxidation - that gives you the browning, the toffee and metallic flavors, etc. So you add sulfur. That mops up the oxygen and you’re good.

But many sulfur compounds stink. A simple one is a simple mix of hydrogen and sulfur. It’s what makes rotten eggs stink. It’s also sometimes found in wine. It’s volatile so it floats up out of the wine and you smell it. When people say “rotten egg” they’re describing the scent accurately because it’s the same molecule.

If there’s just a wee bit of oxygen, it can link up with some of the sulfur compounds and you can form bigger molecules that also stink. If there’s a lot of oxygen, it does all it can with the sulfur and then if there’s no more sulfur, it starts working on the wine.

So people add enough sulfur to mop up any stray oxygen and then some. You don’t need a lot - a tiny amount will do. For wine purposes, a “reductive environment” means an environment with some sulfur and with limited oxygen. Wine in a bottle is in a reductive environment - it’s sealed off and has a bit of sulfur to mop up any stray oxygen. Forget the nonsense about the wine “breathing” through the cork. The bottle should be reductive.

When you open an old bottle, you may get some volatile sulfur compounds that stink a little bit. As the wine takes on air, those link up with the newly available oxygen and form bigger molecules that aren’t as volatile and that sink back down into the wine. That’s what it means to “blow off” - the sulfur is still there but you no longer detect it.

That’s different from TCA, which just stays around. It’s also different from brett. Some brett compounds do involve sulfur, but some also involve nitrogen, which can also be stinky - think of dead fish.

So of the three, reductive aromas are the easiest to deal with - swirl your glass like a madman for a minute or so and you can really help the wine. Or shake the bottle vigorously, esp if it’s a really young bottle that’s over-sulfured. With TCA you’re just screwed. And with brett, it’s a crapshoot. A little can be OK, but like Larry and others have said, it’s hard to truly control it. So if you leave the bottle on your counter for a week and then chill it before serving, you may have a very different bottle than someone else who kept his cold.

39

Greg thanks for the concise/uncomplicated response my pea brain can understand.

40

So here is the scoop: Three experienced palates tasted the wine, and they all thought something unattractive was going on. Interestingly, much of the offensive odor “blew off” in the 2 days in bottle in the fridge. When I pulled it open late yesterday, I thought the wine had changed. It was smelled and tasted out of a smaller, standard tasting room type of glass. It wasn’t great, but it would not have sparked my original post.

Then I brought it home, and 2 of us tasted it out of a Riedel Bordeaux glass. Back to stinky! Much more offensive on the nose than out of the smaller winery glass. Not nearly as bad as the original night, but also now rather flat on the palate; drinkable but not enticing.

I’m thinking, based on all the commentary and explanation offered in this thread, that it was reductive or with a tiny bit of Brett. Down the drain it went.