Hi all,

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

There's a very good caviste in Paris on rue de la Tombe d'Issoire
(14eme) not far from St Jacques and Denfert. The fellow (Nicolas)
specializes in lower priced vin de terroirs, mostly natural productions.
He's got some great stuff, and enjoys trying to confound me by
having me taste blind, and identify. (So far I've done reasonably
well, although I was confounded by a Sauvignon B from Montlouis: I
got the SB in the nose, but the mouth was, er, strange). He also
has the tendency to send us off with 1/2 bottles of bubbly for the
aperitif, which is rather friendly.

We were discussing Cru Beaujolais, I asked him if he knew Trichard
(Jacques). He didn't, but asked me if he used yeast. I was
confounded!

I had understood that the yeasts are naturally occuring, and sometimes
this can be a problem visavis mutations in the cellar. I hadn't
heard of _adding_ yeast, but I guess I never gave it much thought
either.

What's current practice? Have I been mistaken all these years?
Has technology bypassed me (once again)? What is the story with
yeast, anyway?

TIA!

-E
--
Emery Davis

In article >, Emery Davis >
writes:

> I was confounded by a Sauvignon B from Montlouis: I
>got the SB in the nose,

Not surprising you were confounded, every Montlouis I've seen was Chenin. Was
it able to be labeled as Montlouis, or did it need a more general description?

>
>We were discussing Cru Beaujolais, I asked him if he knew Trichard
>(Jacques). He didn't, but asked me if he used yeast. I was
>confounded!
>I had understood that the yeasts are naturally occuring, and sometimes
>this can be a problem visavis mutations in the cellar. I hadn't
>heard of _adding_ yeast, but I guess I never gave it much thought
>either.
>What's current practice? Have I been mistaken all these years?
>Has technology bypassed me (once again)? What is the story with
>yeast, anyway?
>
I'm not the guy for tech stuff (Mike, Michael, help!) but lots of makers use
isolated strains rather than wild yeast. That's supposedly the reason in
Beaujolais for that wierd banana aroma you get from all of G. DuBoeuf's wines.



Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

On 04 Nov 2003 20:31:20 GMT, amnspam (Dale Williams)
wrote:

>In article >, Emery Davis >
>writes:
>
>> I was confounded by a Sauvignon B from Montlouis: I
>>got the SB in the nose,
>
>Not surprising you were confounded, every Montlouis I've seen was Chenin. Was
>it able to be labeled as Montlouis, or did it need a more general description?

Correct. And try Chidaine's Montlouis, top stuff at a reasonable price
with a distinct aroma of ... saffron!
>
>>
>>We were discussing Cru Beaujolais,
snip
>>What's current practice? Have I been mistaken all these years?
>>Has technology bypassed me (once again)? What is the story with
>>yeast, anyway?
>>
>I'm not the guy for tech stuff (Mike, Michael, help!) but lots of makers use
>isolated strains rather than wild yeast. That's supposedly the reason in
>Beaujolais for that wierd banana aroma you get from all of G. DuBoeuf's wines.

Levures selectionnees, as they call them here. Some are so
selectionnee that they are actually chosen to alter the aromas of the
wine, and yes you get raspberry and banana for low end beaujolais.

As I move along in my wine appreciation, I have developed a taste for
real wine and an aversion to the inevitably "simpler" wines obtained
through massive use of technology. I also hang around people, mostly
winemakers, that can "taste" the high-techness of a wine.

The fact is that using the indigenous yeasts has never done anyone's
wine harm, on the contrary, I have seen vintages ruined by the use of
selected yeasts : in Bandol 2001, a year of high alcohol levels, some
of the vintners that used selected yeasts ended up with stuck
fermentations and wines that were 14 degrees with plenty of residual
sugar left unfermented. Those that just left nature do its work had no
problems, they had heady wines of well over 16 that they could
assemble with wine from the less exposed vineyards and end up with a
sellable 14 degree wine.

The high-tech wine machine is driven by the recent breed of
enologists, very much like GPs in this country, they just write
prescriptions even when they have no idea what the problem is. 2003
was supposedly a difficult year, with many problems, and the
enologists wrote their prescriptions. Others just let things happen,
taking risks perhaps, but ending up with fab wines...

Mike

Mike Tommasi > wrote in
:

snip
>
> Correct. And try Chidaine's Montlouis, top stuff at a reasonable price
> with a distinct aroma of ... saffron!
>>

Agreed on Chidaine. Notice as well that he has taken over Clos Baudoin.
Now that he has top flight vineyards to work with - look out.

