Wine Aging Research

Hi guys,

I just wanted to pick your brains. What are some questions about the aging of wine that you would like to have the answer to or would like to see more research be done on?

Hi Tony
Certainly testing aging vs. different wine closures are an area where it is amazing how little has been done, and when it has, there has appeared to sometimes to be a pre-ordained agenda for what the result should be. Hopefully there are some good studies in the pipeline, including some of the biggest names (e.g. Penfolds’ trial of Grange under screwcap vs. cork).

Personally I am most interested in whether modern winemaking attempts to make wine more approachable in youth, are seriously compromising it’s longevity (and potential). I’m thinking here specifically of regions known for needing a few years for wines to come round e.g. Cahors, Barolo and Cabernet Sauvignon / Classed growth Bordeaux.

The biggest challenge is often that they rely on blind tasting, and in tests run prematurely (IMO) can result in the more advanced wine coming out best. Finding objective and relevant measurable statistics is a big challenge, especially if we start looking not just at longevity, but start trying to assess greatness (always a flawed expectation).

I’d like to know if there’s some kind of way to analyze how much tannin is too much to ever resolve, and if there’s an equation for the amount of extract (fruit flavor) it would take to keep the wine tasty for a few years after the tannins resolve and the rest of the polyphenols precipitate out. It seems many '97 Cabs were sooooo tannic that they still haven’t resolved but the fruit is already fading while a handful of them are great right now. Conversely, some '96 Cabs are way over the hill, becoming very acidic with no tannins and not much fruit left. It seems to me that this is like a wild guess and done by the seat of the pants / winemaker’s tastebuds. Also, how come the more recent vintages are more drinkable out of the gate? Will that hurt their aging capacity?

How temperatures of cellaring affect aging.

Posted this once before:

http://www.wineperspective.com/STORAGE%20TEMPERATURE%20&%20AGING.htm

I liked that article, except where the author advises me to microwave a glass back to room temperature.

Yeah, that made me scratch my head too. If that statement were at the beginning, I would have never read through the article. He’s a chemist I think so you’ll have to forgive him.

Here were some wine experiments I once suggested, and some ideas from others in the discussion: www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=81670

Bottle size. I don’t think there’s any disagreement about a longer aging curve for bigger bottles, but I would love to see some specifics about time frames. I’ve had 750s and 1.5s of the same wine with the 750s extremely dead and the mags vibrant, much bigger differences than I would have expected. 3Ls and larger in general can seem nigh on immortal.

Thanks for asking.

Dan Kravitz

I do it all the time. I use the Riedel “red wine” glasses that are relatively small, so stand up in my microwave. A decent size pour, straight from the fridge, takes 6-8 seconds to warm up to perfect drinking temperature. Zero harm done to the wine. Zero. Let me repeat: ZERO HARM.

I just posted a thread on aging domestic pinot noir prior to seeing this thread. Some of the questions may be addressed in that review.

The microwave advice is the only part of that article that can be easily tested by the average Joe. The rest is theoretical and out of the reach of the consumer to assess.

The chemistry theory is correct. And the assumption that “good” reactions outweigh “bad” reactions at low temperatures and vice versa at high temperatures seems logical. However, without identifying those specific reactions and comparing their energies of activation, the argument remains theoretical. It starts with the assumption that lower temperatures result in better aging and then goes on to explain it.

A nice theory to explain the common wisdom, it needs to be tested with data. What are those specific reactions, what are their energies of activation, how does temperature affect the balance of precursors and end products for each reaction and in relation to the others, and how does that differ from one type of wine to another? That would be an interesting avenue for research.

Totally agree.

Awwwwww, Alan…don’t be so fast there. It’s like GMO’s and cancer/cell phones. Just because we can’t measure an effect, doesn’t mean there isn’t one!!! You really don’t know what those nasty microwaves are doing at the sub-atomic level. I noticed there was a third ear starting to grow on your forehead at our last off-line!!!
Been awhile since I .
Tom

Alan, I`d like to know how you come to the conclusion ZERO HARM and if you know of any science that supports this, not to be anything more than for me desiring to be more informed.

