Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:11:02.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Brettanomics I: The Cost of Brettanomyces in California Wine Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2020

Julian M. Alston
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Robert Mondavi Institute Center for Wine Economics, and Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA95616; e-mail: jmalston@ucdavis.edu.
Torey Arvik
Affiliation:
Jackson Family Wines, Santa Rosa, CA95403; e-mail: torey.arvik@wholevine.com.
Jarrett Hart*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Agricultural Issues Center, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA95616
James T. Lapsley
Affiliation:
Agricultural Issues Center, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA95616; e-mail: jtlapsley@ucdavis.edu.
*
e-mail: jdhart@ucdavis.edu (corresponding author).

Abstract

The yeast, Brettanomyces bruxellensis (Brett) is a significant cause of quality defects associated with red wine spoilage. At least some wine producers spend significant resources to prevent, detect, and mitigate damage from Brett, and many express concern about it, but some producers and consumers say they like it in small doses. Brett damage is especially of concern in premium red wine and has become more of a concern to producers in recent years as consumers have become better informed about it. We combine information from diverse sources to develop an initial understanding of the economics of Brettanomyces and management practices to mitigate its consequences. An analysis of detailed confidential data from three wineries in California reveals that at least some wineries are incurring significant costs to reduce the risk of infection with Brettanomyces. Some other wineries that opt not to spend so much on prevention are incurring higher costs in treating infected wines and in lost value from wines being downgraded to lower-valued blends. Results from an online survey of industry participants reinforce the analysis of the detailed data from the three wineries and suggest that the findings may be indicative of conditions more generally across the industry. (JEL Classifications: D22, D24, L66)

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful comments and advice from an anonymous reviewer. The authors also extend their gratitude towards the wineries and anonymous sources that provided insight, data, and anecdotes. The work for this project was partly supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2011-51181-30635 (the VitisGen project). The authors are grateful for this support. Views expressed are solely the authors’.

References

Boulton, R. B., Singleton, V. L., Bisson, L. F., and Kunkee, R. E. (1999). Principles and Practices of Winemaking. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffon, P., Heymann, H., and Block, D. E. (2014). Sensory and chemical effects of cross-flow filtration on white and red wines. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 65, 305314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cibrario, A., Sertier, C. M., Riquier, L., de Revel, G., Masneuf-Pomarède, I., Ballestra, P., and Dols-Lafargue, M. (2019). Cellar temperature affects Brettanomyces bruxellensis population and volatile phenols production in Bordeaux aging wines. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, doi:10.5344/ajev.2019.19029.Google Scholar
Lapsley, J. T., Alston, J. M., and Sambucci, O. (2019). The U.S. wine industry. In Ugaglia, A. A., Albisu, L. M., Cardebat, J.-M., Corsi, A., Gil, C., and Mazzarino, S. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Wine Industry Economics (ch. 5). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McRae, J. M., Mierczynska-Vasilev, A., Soden, A., Barker, A. M., Day, M. P., and Smith, P. A. (2017). Effect of commercial-scale filtration on sensory and colloidal properties of red wines over 18 months bottle-aging. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 68(3), 263274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millet, V., and Lonvaud-Funel, A. (2000). The viable but non-culturable state of wine micro-organisms during storage. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 30(2), 136141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (2014). Code of good vitivinicultural practices in order to avoid or limit contamination by Brettanomyces. OIV Technical Standards and Documents, November. Available at http://www.oiv.int/public/medias/4831/code-brett-oiv-oeno-462-2014-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Oswald, T. A., and Edwards, C. G. (2017). Interactions between storage temperature and ethanol that affect growth of Brettanomyces bruxellensis in merlot wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 68, 188194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perotti-Brown, L. (2016). Taken with a pinch of wine faults. Wine Advocate, September. Available at https://winejournal.robertparker.com/taken-with-a-pinch-of-wine-faults.Google Scholar
Varela, C., Bartel, C., Roach, M., Borneman, A., and Curtin, C. (2019). Brettanomyces bruxellensis SSU1 haplotypes confer different levels of sulfite tolerance when expressed in a Saccharomyces cerevisiae SSU1 null mutant. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 85(4), e02429–18.Google Scholar
White, K. (2018). The everything guide to Brettanomyces. SevenFiftyDaily (GuildSomm), April. Available at https://daily.sevenfifty.com/the-everything-guide-to-brettanomyces/.Google Scholar
Wikipedia (2018). Brettanomyces. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brettanomyces.Google Scholar
Zoeklein, B. W., Fugelsang, K. C., Gump, B. H., and Nury, F. S. (1999). Wine Analysis and Production. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar