This study examines the impact of vineyard desiccant sprays on grape ripening and wine quality in Cabernet Franc. A block of Cabernet Franc was divided so that part of the block was backpack-sprayed with a desiccant spray (2% solution of methyl esters of fatty acids in 2% solution of potassium carbonate in water) provided by Bruce Zoecklein. The spray treatment occurred when the grapes had reached approximately 19 Brix (September 22, 2017) and clusters were coated until dripping with spray. Grapes were harvested on September 28 and were processed identically. Wines were pressed after 11 days of maceration. Cluster weight, total anthocyanins, and tannin were decreased in sprayed fruit. Brix was increased and acidity was decreased in sprayed fruit as well. Alcohol and potassium were higher in the sprayed wine, and acidity was lowered. Color, tannin, and polymeric anthocyanin were also higher in the sprayed wine, in spite of opposite trends being seen in this regard with the grapes. Overall, these wines were found to be significantly different. There was a tendency for the desiccated wine to have higher Body. Desiccated wines had a slight tendency for higher Acidity and Astringency, and lower Fruit Intensity. However, more sensory studies are needed to confirm these trends. There may have been a very slight preference for the non-desiccated wine. In the future, more studies should be performed on fruit desiccation, as it has potential to be a useful tool in Virginia grape growing. These studies should include the timing of desiccation sprays before harvest.
This study examines the impact of adding chardonnay lees to aging Cabernet Franc wine on mouthfeel and aroma. Cabernet Franc wine was cleanly racked into 3 separate, identical barrels on December 29, 2017 so that very little lees were transferred. Then: 1) one barrel received no addition of Chardonnay lees, 2) one received 1 liter of Chardonnay lees, approximately 1.02E6 cells/mL (Low NTU), and 3) one received 3 liters of Chardonnay lees, approximately 3.06E6 cells/mL. Lees were light lees, harvested from Chardonnay wines fermented with D254. The yeast in the lees were budding under microscope, and so 90ppm of sulfur dioxide was added to the lees before adding to barrel. The wines were stirred once every two weeks until taken for sampling in late March, 2018. No major wine chemistry differences were apparent between treatments. Sulfides were all similar between wines, with some differences in Dimethyl Sulfide. Microbial cell counts were generally higher in wine with lees additions. Color intensity was slightly lower in wine with lees added. Phenolic profiles were very similar, with perhaps a slight decrease in tannin with lees addition. Overall, low lees addition had a slight tendency to increase Fruit Intensity. Lees addition in general seemed to slightly lower Astringency. However, many of these differences were weak, and differed between tastings. The lees addition wines were generally more preferred over the control wine. This suggests that lees addition to red wines can be of benefit to red wine quality. More research with more rigorous sensory analysis is needed to further clarify what aspects of wine sensory characteristics are impacted by lees addition.
This study examines the effect of barrel stirring during aging on Cabernet Franc. Cabernet Franc wine (free run and pressings) was settled for 48 hours and then racked into two identical neutral barrels. After malolactic fermentation, barrels were sulfited and one barrel was left unstirred whereas the other barrel was stirred once per week for three months. All other treatments between wines were equal. Wine chemistry was not different between treatments. The barrel stirred wine had slightly higher levels of acetic acid bacteria, some lactobacillus species, and perhaps Saccharomyces cerevisiae. O. oeni was higher in the barrel stirred treatment as well. Tannin may have been slightly lowered by barrel stirring, and catechin may have slightly increased. Overall, the wines were not found to be significantly different. Of the people who correctly distinguished the wines, there may have been a slight preference for the unstirred wine (although the tendency to have no preference was also strong). This study should be repeated again in the future, perhaps with differing levels of lees in each treatment as well and with the turbidity measured.
This study examines impact of stirring the lees of barrel aging red wines. Cabernet Franc wine was settled overnight in tank after pressing and then racked into two identical neutral barrels. Barrel stirring occurred once malolactic fermentation completed and continued once every two weeks until wine was sampled in late April. No major differences were found in wine chemistry. Some lactic acid bacteria counts were higher, and Brettanomyces and Saccharomyces was higher in the stirred wines as well. No differences were apparent in phenolics, except for an increase in tannin in the stirred wine. For the triangle test, of 21 people who answered, 7 people chose the correct wine (33%), suggesting that the wines were not significantly different. In general, of those who correctly distinguished the wines, 3 had no preference, 2 preferred the stirred wine, and 1 preferred the no stirring wine. For the descriptive analysis, there were no strong trends for the descriptors used in this study. There was a very slight trend for the stirred wine to have lower Astringency. In the future, more studies should be performed with red wine lees stirring, perhaps with differing levels of lees in the wines as well.
