In fermentum veritas?
For most of our history, wines have been made with wild yeast. Most people didn’t even realize what caused their grape juice to ferment until 1857 when French microbiologist Louis Pasteur proved that alcoholic fermentation was conducted by living yeasts and not by a chemical catalyst. Commercial yeasts have been available for a little more than 100 years and have become almost irreplaceable in the modern winery. However, a large number of entrenched wine producers in Europe never made the switch over to commercial yeast and have inspired many newer producers to follow suit. Does it matter where your yeast is from? Are the yeasts we buy better–or perhaps worse–than what grows in the vineyard and wine cellar? After many years of making wine on Long Island using both wild and commercial yeast, I felt that it was time to see what wild yeast can really do.
It takes time to build up a reliable population in a new facility and after 12 years at Raphael I felt ready. The desire to define and describe the true Long Island character leads me to believe the answer lay with wild yeasts. What better way to do that than to use indigenous yeast to extract the flavors of the grapes that grow here? Letting the grapes do what they want to do, in my opinion, will help us find a natural, local flavor and further amplify the characteristics that define our wine.
As some may know, this year Raphael released a white blend called Naturale that we made with naturally occurring wild yeasts. It’s gotten some good early press, including a nice nod on LENNDEVOURS.com and a short feature in Edible East End’s High Summer edition, thanks to Amy Zavatto, whose interview inspired some of my thoughts here. As I told Amy, I’ve made some reds with yeasts here and there, and sometimes I don’t even talk about it. There’s a certain sincerity about using what’s at hand; it’s a natural part of the process. I’d like to take more wines in this direction, as a further expression of our terroir. With all the ingredients coming from this one plot of land, it doesn’t get much more “local” than this.
–Rich Olsen-Harbich
Rich: Obviously I enjoyed the Natural white quite a bit…you had mentioned previously that you were doing a red version from 08 as well. When do you expect that to be released?
How does the more “natural” route (less SO2, etc.) affect the wines longevity? I’d imagine it’d make it more prone to going downhill quickly. Should I drink up these last 3 bottles of the Naturale?
Rich:
Just playing Devil’s advocate here, but how do you know if the “natural” yeasts aren’t just the cultivated yeasts from last year floating around the vineyard/winery? I agree, though, that tons of other natural yeasts (Kloeckera and others) could possibly add a bit of complexity (for better or worse) before the fermentation is taken over by the bullying Saccharomyces.
Lenn:
That would probably depend on filtering, etc. Microbial stability is a function of free SO2, pH, nitrogen content, TA, and a whole host of other things, not to mention whether the uglies (i.e., Brett) are around in the first place or not.
Rich: Very interesting stuff. The consistent concern that we hear mentioned is that “wild” or “native” yeasts are much less predictable and you run the risk of losing a batch of wine. Have you encountered any such problems?
Its nice to get some questions - thanks guys for chiming in!
Lenn - the levels of sulfur used in natural winemaking for me are no different than what I would use conventionally, which was always pretty low. The real difference is in the lack of refrigeration during fermentation, filtration and protein stability which may lead to an earlier maturation. I think the wine probably has a slighty shorter shelf-life in this case than say an over-sulfured, heavily filtered wine that was kept cold its entire life. I would drink some and hold some - I’m doing the same to see how it progresses.
Tom - good questions. Yes unless you into yeast identification under a microscope ( I am not) there is no sure way to tell what you have. However, most commercial yeasts are bred to do their thing and die quickly and are not much used to hanging around a cellar. Indigenous yeasts have evolved over time to be tough survivors. Also over time in a cellar, a dominant natural strain will emerge which is something I am working towards.
Evan - thanks. yes they can be unpredictable but as per my comments above, over time, a dominant reliable flora does emerge to create more predictable results. Its an adventure but your procedures in the cellar have to change. You can’t do exactly the same things you were doing with conventional yeasts - if you know going in what your plan is and you follow good natural SOPs the results I think will be quite good. So far so good anyway - I haven’t lost a batch yet!
Lenn - The 2007 Naturale Red will be released in March alongside the 2009 Naturale white.
Tom, you’re assuming (and as a Cornell guy, it’s not shocking) that Rich is anti-Brett. He may be, but Long Island makers, who tend to be a bit further from Cornell’s sphere of influence, filter a lot less than the guys up in the Finger Lakes.
Lenn - I don’t know of any winemakers who are “pro-Brett” but I certainly don’t go through the pains of the processing to discourage it as some do. I do feel that this natural flora will often give red wines more complexity and more “life” if you will. Many winemakers will disagree but I suppose its a matter of taste.
Brett-like flavors also only work well in wines that have sufficient depth and ripeness. If you’re really anti-Brett you’re going to have to write off many of the greatest (and most expensive) wines from Burgundy and Bordeaux - by the way.