John

Emery Davis wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Perhaps someone can explain this to me.
>
> There's a very good caviste in Paris on rue de la Tombe d'Issoire
> (14eme) not far from St Jacques and Denfert. The fellow (Nicolas)
> specializes in lower priced vin de terroirs, mostly natural productions.
> He's got some great stuff, and enjoys trying to confound me by
> having me taste blind, and identify. (So far I've done reasonably
> well, although I was confounded by a Sauvignon B from Montlouis: I
> got the SB in the nose, but the mouth was, er, strange). He also
> has the tendency to send us off with 1/2 bottles of bubbly for the
> aperitif, which is rather friendly.
>
> We were discussing Cru Beaujolais, I asked him if he knew Trichard
> (Jacques). He didn't, but asked me if he used yeast. I was
> confounded!
>
> I had understood that the yeasts are naturally occuring, and sometimes
> this can be a problem visavis mutations in the cellar. I hadn't
> heard of _adding_ yeast, but I guess I never gave it much thought
> either.
>
> What's current practice? Have I been mistaken all these years?
> Has technology bypassed me (once again)? What is the story with
> yeast, anyway?
>
> TIA!
>
> -E

Frequently, the naturally occurring yeasts will be eliminated and the
grape inoculated with a specific yeast. Seen it done in Cal, dunno if
the French do it as well. Anyone?

--
Bear Graves
"The Secret of Zen lies in two words only: Not Always So..."
-Shunryu Suzuki

In article >,
Da' Bear > wrote:
>
>Frequently, the naturally occurring yeasts will be eliminated and the
>grape inoculated with a specific yeast. Seen it done in Cal, dunno if
>the French do it as well. Anyone?


It is pretty common to use commercial yeasts. One reason might be to start
a stuck fermentation. More commonly used, there are strains of yeast that can
survive in the high-alcohol environment that is much California wine. The
trend is towards indigienous yeasts, but California cellars aren't quite
as dirty as those old French cellars.


Dimitri

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:55:09 +0000 (UTC),
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

>The
>trend is towards indigienous yeasts, but California cellars aren't quite
>as dirty as those old French cellars.

True, but the yeast comes from the grapes, not from the cellar...

Mike

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:42:53 +0100, Mike Tommasi >
wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:55:09 +0000 (UTC),
>(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
>
>>The
>>trend is towards indigienous yeasts, but California cellars aren't quite
>>as dirty as those old French cellars.
>
>True, but the yeast comes from the grapes, not from the cellar...

To be specific, they are present on the skins.

Mike

"Mike Tommasi" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:55:09 +0000 (UTC),
> (D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
>
> >The
> >trend is towards indigienous yeasts, but California cellars aren't quite
> >as dirty as those old French cellars.
>
> True, but the yeast comes from the grapes, not from the cellar...

a good example of interesting wine made with indigienous yeasts are the
"wild ferment" line by Errazuriz. From what I have tasted, their pinot noir
and chardonnay are very "wild" tasting.

...Chris

In article >,
Mike Tommasi > wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:55:09 +0000 (UTC),
>(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
>
>>The
>>trend is towards indigienous yeasts, but California cellars aren't quite
>>as dirty as those old French cellars.
>
>True, but the yeast comes from the grapes, not from the cellar...


It lives in the cellar as well. More than a few winemakers have talked to
me about cultivating the yeasts in the cellar and mentioned that the first
fermentations always took a lot longer than the later ones as the
population of yeasts rises. If you think about it, it makes sense since
the spores probably get airborne. The wineries that use naive yeasts are
also careful not to bleach the floor or get things "too clean".


Dimitri

Mike Tommasi > wrote in message >. ..
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:42:53 +0100, Mike Tommasi >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:55:09 +0000 (UTC),
> >(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
> >
> >>The
> >>trend is towards indigienous yeasts, but California cellars aren't quite
> >>as dirty as those old French cellars.
> >
> >True, but the yeast comes from the grapes, not from the cellar...
>
> To be specific, they are present on the skins.
>
> Mike

Although there is not a lot of evidence available, the conventional
wisdom of the yeast being on grape skins is, in some cases, turning
out to be incorrect. There is some indication that the yeast in the
fermentation room and on the equipment is primarily responsible for
the fermentation. This is a much more hospitable environment for
cultures to survive than in a vineyard which can get quite hot and dry
in the summer months and quite cold and dry in the winter. Not a very
good environment for the yeasts we want, never mind if you throw in
the sprays that a typical vineyard uses to control harmful organisms
or the competition for nutrients the other organisms provide.

