Issue link: http://digital.copcomm.com/i/348953
88 { THE SOMM JOURNAL } AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2014 Tasting the Same Wine at Different Alcohol Levels So what does alcohol contribute to wine flavor and aroma? Probably the clearest way of illustrating this is to taste the same wine at different alcohol levels, which can be achieved by using one of two alcohol reduction technologies: spinning cone and reverse osmosis. We'll return to these technologies in more detail later when we consider what can be done about high alcohol; here, suffice to say that these are different ways of achieving the same end result—separating wine into different fractions, taking just the alcohol and some other flavor components out, separating them out to remove the alcohol, and then recombining the remainder to create a low-alcohol version of the same wine which can then be used to blend with the original wine to result in the "same" wine at a series of alcohol concentrations. Of course, scientists among you will have spotted one potential problem with this sort of trial: Both the spinning cone and reverse osmosis processes may affect the flavor of the wine in ways other than removing alcohol. This aside, the differ - ences are quite striking. From these tastings, it is clear that alcohol (1) has the potential to mask the aromatics of wines. Wines with lower alcohol can come across as brighter and more aromatic, with more fruit, and (2) alcohol adds body and a bit of sweetness to wines. Wines with lower alcohol levels taste less sweetly fruited, lighter and more savory. With Conetech winemaker Scott Burr, I tasted a range of commercial California wines with alcohol levels altered by the spinning cone, which Conetech commer - cializes. A California Chardonnay at 14.3% alcohol had a sweet, ripe, slightly buttery nose, leading to a rich buttery palate that was quite broad. I then tasted the same wine after it had been through the spin - ning cone column, at 4% alcohol. This was more minerally with tangerine notes and some spicy richness. The palate was lemony and tart with hollow fruit and an enhanced sensation of acidity. "Alcohol is a masking agent," says Burr, "so taking it away reveals what's there. It also adds sweetness to the palate." It's this sweet - ness that is missing in the 4% sample, and its loss exaggerates the percep- tion of acidity. The next wine was a blend of 10% of the 4% sample with the remainder of the original wine, resulting in a Chardonnay at 13.2%. This was fresher than the origi - nal with more acidity apparent. The fruit showed through more. There's quite a difference, and the 13.2% wine was much nicer than the 14.3% original. Then I tried the alcohol fraction that comes off the machine. This had a big whiff of sulphur dioxide, which comes off with the alcohol, and tasted quite sweet, with a nice richness to it. The next sample was the essence fraction: the aromatic component that's the first to come off the column. This had amazing aromatics when it was cut with water: really citrusy, fruity and estery. I then tried four different California wines, each at three alcohol levels: the original level, and then reduced levels of 11% and 8%. A Chardonnay that tasted sweet and buttery at 14% alcohol tasted fresher with nice definition at 11%, and then more lemony and refreshing at 8%. A rosé showed best at 12.2%, and was per - haps less successful at 8%. A Shiraz was sweet, juicy and spicy at 14.6%, but fresher and more vivid with less sweetness at 11%; at 8% it was more savory with fresh, pure fruit and a more gastronomic character. A Merlot showed really well at 11% and fresh, juicy and bracing with more appar - ent acidity at 8%. These are inexpensive wines, but with this alcohol reduction they showed very well. I also went through a similar tasting with Clark Smith, who founded and recently sold California wine technology com - pany Vinovation and who has pioneered the use of reverse osmosis for alcohol reduction. He'd brought along three wines, which were treated versions of an Amador County Syrah that was originally 18% alcohol, which represented the three sweet spots for this wine. Whereas the Conetech examples were more dramatic, the aim with these wines was to fine-tune them by removing just a little alcohol. The 15.4% version of this wine was jammy and chocolaty, with sweet dark fruits. The 14.2% version is a little bit fresher with ripe, smooth dark fruits: sweet, still, but with the acid and tannins more apparent. The 13.75% wine has a more peppery char - acter and is fresher, with the acidity stick- ing out a little. Three very different wines, with the only difference the alcoholic strength. "We do sweet spot tastings with 2,500 wines a year," says Clark Smith, "and we never get a bell curve distribution of preference. It's Gaussian, like tuning into radio stations." Are Reduction Technologies the Answer? There are a number of ways of reducing alcohol levels in wine, some involving work in the vineyard, others involving manipula - tions in the cellar. The simplest is to add water to the must. This has several advan- tages: Water is cheap, you get a little more wine and the risk of stuck fermentations is diminished. But adding water in any great quantity is illegal (in California the rules allow a small volume increase in wine, for example from solid additions, or water used to clean hoses and so on), and also it results in a little dilution. This doesn't One contributing factor to high alcohol is the presence of raisined, super- ripe berries alongside those that are simply properly ripe. These raisined berries contribute sugar to the must and little else. It also follows that if you are waiting for the last grapes to get ripe in a block of uneven ripeness, then some of the grapes will be super-ripe. A key aspect of vineyard management is therefore to zone vineyards into homogeneous blocks.