This study examines the impact of different leaf pulling regimes on ripening in Cabernet Franc. Grapes received either: 1) No leaf pulling, 2) Standard leaf pulling (leaf pulling before mid-June on East side of vine), 3) pre-bloom leaf pulling (May 17, both sides of vine), 4) post fruit-set leaf pulling (June 2, both sides of vine), 5) Mechanical leaf pulling (May 26, post fruit-set, both sides of vine), 6) bagged clusters (July 22). Grapes were harvested on the same day. All other treatments were identical. Mechanical Leaf Pulling and Post-Fruit Set Leaf Pulling had the smallest average berry weight (no data is available for the bagged clusters). Pre-bloom leaf removal saw the greatest increase in average berry weight, but this was not significant when compared with No Leaf Pulling and Post-Fruit Set. Yield per vine was significantly lower on the pre-bloom leaf removal compared to No Leaf Pulling and Post-Fruit Set, but Brix was significantly higher. This yield difference likely resulted from the significantly lower cluster weight in the Pre-Bloom treatment, as well as the lower number of berries per cluster and the lower number of clusters per vine found in the leaf pulling treatments. The Pre-Bloom and Post-Fruit Set treatments spent much more time at critical temperatures between 35-40°C than the No Leaf Pulling treatment, due to greater exposure of the grapes. The Pre-Bloom treatment was overall cooler than the Post-Fruit Set treatment, possibly because of the decreased berries per cluster and thus looser cluster architecture allowing for better air flow and cooling.
Leaf pulling always increased tannin, quercetin, and anthocyanin concentration in grapes, with the greatest concentration of tannin in the Pre-bloom Leaf Removal and anthocyanin and quercetin in the Post-Fruit Set Leaf Removal. Leaf-pulled juice tended to have less malic acid and lower YAN. In general, TA and color was higher in finished wine with leaf pulling, with the greatest increases seen in post-fruit set leaf pulling. Caftaric acid, gallic acid, quercetin, tannin, and anthocyanin were generally increased by leaf pulling, with the most profound differences found in pre-bloom and post-fruit set leaf pulling. Bagged clusters showed much lower color and tartaric acid.
Due to the complexity of this project, the Mechanical Leaf Pulling and Bagged treatments were not tasted. Overall, descriptive results for these wines were inconsistent between tastings. Wines which had received leaf pulling were generally more preferred by judges, with preferences generally being for early leaf pulling regimes. This study should be repeated several times in order to further validate these results. It should also be performed on different grape varieties, at different sites, and on different trellising systems. More rigorous descriptive work should be performed on these projects, as well.
This study examines the impact of the date of cluster thinning on juice and wine chemistry. The goal was to attempt to dilute the impact of potassium uptake during veraison by cluster thinning at later dates, in order to keep the pH lower. A block of Cabernet Franc was cluster thinned either pre-veraison (around Mid-August), halfway through veraison (around the end of August), and post-veraison (first or second week of September). Every third row received one of these treatments, so that treatments were evenly dispersed throughout the block to minimize variation. All grapes were harvested on the same day, and all other treatments between each juice and wine lot were identical. The later the clusters were dropped, the higher the average berry and cluster weight. The later the clusters were dropped, the lower the Brix and phenolic compounds. YAN was slightly higher in later cluster thinning sweeps. In general, wine made from later cluster dropping had slightly less ethanol, and slightly higher TA and tartaric acid. Color intensity was decreased with later cluster thinning, as were most phenolic compounds. Thus, earlier cluster thinning tended to enhance grape “ripeness” characteristics. For the descriptive analysis, there was a strong tendency for the 50% veraison treatment to have higher Herbaceous/Green character (LSD=0.43). There was a slight tendency for this wine to also have higher Bitterness. Pre-veraison cluster thinning may have had higher Fruit Intensity. Post-veraison cluster thinning may have had slightly lower Overall Aromatic Intensity and Astringency. In general, the wines which were cluster thinned at 50% veraison were most preferred. These results suggest that the beneficial impacts of cluster thinning prior to veraison on chemistry may not be beneficial towards flavor profiles. However, this study should be repeated over multiple vintages, at different sites, and with different grape varieties to better understand how this timing of cluster thinning affects a Virginia appellation.
