Page 58 – The Australian Wine Research Institute

The Australian Wine Research Institute Blog

The Australian Wine Research Institute appoints a new Chairman

11 November 2001 >

On 6 November 2001, the Chairman of The Australian Wine Research Institute, Mr Doug McWilliam, retired from the position as Chairman, and will retire as a member of the Council of the Institute on 31 December 2001. Mr McWilliam had been a valued member of Council since 1987, and had a distinguished tenure as Chairman from 1 January 1992. “The Institute and its staff are at the front line of Oenological research and my position as chairman has provided me a wonderful opportunity to be both involved and to try to give back something to an industry which has been so generous to me personally”, said Mr McWilliam. “It has been a very satisfying experience to see the Institute grow, as it has over the past 10 years, in both size and service to our industry. The great interest in our technical conferences is ample testimony to the Institute’s success”.

The Council of the Institute appointed Mr Robin Day to the position of Chairman of the Institute. Mr Day, who has been a member of Council since 1987 has a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Adelaide), and a Bachelor of Applied Science (Wine Science) (Charles Sturt). He is the International Wine Development Director for Pernod Ricard, and runs an international winemaking consulting business, Domain Day Consulting. Mr Day is a board member of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation and the National Wine Centre, Chairman of the Corporation’s Compliance Committee, a national and international wine show judge, and has 27 years of production and R&D experience in the Australian wine industry.

“As the new Council Chairman, I am looking forward to working with the members of the Institute’s Council to enhance research and development outputs from the Institute to the benefit to the Australian wine industry”, said Mr Day “The Australian wine industry currently receives excellent ‘bang for its buck’ and I know that this will continue at the Institute, however, the Institute will seek further resources to place even greater emphasis on outputs on the ‘D’ side of the R&D equation in the future. It will also continue to provide value to the Australian wine industry with its pro-active problem-solving technical service to Australian winemakers and continually find innovative ways for information dissemination.”

The Australian Wine & Brandy Corporations Agricultural Chemical Residue Survey

11 October 2001 >

Each year since 1992 the AWBC has commissioned a survey of Australian wines for the presence of agricultural chemical residues. Samples are drawn from the wide range of wines submitted to the AWBC for routine export inspection. Sampling is not entirely random in that there is an emphasis on selecting wines produced from grape varieties and wine regions that are particularly prone to disease and therefore more likely to produce a positive result for chemical residues.

The 2000/2001 survey tested 230 wines for a range of 28 commonly used herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. No wine was found to contain a residue approaching the relevant MRL (maximum residue limit) for Australia. The testing will continue throughout 2001/2002 on an even larger number of samples.

This information is provided to inform the wine industry of agrochemical product information, and should not be interpreted as an endorsement.

Switch Fungicide export WHP update

27 August 2001 >

Switch Fungicide was granted registration by the National Registration Authority in late 2000 for the control of grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) in grapevines.

Switch is a Syngenta product, and contains two active constituents, cyprodinil and fludioxonil. Cyprodinil is a Group I (anilinopyrimidine) fungicide and fludioxonil is a Group L (phenylpyrrole) fungicide.

Previously, it was recommended that Switch should not be used after 80% capfall if the grapes were destined for wine to be sold overseas. This allowed for one to two sprays up to 80% capfall, as indicated on the label.

This restriction has now been ammended so that:

For export grapes, Switch can be applied as a single application prior to the commencement of bunch closure (E-L 31), but should not be applied within 60 days of harvest.

Switch should not be applied at both flowering and growth stage E-L 31.

Note: E-L 31 is the grapevine growth stage when berries are pea-sized (7mm diameter). Refer to Coombe, B. (1995) Grapevine growth stages – The modified E-L system. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research (1) pp 100-110.

This information is provided to inform the wine industry of agrochemical product information, and should not be interpreted as an endorsement.

New Research Resources for Successful National Industry

12 August 2001 >

The Wine Industry Capability and Research Effort To Be Boosted By The Award of A Major Grant Under The Federal Government’s Major National Research Facilities Program.

The Federal Minister for Industry Science and Resources, the Honorable Nick Minchin today announced the successful applicants under the Federal Government’s Major National Research Facilities program.

A bid for a ‘National Wine Research Cluster’ spearheaded by the Adelaide – based Australian Wine Research Institute and CSIRO Plant Industry was amongst the successful proposals.

The Commonwealth Government will contribute $4.5 million to the bid and the South Australian Government $700,000 dollars.

An additional $2.5 million cash is contributed by the partners in the bid, namely The Australian Wine Research Institute, CSIRO, The South Australian Research and Development Institute, The University of Adelaide and the Grape and Wine R&D corporation and Charles Sturt University. The Cooperative Research Centre for Viticulture will contribute in-kind support as will all other partners.

This facility will strengthen the national capacity to perform grape and wine research in support of our rapidly expanding wine industry. There is funding for both building expansions and purchase of state of the art analytical, fermentation and harvesting equipment.