I wish I could find the references (unfortunately it was of only
passing interest to me), but one compared a culture of the organisms
found on the grapes, ones found in the fermentation room and the
primary yeasts in the wine at the end of fermentation and found the
yeasts identified in the fermentation room to be vastly dominant in
the wine.

The other reference was to a winery that replaced the roof (open
ceiling) of the winery and had a difficult time starting fermentation.
It appears that the primary yeasts were living on the wood of the roof
and constantly falling into the musts and onto equipment.

And please, let's not forget that commercially available cultures are
nothing more than well performing strains that have been isolated from
various wine making areas, most commonly famous European areas.

One more thing. Mike, IMO, your earlier example about 2001 in Bandol
has more to do with poor wine making than it did with yeast.

Now if someone wants to put forth the argument that using naturally
occurring yeasts could potentially add complexity to the wine because
more than one yeast strain may contribute to the fermentation, that I
could agree with, but it is also more risky. Many winemakers are not
willing to bet their livelihood on wild yeast.

Just my 2 cents,

Andy

In article >,
JEP > wrote:
>
[snip!]
>
>The other reference was to a winery that replaced the roof (open
>ceiling) of the winery and had a difficult time starting fermentation.
>It appears that the primary yeasts were living on the wood of the roof
>and constantly falling into the musts and onto equipment.


I think this winery was Magnien.



>Now if someone wants to put forth the argument that using naturally
>occurring yeasts could potentially add complexity to the wine because
>more than one yeast strain may contribute to the fermentation, that I
>could agree with, but it is also more risky. Many winemakers are not
>willing to bet their livelihood on wild yeast.


Not just complexity, but a type of terroir. Native yeasts may produce
different flavors than commercial yeasts. Many winemakers are cultivating
wild yeast. It's not that risky, since the option to add commercial yeast
is always available - or are you referring to Brettanomyces? Who knows
what will invade the wine? I think that's the interesting part!


Dimitri

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:10:57 +0000 (UTC),
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

>Not just complexity, but a type of terroir. Native yeasts may produce
>different flavors than commercial yeasts. Many winemakers are cultivating
>wild yeast. It's not that risky, since the option to add commercial yeast
>is always available - or are you referring to Brettanomyces? Who knows
>what will invade the wine? I think that's the interesting part!

That's what I was thinking, dirty cellars tend to bring Brett. That's
why lambic brewers in Belgium preserve those old cobwebs
meticulously... they WANT Brett to enter the beer!

I would like to know more about cellar yeasts, if this is true. I have
always heard that if the grapes are rinsed, you lose the yeast on thew
skins and they wil not ferment in any cellar, no matter how
contaminated. OTOH, I hear that bread can be made just with the yeast
present in the bakery... Go figure.

Mike

>
>We were discussing Cru Beaujolais, I asked him if he knew Trichard
>(Jacques). He didn't, but asked me if he used yeast. I was
>confounded!
>
>I had understood that the yeasts are naturally occuring, and sometimes
>this can be a problem visavis mutations in the cellar. I hadn't
>heard of _adding_ yeast, but I guess I never gave it much thought
>either.
>
>What's current practice? Have I been mistaken all these years?
>Has technology bypassed me (once again)? What is the story with
>yeast, anyway?
>
>TIA!
>
>-E

Fermentations that have no yeast added are properly called
spontaneous. If the location is a wine region, then the chances are
that the yeast that dominate the fermentation have at one time been
packaged. One of the main reasons they were originally isolated would
be their dominating character. Their organoleptic qualities came
second. Wouldn't make much sense to purchase a yeast that would not
dominate the fermentation.

The vast majority of (remaining) wild yeast cannot take a fermentation
to the higher alcohol levels (12-14%), so it's virtually impossible
for a fementation to be completely "wild". Thus the term spontaneous.


The package yeasts that are available to winemakers today have a wide
variety of characteristics: some of them organoleptic, others simply
mechanical. Pesonally, I choose mechanics for two very specific
reasons: slower and thereby cooler fermentations (we use no
refrigeration) and the other being consumption of malic acid (a
specific strain [71-B] consumes a fair amount of malic without raising
the pH of the wine as an ML bacteria will). For me, in my
situation, these mechanics will dominate the organoleptic character
above any other influence that a strain of yeast might produce.

clyde