This study examines the ability to judge when grapes are harvest-ready by monitoring phenolic development over time. Cabernet Franc grapes began being sampled weekly starting on September 1 for a number of chemical and phenolic parameters. Enartis then made a harvest recommendation for September 22 (First Pick) based on comparing phenolic and chemical profiles over time. This decision was based on declining anthocyanin and phenolic values occurring in the grapes, with a desire to pick while these values were near their peak. The winemaker monitored grapes based on in-house chemistry values, seed coloration, and hang time, and picked another portion of the block on October 4 (Second Pick). Because the chemistry was different between juices, the second pick juice received more tartaric and malic acid additions. All other treatments were the same, except for a possible non-addition of Lafase HE Grand Cru to the second pick must. Wines were pressed off after 18-19 days. Grape ripening tended to follow classic ripening curves, exhibiting increasing Brix and a positive sigmoidal pH ripening curve. Average berry weight and water content peaked and then declined, due to dehydration. Phenolic content tended to peak and decline as well, and this occurred after the berry weight and water content began to decline. The first pick, based on phenolic ripeness, had lower alcohol. The differences in lactic acid may have been due to different malic acid additions between treatments. The first pick wine had slightly higher tannin and anthocyanin and much higher quercetin glycosides, but slightly lower color. However, this wine received Lafase HE Grand Cru, whereas the second pick wine may not have received this enzyme. This may have altered the results in this regard. Overall, sensory analysis suggests that these wines were significantly different. There tended to be a preference for the earlier picked wine, but this preference was tasting-dependent. Descriptive analysis was inconsistent between tastings, and no conclusions can be drawn with regard to this. Due to this inconsistency, this study should be repeated multiple times to help gauge the impact of picking based on phenolic parameters on sensory qualities in wine. Additionally, the use of Lafase HE Grand Cru in one wine and perhaps not in the other could have further confounded these results, suggesting that this study should be repeated. However, the idea behind this technique of monitoring ripening may serve to be a useful guide to picking in Virginia, to harvest while phenolic levels are maximized before they begin to decrease.
This study examines the clonal differences between Cabernet Franc clones 214 and 327. Grapes were harvested separately on October 4, 2017. Must was inoculated with ES488 and was pressed off after around 18-19 days of maceration. Both wines received the same additions, and all other treatments were identical between wines. Clone 327 tended to have higher berry weight and cluster weight, although yield was slightly lower. Grape chemistry suggests that clone 214 had lower tannin and phenolics, but slightly higher anthocyanins. Juice and wine chemistry did not differ too much. Clone 214 wine tended to have slightly higher phenolic parameters, although these differences were weak. It is possible, then, that although Clone 214 had lower levels of phenolic compounds (except anthocyanin), phenolic compounds were more extractable from these grapes. However, Clone 214 received an addition of Lafase HE Grand Cru which Clone 327 may not have received, and this may have impacted the results as well. Overall, the wines were not found to be significantly different via triangle testing. Descriptive analysis did not yield any consistent trends between tastings. There may have been a slight preference for Clone 327, but this was weak. More work should focus on the sensory and chemical differences between wines produced from these clones, but more work should also be done to better distinguish viticultural characteristics between these wines, as well.
This study examines the impact of Levulia Alcomeno yeast (AEB) on Cabernet Franc wine quality. Levulia Alcomeno is a non-Saccharomyces yeast strain (K. thermotolerans) which can promote acid formation and decrease acidity during early stages of fermentation. Cabernet Franc grapes were divided into two T Bins, one of which received Levulia Alcomeno and the other did not. Both T Bins underwent a 7 day cold soak. Afterwards, the control was inoculated with FX-10, and both T Bins were fermented identically. Roughly halfway through fermentation, the Levulia treatment received FX-10 as well in order to ensure complete fermentation. All other treatments between wines were identical. Chemistry was not altered during cold soak. Fermentation kinetics were very similar between treatments. Levulia Alcomeno wine saw increased TA, lactic acid, and volatile acidity. However, this wine also had higher pH. The Levulia Alcomeno wine had higher levels of ethyl acetate and isobutanol, and slightly lower levels of amyl alcohol and isoamyl alcohol. Color was not very different between treatments. The wines were not determined to be significantly different via triangle testing. Of those who answered the triangle test correctly, they preferred the control wine, and there may have been a nondescript off flavor in the Levulia wine. For the descriptive analysis, there were no strong trends for the descriptors used in this study. The descriptive data suggests that there may have been some glass-to-glass variation, possibly due to biases from tasting order. Drawing sensory results is thus difficult. Levulia Alcomeno is recommended to be used in conjunction with Fermol yeasts, which may have impacted results. In the future, more studies should be performed on this yeast in conjunction with AEB Fermol yeasts.