“The availability of such new infrastructure is crucial and will secure better returns on public and private funding in industry focussed research.” said Mr Robin Day, a Director of Orlando-Wyndham and a member of the bid team.

“It will deliver knowledge, recommendations and services which allow wine industry practitioners to manage vineyards and wineries to specified market requirements with consequent growth in exports and employment (direct and indirect), largely in regional Australia” said Professor Peter Høj, Director of The Australian Wine Research Institute.

“This facility makes the Australian wine industry’s commitment to a knowledge-based approach to wine manufacturing even more powerful and will accelerate the application of research outcomes to key constituents of the final product” said Dr Nigel Scott, Deputy Chief of CSIRO Plant Industry

First results of the AWRI wine bottle closure trial published 12 July 2001

12 July 2001 >

The Australian Wine Research Institute is pleased to announce the first publication of results arising from the AWRI trial of the technical performance of various wine bottle closures, in the June 2001 issue of the Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research (AJGWR), which has been distributed today. This report is considered to be of major importance to the Australian wine industry and to closure manufacturers and suppliers.

A Semillon wine was bottled under controlled conditions on 26^th May 1999, using 14 different closures: a screw-cap type, two grades of conventional cork, two types of ‘technical’ cork (natural cork with a synthetic component), and nine closures manufactured from synthetic polymer material. During the 20 months following bottling, the physical aspects of the closures’ performance, and the chemical and sensory changes in wine sealed with each of the closures has been assessed periodically. The study is ongoing, with sufficient wine bottled for up to 10 years of testing.

It is apparent from the results to date that many of the closures trialled are suited to short term (approximately 6 to 12 months) storage of wines, but for longer time periods there is doubt over particular closures’ abilities to act as an adequate seal, with consequent effects on sulfur dioxide (SO₂) levels in the wine, browning, and on oxidised aroma. No one closure tested in this study could be considered entirely suitable by all criteria assessed, for the long-term storage of wine.

Wine sealed with the screw cap retained the greatest concentration of SO₂ and ascorbic acid, and had the slowest rate of browning. For other closures, the trend of SO₂ loss relative to wine sealed with the screw cap was apparent from an early stage, and was most evident in the group of synthetic closures, intermediate in the conventional corks, and least evident with the technical corks. The concentration of SO₂ was a strong predictor of future browning in the wine.

After 12 months of storage, wine in bottles sealed with the closures showing the lowest SO₂ concentration were rated as sufficiently high in oxidised aroma to consider them as markedly lower in quality. For closures with intermediate SO₂ concentration at this time, there were diminished ratings in the fruit sensory attributes, and increased developed aroma. Whilst TCA taint was a noticeable problem for some cork and technical corks, any plastic-type taint appeared not to be a problem with most synthetic closures, with one notable exception. After 18 months of storage a rubber-like aroma had developed in wine sealed with the screw cap closure.

The closures differed widely in regard to physical characteristics, and in general synthetic corks appeared least ‘consumer-friendly’ in terms of the forces and energy required to extract them from the bottles and from a corkscrew, and in the ease of manual reinsertion into the bottleneck.

For a range of performance criteria, the technical corks were found to exhibit less variability than synthetic closures which in turn tended to be less variable than the natural cork closures.

Copies of the publication can be obtained by contacting Ms Val Rechner at the AJGWR, PO Box 197 Glen Osmond, SA, 5064. tel:08 8303 6607, fax: 08 8303 6803 asvo@waite.adelaide.edu.au

Other enquiries should be directed to:

Winemaker and Manager – Industry Services, and project leader
Peter Godden
tel: 08 83 03 66 00
Peter.Godden@awri.com.au

Director of the Institute
Peter Høj
tel: 08 83 03 66 11

Quality Liaison Manager
Mark Gishen
Mark.Gishen@awri.com.au

The Australian Wine Research Institute Denies Claims That It Has Endorsed Nukorc’s Wine Bottle Closure

5 February 2001 >

The Australian Wine Research Institute has become aware that reports have appeared in various media, including the Adelaide Advertiser and various wine industry websites, that The Australian Wine Research Institute has endorsed NuKorc’s wine bottle closure.

An article appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser of 20 January 2001, an extract of which stated:

“Mr Dolling said NuKorc’s edge was that its closures were extruded from continuous lengths of polyethylene and cut to fit the bottle rather than moulded. Scientists at the Australian Wine Research Institute claim NuKorc’s product is the ‘most technically correct synthetic closure available’. The synthetic corks had an even cell structure compared to moulded corks and held to the bottle wall better, keeping oxygen out, Mr Dolling said”.

NuKorc, through Mr Ben Atkins, has indicated that it would never make such a statement, and has written to the Adelaide Advertiser denying that Mr Dolling made the statement regarding The Australian Wine Research Institute.

