The Williams Selyem yeast strain was isolated from Martinelli’s Jackass Hill Zinfandel vineyard. For decades, the Martinelli family had been spreading the pomace from successful ferments back on the vineyard, inoculating the vineyard, if you will (which used to be common in the Old World too). The strain that came to dominate that niche is capable of fermenting very high sugar musts to dryness and is able to withstand high temperatures (>105 degrees).
I have always suspected that the microbiome of the vineyards of France was heavily disrupted by the use of synthetic fungicides and other agrochemicals.
People are very naive about this subject. As Peynaud says, ‘the winemaker must imagine that every surface of the winery is entirely covered with a film of yeast’ (or words to that effect). So what does a ‘native’ fermentation mean? When DRC ferment their wines with ambient microbes, what are the chances that those microbes include the selected yeasts used in the vats of Gros Frères et Soeurs not far away? When Mugneret-Gibourg do native ferments today, having inoculated in the past, how many of the strains they used to employ remain in the winery buildings and involve themselves in the fermentations?
While today, few producers in Burgundy admit to inoculating, the availability of selected microbial cultures in the enology stores on the Beaune ring road seem to suggest that some demand remains. It’s not something I tend to interrogate producers about, not only because the philosophy behind the debate is a little confused, but also because I wouldn’t count on getting an honest answer.
And to add to all of this, I know more than one producer who does all Native ferments according to his marketing, but keeps select commercial yeast strains and use them often hear the end of fermentation is to make sure that is native fermentations do not stick.
We have not added cultured yeast to Pinot Noir* (I will get to that in a second) since we started Patricia Green Cellars. However, back at Torii Mor we ran cultured vs. native yeast trials in 1995 and 1996 and there were clear differences between the wines. Obviously, this is completely anecdotal and old information but still I guess it is something.
In the 2016 vintage we took on a new block of 20ish year old Wadensvil Clone Pinot Noir. We did so knowing there was some vine stress that they were working on but was likely not going to be worked out that vintage. Being stubborn (as well as seeing the chemistry on the must) I decided to ferment it like all our other cuvees. It crapped out around 2 brix and despite using our regularly reliable natural way to kick a sluggish/stuck fermentation back it became clear that a more aggressive tact was going to be needed. The re-start protocol for a stuck fermentation is quite something. I will be glad to never do it again. It works. And that wine definitely showed a distinctly different character than anything else in the cellar. Not bad. Just way different.
Not the first one I hear doing this. After all, most of the complexity comes from the beginning of the fermentation and usually one (or a few) strain of saccharomyces dominates through the latter half. I see no biggie in using a cultured strain here, because many wild saccharomyces strains can be quite finicky finishing the fermentation to full dryness. At that point most strains contribute rather little impact to the finished wine.
Unless one lobs in a packet of “flavor” yeast. I suspect those bastards can show through even when pitched in the last minute.
These reflect pretty much what I’ve noticed as well. I don’t mean that wines fermented with a single cultured yeast strain are bad or you can easily pinpoint the difference between a fermentation with cultured yeasts and a spontaneous fermentation, but they are often not even that subtly different and more often than not my preference is on the wild ferment.
So you believe that the kerosene in a wine is caused by a specific yeast? That is an interesting concept that I have not heard before. I’d love to get some confirmation on that from others.
Those flavor yeasts are definitely not a new phenomenon. They are certain yeast strains that make flavors out of certain flavor precursors. Just check out some yeast producer catalogues what kind of flavors their can “emphasize” in a wine.
The idea is that they can’t produce flavors out of nowhere, i.e. if the grape varieties don’t contain any flavor precursors, the yeasts can’t produce that specific flavor. However, many grape varieties contain compounds that don’t produce noticeable aromas over normal fermentation, but certain commercial yeast strains can crank out that flavor basically from any wine possible. The cassis note in Chilean red wines is a textbook example.
I’m very familiar with yeast catalogs, and they are very good at marketing products. That said, after doing literally hundreds of different fermentations, I can honestly say that what these companies say will happen with regards to flavor, Aroma, and texture rarely ever does.