This study examines the impact of different yeast strains on green character in Cabernet Franc. Cabernet Franc grapes were harvested and processed on the same day into 3 separate T Bins. Each T Bin received 25ppm sulfur dioxide and were then inoculated with either CSM (ScottLabs), D254 (ScottLabs), or D20 (Enartis). D20 yeast may reduce green character through higher fermentation temperatures blowing off pyrazine (Enartis 2018), therefore this T bin was fermented in the sun. CSM was chosen because it is also marketed as being able to reduce green character (Scott Laboratories 2018), but since it did not specify a higher fermentation temperature, this treatment was not fermented in the sun. Each T Bin was punched down twice per day and pressed on the same day for 9 days of maceration. All other treatments between wines were identical. All yeast strains had similar fermentation kinetics, with D20 perhaps being slightly warmer. Wine chemistry was similar between treatments, except that IBMP was slightly lower in the D20 yeast treatment. There were no strong trends for the descriptors used in this study. There was a slight trend for the CSM wine to have higher Fruit Intensity, and for the CSM and D20 wines to have higher Astringency. There was a slight preference for the D254 wine.
This study examines the effect of producing wine with and without sulfur dioxide. Cabernet Franc grapes were harvested and processed into 3 separate T Bins. During crush, one treatment received 25ppm sulfur dioxide (control), the second did not receive any sulfur dioxide but instead was protected at crush with Zymaflore Egide, and the third did not receive any sulfur dioxide but instead received Tan Rouge and Stab Micro M during crushing and followed an Enartis no sulfur winemaking protocol. After processing, all wines were inoculated with ES488. One-third through fermentation the Enartis treatment received additions of Pro Tinto and Tan Color. Both no sulfur treatments were inoculated with ML Silver after pressing. At the end of fermentation, the control wine was stabilized with sulfur dioxide, the no sulfur wine received Stab Micro, and the Enartis protocol received additions of Surli Round, Tan SLI, and Stab Micro M. Wine chemistry is similar between treatments, except that no sulfur winemaking resulted in slightly lower TA. Both no sulfur winemaking wines had higher levels of acetic acid bacteria, lactic acid bacteria, and Pediococcus. Color intensity was higher due to a lack of sulfite bleaching. Overall, Cabernet Franc produced with sulfur dioxide tended to have higher perceived Acidity. Other differences between wines were not easy to distinguish with the descriptors used in this study, but the no sulfur wine and the wine with sulfur dioxide may have had slightly higher Overall Aromatic Intensity and Fruit Intensity. The wine made with sulfur dioxide tended to be most preferred, followed by the wine without sulfur dioxide. Conclusions are difficult to draw at this point. Many more studies are needed on no sulfur winemaking in red wines and its impact on sensory qualities. Additionally, more studies are needed to examine how aging is affected by no sulfur winemaking.
This study examines the impact of whole cluster inclusion on Cabernet Franc wines. Cabernet Franc grapes were harvested and processed into T bins. One T bin received 100% destemmed grapes, and the other received 100% whole clusters. The destemmed treatment was punched down twice daily, and the whole cluster treatment was stomped. After 18 days of maceration, wines were pressed off. The whole cluster wine fermented slower than the destemmed wine. Ethanol content, potassium, and lactic acid were also higher in the whole cluster wine. Color and anthocyanin were lowered in the whole cluster wine, while catechin and gallic acid were increased. Tannin may have slightly increased in this wine as well, but this is a weak result. For the triangle test, of 26 people who answered, 11 people chose the correct wine (42%), suggesting that the wines were not significantly different. In general, people who answered correctly did not show strong preferences for one wine over the other. For the descriptive analysis, there were no strong trends for the descriptors used in this study.
This study examines the impact of Rubino Extra (2B), BM45 (ScottLabs), and Alchemy III (Anchor) on the phenolic and aroma characteristics of Cabernet Franc wines. The goal was to see if the Rubino Extra yeast could enhance anthocyanin and aroma extraction from the grapes, relative to other yeast strains. Grapes were harvested on the same day and processed into 3 separate T Bins. Each of the three T Bins were inoculated with one of the three yeasts. All other treatments between wines were identical. The BM45 trial fermented slowest, and Rubino Extra trial fermented fastest. Lactic acid was higher in the wine produced with BM45. Color intensity varied among yeasts. Anthocyanins were higher in the Alchemy 3 trial, and lower in the Rubino Extra trial. Overall, not many trends were seen between these wines. The Rubino Extra yeast tended to produce wines with slightly lower Overall Aromatic Intensity and Fruit Intensity. The Alchemy 3 and BM45 yeasts were fairly similar, except that BM45 was perhaps more in-between the Rubino Extra and the Alchemy 3 yeast. The Alchemy 3 yeast appeared to produce a distinctive floral or fruity quality. Preference trends reversed between tastings, and as such it is unclear which yeast strain was the most preferred.