As I understand it, microwave heats intensely from the inside out and in the case of living organisms of which wine consists, there is nuclear cellular damage done that causes irreparable injury. If this is true, and Im not sure I can locate the scientific source on this, but I will look for it, I would logically think the intrinsic life force energy would be effected resulting in changes in chemical compounds and thus sensory perceptions and aging processes. I presume theres also a factor of time of exposure to microwaves for how long it takes to influence any changes and to what extent.

Sorry for the thread drift, but I`m interested in getting clear on this issue and any help is appreciated.

Wine consists of living organisms, Blake? Not that I’m aware of, except maybe in some bottles where they are considered flaw-producing contaminants like Brett.

Im considering yeasts and bacteria as such, yes. Re Brett, there are many wines that have Brett in them, but not to the ppm that most can perceive. In many cases, they actually add a positive to the wines profile as Ive been told by winemakers of the years. I`m not a fan of Brett in any perceivable way.

I think the most important potential research topic is to look into the cause of the widespread premature oxidation of white Burgundy and certain other white wines.

Well David, my take is that I should never nuke my beloved Chinons, eh?

The science: a microwave oven works through “dielectric heating”, which is a fancy way of saying that the polar molecules (principally water, but also sugars, fats, and some others) interact with the electric field component of the microwave radiation (which is nothing more than “light” or “radio waves” at a frequency between those two). That interaction boosts the energies of the molecules, kind of jostling them around more than normal, so that as they bounce into each other their extra energy is spread around, increasing the temperature of the material. In a handwaving nutshell, that’s how a microwave oven works. Note that (except in rare circumstances, but not something like a glass of wine) microwaves don’t change the chemical composition, they just pump in a little energy to warm things up. Sure, if you pump in enough energy to increase the temperature a lot, you’ll cook your food, that’s the whole idea; but as long as you limit the amount of energy input (i.e., use short time periods), no chemical reactions will take place.

Heating from the inside out: this is a common misunderstanding. In most foods (including water), the microwaves are absorbed as the waves pass into the material. So a glass of water (for example) will have more heating at the surface than in the center. If the food or container is large enough, the microwave power can be significantly reduced at the center of the food (A larger roast is a good example of this - try cooking a pot roast in the microwave, and you’ll see that it cooks on the outside, but is raw on the inside, not unlike cooking it in a hot oven; a frozen lasagne is another good example. The outer layers will cook long before the center is even warm).

Life force: if wine had Midi-chlorians (which it might, who knows), I might be concerned. But to my knowledge, there isn’t anything “living” in a wine that contributes to its essence (i.e., how we perceive its aromas and tastes). At least not anything living that will affect your drinking pleasure within a few minutes.

Bottom line: you can take the bottle out of the fridge, let it warm up gradually to room temperature, or pour a glass and let it warm up a little faster sitting on the counter. Or you can apply a little extra energy to warm it a bit faster, like putting it in a warmer space, setting it next to the fireplace, or put it in the microwave for a few seconds at a time until it’s at the temperature you want to drink it. In any of those cases, the chemical composition isn’t changing, it’s just warming up a little bit.

If you want to test it yourself try this: take a bottle out of the fridge (preferably one that was already opened, and has some air space, so that further exposure to air won’t be a factor). Pour a glass and set it on the counter. Pour a second glass, but put it back in the fridge. Half an hour later (or whenever the first glass has warmed to your liking) put the fridge’d glass in the microwave and heat it for 2-3 seconds at a time, until it’s at the same temperature as the first glass. Taste both and see if you can tell any difference. If you want to do this as a blind test, have someone else do it and present you the two glasses, so you don’t know which is which. Then do that experiment a couple dozen times, and see if you can find any correlation between the microwaved glass and the one you prefer.

As I said, I do this all the time, have done so for years, and am confident from both a scientific perspective (I’m a chemist) and my own experience that no harm is being done to the wine.

I also freeze my wine on occasion, but I’ll leave that for another thread