I was just thinking about ordering yeasts this week, and paused at the thought of so many other winemakers fermenting their precious fruit with native or indigenous yeasts. I know we have covered this one before, but I thought it was an appropriate time to bring it back up to weigh the benefits vs. risks. I’ve only purposefully done a couple of native ferments(many have started on their own before the cultured got going), and have seen no real problems with them, but am still hesitant to throw it to the wind and do all varietals this way…
My main concern is having the most dominant strain(likely K1 or BDX- I have used in the past) end up being the strain that ferments my Pinot or Syrah’s. We don’t have an O3 machine- I steam sterilize(250 degree pressure washer/steamer) and use proxy carb and S02/tartaric to clean picking bins, fermenters, punch down tools, etc.
I sort of like the idea of doing cold soaks and getting the native populations going, then pitching a strain like Assman or d254 to ensure they finish down dry. I am way out in the boonies and lab testing means one week turn arounds, so that is a limiting factor for me.
From someone who has done and does do both, my advice would be this:
If you want to do it because it sounds cool and natural, don’t bother. It will only cause you grief when you check your Brix 7 days in and nothing has changed. Think about what you are realyl trying to accomplish by doing them (for me, the kinetics of the ferment are the reason).
Experiment and dip your toe in. It sounds as though you aren’t comfortable with no packets around, so be sure to buy some. You’ll never know for 100% certain what ferments/finishes your wine whether you add yeast or not, to be perfectly honest, so don’t concern yourself with that.
The pros and cons of both have been outlined many times. It’s really about what makes you comfortable. And, if you do it enough, you will become comfortable with natives (unless they burn you once or twice…at which point you’ll probably stop doing them).
Great wine can be made both ways. Experiment and try them out and let your instinct and experience as a winemaker guide you. For example, if you have ever had a cold soak go haywire on you, think about how you responded. The same sorts of instincts can help you with natives, too.
When I think John Cabot, I think “cool” and “natural”…
Just go for it, it really isn’t that big a deal as long as you’re around to monitor it.
AMH, with its lag phase, won’t do you any good. You’ll want a couple of packets of UV43 or similar around just in case you run into real issues, maybe lysozyme, too (although I never have).
You’ll find that a lot of the indigenous bugs can ferment to 15% and up no problem (and then you run into a year like last year, where nothing wanted to finish 14%).
Also, yeast can breed sexually (something called a shmoo that they use to attach and share DNA – I heard it on the NPR this morning) so your strain is likely a mixture of this and that, rather than straight PdM.
Given the challenges this year tho, it seems like the goal is to get some excellent wine into the barrel/bottle rather than a vintage to much experimenting. Esp with possible rain staring (some of) us in the face.
We have been going more and more “native” in the past couple of years, and have had no more problems than a “non-native” year. I think we had about 80% of our lots go spontaneous last year. Of course, after the first few lots, you would have to wonder if it was “wild yeast” or just the yeast going already as the source of your yeastiness. I wouldn’t worry too much.
I actually like ‘feral’ as a term a lot. I hate saying wild or native or natural because it’s really none of those things, but feral is a pretty good description.
“I sort of like the idea of doing cold soaks and getting the native populations going, then pitching a strain like Assman or d254 to ensure they finish down dry.”
Que?!?!?!? With this crowd, how did this go seven posts with no one making a joke about this?
Paul:
Doesn’t “feral” imply a “domesticated” yeast that went back into the wild?
I see nothing wrong with using wild, native or indigenous to describe yeast that comes straight from the vineyard.
Why do you say it’s none of these description?
E
It could be, with about the same statistical probability that humans are responsible for winter kill moose in the middle of Alaskan wilderness, in mid-winter.
Peter:
Why do you think this?
I would think that “domesticated” yeast (or anything else), would have a lower chance of survival in nature than “wild” yeast.
E
Emilio - Adam’s link is exactly what I mean and every study I’ve read says the same thing. At some point during the process those yeast, that were once cultured or are genetically the same as cultured yeast take over fermentation. They are ‘feral’ not really ‘wild’.
I hate misleading my customers at all and I feel ‘wild’ or ‘natural’ are misleading. I’ve been using ‘native’, as in native to my fields and winery, but I think feral is more accurate. Native is even a little troublesome to me because it implies the yeast were always there when in fact they were introduced from somewhere else and colonized my facility and vineyards.
I have not added yeast since 2006 and will not again this year. I’ve finished wines dry up to 15.9% I’ve also had Malo’s go totally on their own and finish (In new oak no less). I’m not going to pretend though that the years cultured yeast were used in my facility, and the spent must spread in my vineyard, did not happen. The yeast doing my ferments are feral, not wild.
Am I misreading the summary that Adam linked?
I can’t find anything about Saccharomyces being cultured, feral etc. Instead, they found them on grape skins.
My understanding is that Saccharomyces are extremely genetically diverse and subject to all sorts of selection pressure. The guys at ETS will tell you that you cannot replicate a uninoculated ferment by isolating the Saccharomyces that are alive at the end because dozens of strains probably participated at different stages of the fermentation.
In addition, the non-Saccharomyces species that initiate fermentation (type 2 in Adams link) produce very low levels of esters that contribute complexity to wine.
There are a million valid ways to make wine, but it is just wrong to think that uninoculated ferments are just random feral analogues to single strain cultured yeast ferments. They are completely different, now whether they are better is up to you.
Two quick comments:
1- Just because S. cervisiae is always the one that finishes the fermentation does not imply that it is the only important one. In a relay team, all are important.
2- Recent study by Dr. Mat Goddard seems to have proven the UC Davis study wrong. See Jamie Goode article in the current issue (29) of The World of Fine Wine.
E
Kevin I don’t think anyone said they were analogous to single strain ferments. Everything I’ve read says that at some point a single strain will take over and dominate (usually starting between 8 and 18 brix), but that all will contribute, especially at the start of fermentation.
Not a “UC Davis study”. A summary by a UC Davis employee of peer-reviewed research from a published journal to help facilitate information exchange and distill information for those who would normally not have the fortitude to wade through peer-reviewed journals (in essence, a lot of those outside academia). Looks to me like the study was done in France, specifically Bordeaux.
you don’t “prove” a study “wrong”. You report your results and others report theirs. If they are divergent, others will try to replicate one or the other. As more and more replicate, one hopes the scientific community develops some sort of consensus.
This study is similar to the others I have seen. The major yeast genuses and species present on grapes are not those with much fermentative ability. As fermentation gets going, the major species identifiable, put there by man or not, becomes Sacch.
Whether or not the small amount of Sacch present on grapes are the great-grandaddies of the ones who get the ferment going and finish in a “whatever you want to call it” fermentation, I think, is not clear. My recollection of David Ramey’s work on that while at Chalk Hill was that they were not (and generally, even in pitched ferments, the ones that finished were not the ones pitched), but I am not sure that was ever published. To be honest, it matters little (or, more factually, not at all) to me professionally. Not sure why some feel so strongly about it from a practical standpoint.
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}