This study examines the impact of different yeast fining techniques on finished wine quality. A 2017 red wine blend (75% Cabernet Franc, 25% Petit Verdot) was blended into tank in early February. Then, on February 8 the wine was split into four analogous neutral barrels, and the barrels either received no treatment (control), a BM45 yeast addition at 1g/L, a Surli Velvet (Enartis) addition at 0.05g/L, or an Oenolees (Laffort) addition at 0.4g/L. The barrels were stirred on the date of addition and a week later. The wine was pulled for analysis and bottle samples on March 15. There were no differences in wine chemistry and color. For the descriptive analysis, there were no strong trends for the descriptors used in this study. There was a slight tendency for the BM45 treatment to have higher Fruit Intensity, Overall Aromatic Intensity, and Body and lower Herbaceous/Green character. Oenolees had a slight tendency for lower Fruit Intensity and Bitterness. Surli Velvet had a slight tendency towards higher Herbaceous/Green character and Astringency. Many of these differences were not very pronounced, however, and many judges commented that differences were slight. All wines were equally preferred, more or less. Some judges remarked that the BM45 treatment seemed to have a larger effect on the mouthfeel than the rest. More studies are needed in order to better quantify the impacts of these treatments on wine flavor and aroma quality.
This study examines the impact of LalVigne Foliar Spray (ScottLabs) on ripeness and the chemical and sensory qualities of Cabernet Franc. Every other row of a block of Cabernet Franc was sprayed at 5% veraison and 10 days later following the LalVigne spray protocol with a tunnel recycle sprayer, allowing for a treatment of sprayed Cabernet Franc and a treatment of unsprayed Cabernet Franc. Both treatments were harvested and processed identically and on the same day, but kept separate. All other treatments between projects were identical. The LalVigne spray slightly increased phenolics in the grape berries, but lowered cluster weight (although not berry weight). The LalVigne spray also increased YAN in juice. No chemical or phenolic parameters were very different in the wine. For the triangle test, of 20 people who answered, 12 people chose the correct wine (60%), showing a statistically significant difference between wines (p<0.05). These wines were voted to have an average degree difference of 4.2 (out of 10) among those who correctly identified it, suggesting that the wines were moderately different. In general, people who answered correctly had no preference for one treatment over another. There were no strong trends with regard to the descriptors used in this study.
This study examines the impact of adding Zymaflore Alpha (T. delbrueckii) (Laffort) yeast prior to a cold soak on the chemical and sensory characteristics of Cabernet Franc wine. Cabernet Franc from the same block was harvested on the same day and processed into two separate T Bins. All additions were identical, except that one T Bin received Zymaflore Alpha yeast and the other received no yeast. Both bins then underwent a 6 day cold soak at 50°F. After cold soak, both bins were inoculated with FX 10 yeast. All other treatments were identical. Wine was pressed around 3 weeks after processing. The Zymaflore treatment lowered titratable acidity and slightly lowered ethanol, but otherwise no major chemistry differences were apparent between wines. The Zymaflore treatment had increased acetaldehyde and propanol, but most other higher alcohols and fusel oils were lowered by the treatment. The Zymaflore treatment also slightly lowered color intensity. Triangle testing showed that, of 7 people who answered, 4 people chose the correct wine (57%), suggesting that the wines were not significantly different. However, the wines were almost significantly different. 3 out of 4 judges who answered correctly preferred the Zymaflore treatment to the control, and the other judge had no preference. The wine with Zymaflore was described as being slightly smoother, less harsh, or more balanced in terms of acidity. No major trends were discovered for the descriptors used in this study. There was a slight tendency for the Zymaflore wine to have lower Astringency and Overall Aromatic Intensity. The use of non-Saccharomyces yeast strains merits further work.
