Style Design History

Comparative Assessment of Rhubarbs

2001 & 2002
Bins 58 & 68

Aims

The 2001 Rhubarb aimed to allow the rhubarb to speak for itself.

The 2002 Rhubarb aimed at a fatter, more luscious style of wine (specific aims were: 13% abv, pH 3.3, TA 6.5 (<7), long sur lie (>6 months) and bâtonnage ageing).


Leaf petiole ("Fruit")

Measure 2001 2002
Rhubarb source North Yorkshire, England (1) North Yorkshire, England
(2) supermarket (Sainsburys)
Rhubarb quantity 230 g/l (1.9 lb/US gal.; 2.3 lb/Imp gal.) (1) 100 g/l (0.8 lb/US gal.; 1 lb/Imp gal.)
(2) 90 g/l
Rhubarb quality good, pure rhubarb juice SG 1.021 (Brix 6.2) (1) pure rhubarb juice SG 1.021; softer and sweeter aroma, better flavour, higher acid
(2) pure rhubarb juice SG 1.022; stronger, sharper, greener character
Grape juice quantity
(SG 1.062, Brix 15.2)		 215 ml/l (1.7 pt/US gal.; 1.7 pt/Imp gal.) 50 ml/l (0.4 pt/US gal.; 0.4 pt/Imp gal.)


Crush and Must Preparation

2001: Individual parcels of rhubarb were placed in an electric blender with 75 mg/l SO2. Water was added and the mixture blended, then pressed through a wire mesh. This process was repeated 4 times. Grape juice was added, and sugar was added bringing the total SG to 1.095 (Brix 22.5). Yeast nutrient and pectin destroying enzyme were added. TA 5.8 g/l.

2002: Individual rhubarb parcels were cut and placed in an electric blender and blended with water. The extract was then pressed in a wire mesh. This process was repeated 5 times. The grape juice was added, followed by sugar bringing the SG to 1.100 (Brix 23.6). pH 3.2, TA 4.0 g/l (as tartaric). A 50/50 tartaric/malic acid blend was added to raise the TA by 2.5 g/l. New pH 2.9. Pectin destroying enzyme and yeast nutrient were added.


Inoculation

2001: The must was inoculated with S. cerevisiae, Narbonne selection, CC strain (Gervin's Varietal B). A strain designed for young fruity bouqueted wines, it starts easily and ferments down to 10°C (50°F) forming fruity esters at low temperatures.

2002: The must was inoculated with S. cerevisiae GVN strain (Gervin's No.5), a French strain selected for fruity table wines.


Fermentation

2001: Fermentation lasted 6 weeks at 16-21°C (61-70°F).

2002: Fermentation temperature averaged 16°C (61°F). The wine was taken towards a reductive state, with lees stirring conducted a few times as the wine approached SG 1.000 (Brix 1.6) - 5 weeks after inoculation.


Clarification and Racking

2001
1st racking: 6 weeks after inoculation the wine was racked at SG 1.006 (Brix 2.9) and sulphited.
2nd racking: 4 months later the wine was racked and sulphited again.
Fining: 6 months later the wine was bentonite fined at 0.14 g/l (19 oz/1000 US gal.; 22 oz/1000 Imp.gal.).
3rd racking: 5 months later the wine was racked.
Bottling: 5 months later the wine was bottled.

2002
1st racking: 5 weeks after inoculation the wine was racked at SG 1.000 (Brix 1.6) and sulphited with 25 mg/l to obtain 0.8 mg/l molecular SO2.
Lees stirring: Most yeast lees was kept in the post-racked wine, the racking serving more as an oxygen exposure. The wine was then led again towards a reductive state with lees stirring conducted an average of once every 2 days.
2nd racking: 3 months later the wine was racked more violently at SG 0.994 (Brix 0.3) and 10 mg/l SO2 was added. This time much of the lees was left behind, leaving only very fine yeast lees. After racking the wine still showed some reductive notes and thus had air bubbled through it. Lees stirring was conducted an average of once every 3 days for a further 6 weeks only.
Fining and adjustments: 3 months later the wine was racked. The free SO2 was 24 mg/l (0.9 mg/l molecular). The TA was reduced with calcium carbonate by 0.5 g/l. The wine was fined with bentonite at 0.1 g/l. The finish was slightly bitter (due to sur lie ageing) and the edge was taken off this with the additional fining of 0.09 g/l PVPP.
Bottling: 2 months later the free SO2 was 19 mg/l (0.7 mg/l molecular). 13 mg/l SO2 was added upon bottling to account for oxidation due to bottle ullage and leave 0.6-0.8 mg/l molecular SO2 in the bottle.


Deviations

The following comments regard procedures in the winemaking that would in future be conducted/avoided if possible:

2001
  • Whilst no ill effects were noticed, the fining would preferably have been sooner followed by a racking.


    • 2002
  • A third racking following fining would have been preferable and was not conducted due to winemaker circumstances.
  • Whilst no ill effects were noticed, some residual sugar remained in the wine and it finished fermenting whilst undergoing lees stirring. In future this would be avoided due to the enhanced risk of undesirable spoilage organisms developing in a sugar rich lees environment.
  • Further controlled oxidation (such as at a third racking) may have been desirable to combat reductive lees notes. Using lees that is two or more months old may be desirable in reducing such potential problems in future.
    •


    Tasting

    20012002
    Colour: Clear, grey-green colour with a slight green tinge. Pale yellow colour.
    Nose: Soft yet penetrating rhubarb aroma (almost melon/stone fruit like character). Delicate rhubarb aroma with a chalky note.
    Palate: Well integrated sweetness, light bodied with a smooth mouthfeel, low-moderate acidity and a rhubarb flavour with good length. Flavours develop over a fairly wide, dry, medium bodied, very slightly bitter palate of good weight and great length.

    Comparative tasting notes:
    The 2001 is leaner, more precise and possesses a more powerful, sharper rhubarb-focused nose.

    The 2002 has a tighter nose, showing a soft rhubarb aroma with a distinct chalk (mineral) note and a slightly earthy character. Lees stirring contributed width and some weight to the palate. In particular, the palate appears more complex and there is more development of flavours across the palate, ending in greater length than the 2001.


    Final analysis

    Measure20012002
    Alc/Vol: 11.5% 12.5%
    TA: 5.8 g/l 6.9 g/l
    pH: 3.05 3.34
    Residual sugar: SG 1.006 (Brix 2.9) SG 0.994 (Brix 0.3)
    Final product (2001 left and 2002 right)


    Conclusions on stylistic differences

    Both styles serve a purpose. The sweeter 2001 might serve better as a dessert wine, though in future more fruit aroma and flavour would be desired for such a style. The drier and more complex 2002 benefited from lees stirring (complexity and length), but did require more oxygen exposure during maturation to open up and to avoid reductive notes.

    www.brsquared.org/wine