There’s no way? Right after Jim said that the differences between a spontaneously fermented wine and an inoculated wine were very noticeable?
And to my last point: tons of different articles. If you read a lot about yeasts and wine fermentations, you’ll notice how basically all researches point out that at the beginning of the fermentation different kinds of yeast strains compete, all producing alcohol and different kinds of metabolites, making the main contribution to the so-called wild fermentation complexity. However, at approximately 5% ABV, the environment has become too difficult for most other yeast strains to survive, save for saccharomyces cerevisiae and brettanomyces. Normally the sulfites have knocked brett out of the game, so the fermentation is finished by saccharomyces, but for example high-pH wines and wines made without sulfites may have a combined fermentation with both brett and sach. If you just inoculate the wine with commercial yeasts in the beginning, you never get the same kind of wild fermentation complexity - which might be intriguing, might be beautiful, might be funky or might be downright unpleasant - and instead get this clean, pure unadulterated flavor profile (in the case of neutral yeasts) or something resembling a flavored beverage (in the case of “flavor yeasts”). And of course you can even make your own yeast blends of different cultivated yeasts.
If you are interested, I can point out you to the direction of informative articles. However, if you are not, please just leave it be. I really am not looking for yet another argument where somebody just comes along refuting my points with “there’s no way” kind of claims and I’m knee-deep in an internet forum war.
Not exactly. I’m saying that if you’re on the winemaking team and have a native yeast barrel and a cultured yeast barrel, over time
you may be able to pick out distinctive stylistic difference that you can narrow down to just the yeast. For the rest of us, there
are SO MANY variables that go into winemaking that it’s nearly impossible to attribute one characteristic to just the type of yeast.
If I make wine and you like the yeast and then use it, is it a “commercial” or “cultured” yeast ? These conversations make little sense, especially as there are several yeasts likely to be at work at the beginning, middle, and end and even if you start with something you think is native, a feral yeast can sneak in.
That’s why Todd says you have to look under a microscope. Imagine all those people who think they were using the “native” yeasts but it was really something that snuck in from the neighbor. They’ll be surprised when they all wake up in hell after they die!
Yes, I think in an isolated environment where some barrels from the same block were fermented with commercial yeast and some fermented with spontaneous yeast the difference in aromatics, texture (especially) and flavor can be discerned much the way the difference between 33 and 66% would be obvious in an isolated cellar tasting but maybe not so much just out in the wide world trying to guess at it. I think, from a winemaking “production” place, choosing what one wants to do fermentation-wise tells a lot about what sort of slope one is willing to travel down. Working with spontaneous ferments means you are more likely to be willing to work with spontaneous secondary ferments, not add lord knows what else into your fermentations (enzymes, stabilizers, color fixers/enhancers, etc.), not adding lord knows what into your vineyard(s) (pesticides, herbicides, irrigation, etc.), bottle without fining and filtration and so on. I think that the willingness and desire to work with native fermentations is a larger mind set of what sort of wines and what sort of winery one wants to have. I think native ferments speak to a larger view of the agricultural process and the winemaking process as integrated operations. That’s my opinion but one based on, at the very least, 25 years of observation.
From the consumer side, maybe you can’t taste the difference between one and the other. I am not certain if one could taste the difference between organic peas and non-organic peas (maybe). If it doesn’t matter to you it doesn’t matter to you. If the, I don’t know, live-liness (intentional hyphen) and mindset of a winery in the approach they take to the wines that they produce and vineyards they farm does matter to you (and I think it should) then maybe something as simple as how they go about their fermentations is not just a choice in a small manner of practicality but an insight into what sort of wineries and wines in which you might be interested.
I read Jim’s post with interest, but found that I couldn’t really conclude that the results were due to differences in yeast, or the stuck fermentation that (probably) allowed a lot of other things to grow during the extra time it took to get the fermentation restarted and ultimately finished.
But on the general topic, there have been numerous discussions over the years. I remember (but can’t reference it) at least one scholarly article that concluded most “spontaneous” fermentations aren’t due to yeast from the vineyard, but to the native population that haunts the winery essentially permanently. That’s why it’s always interesting to hear about winemaker experiences when they move into a brand new facility.
Generally speaking, there are about 5X the number of ‘wild yeast’ that reside on the fruit when it comes in compared to saccharomyces yeast on the fruit. These ‘wild yeast’ are not strong enough to see the ferment through, but can certainly start it and include Kloekera, Dekkera, and all kinds of other yeast that produce some interesting aromas and by-products.
What happens from there is dependent upon a number of things. If you want the wild yeast population to stick around for awhile, you would not use any SO2 and you would keep things relatively cool. If you were into adding any ‘yeast nutrients’, you might consider doing so now as the yeast in larger numbers - the ‘wild’ yeast - will continue to survive and thrive for awhile.
Eventually, saccharomyces will win over - whether from a commercial innoculant that is added or from a ‘house strain’ that can handle higher alcohol levels and more heat.
The tern ‘native’ should not be confused with the term ‘wild’ for the latter truly are non-saccharomyces yeast that some believe lead to ‘more complexity’ in a wine because of what folks smell and perhaps even taste early on during these ferments.
My understanding is that this is true - stuff hanging around in the cellar at the winery. When you custom crush, as I do, it is pretty much a guarantee, I think. I had my first stuck fermentation this past year. BEFORE the fires. My cellar staff stuck by me and my wine…I am certain it was not a cost effective approach, from the winery’s perspective. You build mutual responsibility over lots of years - 18 years of custom crush at Judd’s Hill Winery. They had to have police and fire escort in to finish my stuck fermentation, during the fire evacuation. The wines are lovely, although showing a higher ABV than I would like. Conversion rate of sugar to alcohol was likely an instigator, due to the re-start. We will re-check those alcohols, but they are what they are. I will not send it out (or have someone come in) to de-alc my wine. And I would never, ever, sell it if I was not excited about it.
Hah, I was reading the thread through to the end, waiting to post the vinepair article, which is better researched and presented, and includes references to actual studies.
As far as anecdotal evidence goes, all our wines have been native ferments thus far. I have only done a few isolated native vs. inoculated trials with some of our ciders (outside the winery facility) and have found that a number of selected yeast trials (both champagne and cider specific yeasts) have produced far more boring smelling and tasting ciders from the same fruit.
And speaking to the pied de cuve mentioned above, the reasons for that are broader than just getting the yeast going in advance. The idea as I understand it is that it is easier to use only the cleanest fruit when you are hand selecting a small bucket’s worth, and also, harvesting a few weeks before the actual harvest date means that acids will be higher. Both of these things allow for a much better environment for saccharomyces to get a head start on any of the baddies that may be lurking in the grapes at actual harvest time.
We are having a lot of conversations about this currently in the Hudson Valley, and some of the larger, old guard wineries (go Whitecliff!) are starting to experiment with native fermentations. Discourse and experimentation can only lead to better things!
That article, although interesting, fails to answer the question of whether, at the end of the day, you can actual ‘tell the difference’ between a ‘native’ ferment and a ferment conducted with ‘commercial yeast’. Yes, we can find different microbes exist in different areas, and yes, there may be some uniqueness to the strain of saccharomyces that eventually finishes the fermentation, but does this lead to a ‘different’ wine?
The ‘conventional wisdom’ many who use native continue to state is that these ferments lead to a ‘more complex’ wine because of the different yeasts that are involved with the process. Interesting. Can someone please define ‘more complex’ and prove that this is the case?
Todd, your anecdotal info is interesting for sure, and I’m glad to hear that there is more experimentation being done with regards to native ferments. I’m all for it. Just make sure that when these experiments are done, the only variable at play is the yeast - and that everything else is held constant. And when tastings are conducted, please do so blind - and bring in folks who are not part of the process . . .
Looking forward to continuing the conversation - and hearing more info from others.