This study examines the impact of Levulia Alcomeno (K. thermotolerans) yeast inoculation followed by inoculation with FX-10 after 4 days versus inoculating with FX-10 alone on Cabernet Franc wine. K. thermotolerans is a yeast species which often produces wine of higher acidity and lower ethanol. Although the Levulia Alcomeno fermentation had a longer lag phase, they both finished fermentation around the same time. Wine fermented with Levulia Alcomeno showed slightly increased TA, lactic acid, and decreased pH and ethanol, which is consistent with K. thermotolerans fermentation profiles. The decrease in pH corresponds to a 23% increase in proton concentration. Additionally, this wine showed less acetaldehyde and more isoamyl alcohol. These results suggest that Levulia Alcomeno, while potentially affecting the chemical makeup of wine, did not have a strong impact on the sensory qualities of wine. It may have slightly increased Fruit Intensity and decreased Astringency, but if so this was a weak trend. This yeast shows promise, however, and more studies are warranted to determine whether this yeast can reproducibly produce these effects, and whether these effects are enhanced based on different starting fruit chemistry. At this point, no firm conclusions can be drawn.
This study examines the impact of adding different sources of lees to aging Cabernet Franc wine. Cabernet Franc wine was split into 5 barrels with the following treatments: 1) no lees addition, 2) 2 pints of Chardonnay lees added, 3) 2 pints of Viognier Lees added, 4) Laffort Autolees added, and 5) AEB Batonnage Elevage added. The wines were stirred once every two weeks until taken for sampling (in February). Wine chemistry did not differ between treatments. The sulfide profile did not differ at the limit of detection of the laboratory analyses. All treatments slightly lowered color intensity and increased hue, except for the AEB Batonnage treatment, which increased color intensity and decreased hue. In the first tasting, the Control and the Laffort Autolees treatment strongly increased Fruit Intensity, but this was not replicated at the second tasting. There were weaker tendencies between tastings, however. Lees which originated from wine (Viognier and Chardonnay Lees) appeared to have a consistent impact on the aroma of the wines, whereas lees which originated from products had less impact on wine aroma. An exception would be the AEB Battonage Plus treatment, which appeared to increase Herbaceous/Green qualities. The AEB lees tended to have the largest impact on Astringency. No major preference trends could be seen. These results were very mixed, likely due in part to the complexity of the project. This project produced interesting results, and more work on the impact of lees management in red wines should be done before drawing hard conclusions about these different lees sources. Stylistic possibilities of adding aromatic white wine lees to red wine should also be considered in future studies.
This study examines the effect of different low H2S-producing yeast strains on the sensory attributes of Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon Rosé. The grapes were harvested on the same day, pressed together, and after settling was racked into four different 484L puncheons (2006 Hungarian oak from the same cooper). The barrels were inoculated with the following yeasts: Rhône 4600 (ScottLabs), Allegro (Phyterra), Sensy (ScottLabs), and Fermol Elegance (AEB). Rhône 4600 is not marketed as a low H2S-producing yeast strain and was intended to act as a soft control. The strains showed similar fermentation kinetics except for Rhône 4600, which was markedly slower. Additionally, the wine produced by Rhône 4600 had a higher alcohol content and higher total SO2, possibly from yeast production. The sulfide contents of the wines, however, were essentially indistinguishable. No strong trends were found with the descriptors used for this study. Rhône 4600 tended to show higher Fruit Intensity and Overall Aromatic Intensity. Many of these wines were perceived as slightly reduced. In general, people tended to prefer wines produced with Rhône 4600 and Allegro yeasts.
This study examines the effect of different rates of macro-oxygenation on the phenolic and sensory qualities of Cabernet Franc. Grapes were harvested on the same day but kept separate, and all treatments between lots were kept the same except that one T Bin received no macro-oxygenation, one T Bin received a rapid macro-oxygenation to attain 5mg/L added oxygen after punchdowns (<1 hour aeration), and another T Bin received a slow aeration to attain 5mg/L added oxygen after punchdowns (3-4 hours aeration). Oxygen was added after punchdowns. No major chemical or phenolic differences are noticeable between treatments, except that phenolics slightly decreased in aerated wines. Macro-oxygenation tended to lower Overall Aromatic Intensity, with rapid macro-oxygenation tending to lower it the most. There were slight tendencies for macro-oxygenation to increase oxidation qualities and lower Fruit Intensity, and rapid macro-oxygenation tended to have slightly higher Bitterness/Astringency. These tendencies, however, were very weak. In general, people tended to prefer wine made without macro-oxygenation, and least preferred the wine made with rapid macro-oxygenation. Because these trends were very weak, this study should be repeated a few more times before making strong conclusions about macro-oxygenation.