![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.techniquesinhomewinemaking.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/vin-sans-soufre-e1486066905480-300x169.jpg?resize=300%2C169\")
Vinification d’un vin rouge sans dioxide de soufre<\/em> by Vincent Chassignol (\u00c9ditions universitaires europ\u00e9enes, 2015)<\/p>\n
This book is a BIG disappointment, particularly given its $53.37 price tag (CAD$ from Amazon.ca) for some 50+ pages of less-than-substantive content. It\u2019s basically a student\u2019s memoirs of his 6-month internship at a Ch\u00e2teauneuf-du-Pape estate trying to make a wine without the need for sulfur dioxide (SO2).<\/p>\n
But I\u2019m being very critical here for more important reasons.<\/p>\n
The title translates to \u201cThe making of a red wine without sulfur dioxide.\u201d Half the book discusses anything but making red wine. And if you are writing about the use, or lack, of SO2<\/sub>, you\u2019d think one would proofread SO2<\/sub> figures with a microscope. In their white winemaking, \u201cafter tasting (wine samples), the wine is lightly sulfited at a rate of 3.5 g\/L [sic]. That\u2019s would be 3500 mg\/L; they meant 3.5 g\/hL. Ok, it can be forgiven.<\/p>\n In the usual red winemaking, before this experiment of eliminating the use of SO2<\/sub>, they add 5 g\/hL of SO2<\/sub> at crush followed by 4 g\/hL after completion of the MLF.<\/p>\n But now we\u2019re getting into the experiment in making that no-SO2<\/sub> red. We\u2019re at page 31, well, really page 37 after some theory on SO2<\/sub> chemistry. The conclusion is coming up on page 48, really the last page of the book.<\/p>\n The chapter about the experiment \u00a0is prefaced by the disclaimer that \u201cwe will see that that it is very difficult to completely eliminate SO2<\/sub> use without losing quality.\u201d<\/p>\n The experiment is carried out in 3 lots for comparative purposes:<\/p>\n Lot 1 \u2013 no SO2<\/sub> added at crush<\/p>\n Lot 2 \u2013 no SO2<\/sub> added at crush; but with enological tannins added<\/p>\n Lot 3 \u2013 made by conventional methods by adding SO2<\/sub> at crush and following MLF<\/p>\n Lot 3 had significantly higher color intensity and higher total phenol content (TPC) of the 3 lots. TPC is an important indicator of a wine\u2019s oxygen-scavenging potential, and therefore its aging potential. Lot 2 (with added enological tannins) had higher color intensity and TPC than Lot 1.<\/p>\n Surprisingly, Lot 3 had higher volatile acidity (VA). Even the author admits not understanding what could have caused this in a wine protected by SO2<\/sub>. But he concludes that Lot 2 had lower VA than Lot 1 and that, therefore, the enological tannins had a protective effect against oxidation. First, the error on VA measurements is greater than the noted differences, and so that conclusion cannot hold. Second, based on that argument, why wouldn\u2019t Lot 3 be showing lower VA since it had the highest TPC and SO2<\/sub>?<\/p>\n In a taste test, Lot 3 (pH 3.70) was noted to have detectable SO2<\/sub> although it had less than 10 mg\/L of free SO2<\/sub> as did Lots 1 and 2, both with a pH around 3.6. Even at those pH values, that little free SO2<\/sub> cannot be detected even by the most skilled tasters. Total SO2<\/sub> in Lot 3 was still only 29 mg\/L; Lots 1 and 2 were below the 15 mg\/L measurement\u00a0threshold. Given the relatively similar pH and free SO2<\/sub>, one has to wonder about how the sulfite additions were performed and how the taste test was conducted, but we know it was not done double-blind.<\/p>\n Lot 1 had significant oxidation aromas and smelled of cooked or jammy fruit. Lot 2 also had oxidation aromas, but much less so. Overall the aromas seemed very positive in Lot 2 although the mouthfeel was astringent and that it detracted from the overall balance of the wine, but that\u2019s to be expected in tasting the wine so soon after fermentation.<\/p>\n