On “News and Views” at http://www.decanter.com NuKorc is reported as saying:

“their extruded stopper (it is made in a long ‘sausage’ and then cut up) is denser than rival Supremecorq, which is moulded. Backed by detailed scientific analysis from the Australian Wine Research Institute, they claim it is ‘the most technically correct synthetic closure available’ “

Press releases on the Wine Pros and Vintage Cellars Australia websites, report Mr Dolling of NuKorc at a London tasting as saying:

“We believe that NuKorc is the most technically correct closure available because its microcell structure is more even and dense than our moulded competitors”.

The report goes on to say:

“The wines presented were backed by detailed analysis from the Australian Wine Research Institute.”

The Australian Wine Research Institute has never made any claim to the effect that NuKorc’s product is the most technically correct synthetic closure available, and is most concerned at the appearance of incorrect media reports that it has done so. As an independent industry body The Australian Wine Research Institute considers it to be of the greatest importance that its reputation not be compromised by having incorrect assertions of its support for commercial products appear in the press. The Australian Wine Research Institute hopes that this press release will be sufficient to prevent any further such reports being published, and at the same time rectify any wrong impressions that the media reports may have created.

MR PETER GODDEN
Winemaker and Manager Industry Services

PROF. PETER HØJ
Director
The Australian Wine Research Institute

Telephone: 08 83 03 66 00; fax: 08 83 03 66 01; email: Peter.Godden@awri.com.au and Peter.Hoj@awri.com.au

Use of Mimic (tebufenozide) for control of lightbrown apple moth

1 September 1999 >

Mimic 700 WP is a product registered by Bayer for the control of lightbrown apple moth. The active constituent in Mimic is tebufenozide.

This fact sheet addresses the use of Mimic after 80% capfall.

Q. Why does The Australian Wine Research Institute recommend that applications of Mimic be restricted to before 80% capfall?

A. The recommendations have been developed to satisfy the lowest maximum residue limit (MRL) for any of Australia’s major wine markets after considering available data on the persistence of tebufenozide, both on grapes and through winemaking.

It is known that if Mimic is sprayed onto grapes late in the season (after 80% capfall), residues of tebufenozide may be detectable in the resultant wine.

Some of the markets to which Australia exports wine have a very low MRL for tebufenozide, or alternatively, have not announced their position on the course of action they would take if tebufenozide was detected in wine.

To ensure that Australian wine meets MRLs set by all of these markets, the 80% capfall restriction was recommended to grapegrowers.

Q. Are there exceptions to this restriction?

A. Yes. Mimic can be used after 80% capfall in consultation with the winery/grape purchaser.

A winery may choose to ignore the restriction if the wine made from the grapes will only be sold in Australia, or to an export market that has an MRL greater than the expected residue, or if the market otherwise permits residues of tebufenozide. You can check the MRLs for various markets by clicking here. Wine, grapes and juice can be tested by The Institute to determine the concentration of tebufenozide.

The label withholding period is the minimum delay that should be observed between spraying the grapes and their harvest.

This information is provided to inform the wine industry of agrochemical product information, and should not be interpreted as an endorsement.

Use of Scala fungicide after 80% capfall

10 January 1999 >

Scala 400 SC Fungicide is a product registered by AgrEvo Pty Ltd for the control of bunch rot (grey mould) in grapevines. Bunch rot is caused by the fungus Botrytis cinerea . The active constituent in Scala is pyrimethanil which is a Group I fungicide.

This fact sheet addresses the use of Scala after 80% capfall.

Q. Why does The Australian Wine Research Institute currently recommend that applications of Scala be restricted to before 80% capfall?

A. The recommendations have been developed to satisfy the lowest maximum residue limit (MRL) for any of Australia’s major wine markets after considering available data on the persistence of pyrimethanil, both on grapes and through winemaking.

It is known that if Scala is sprayed onto grapes late in the season (after 80% capfall), residues of pyrimethanil may be detectable in the resultant wine (Cabras et al., 1997).

Some of the markets to which Australia exports wine have a very low MRL for pyrimethanil, or alternatively, have not announced their position on the course of action they would take if pyrimethanil was detected in wine.

To ensure that Australian wine meets MRLs set by all of these markets, the 80% capfall restriction was recommended to grapegrowers.

Q. Can Scala be used after 80% capfall?

A. Scala can be used after 80% capfall if the wine made from the grapes will only be sold in Australia, or to an export market that has an MRL greater than 0.1 mg/kg or otherwise permits residues of pyrimethanil. You can check the MRLs for various markets by clicking here.

Some grapegrowers may be forced to use Scala late in the season due to a lack of effective alternative fungicides, even though the wine is destined for markets with MRLs less than 0.1 mg/kg. In such cases, the winery should have the wine analysed for residues of pyrimethanil prior to bottling, to determine if a potential problem exists.

Reference:
Cabras, P.; Angioni, A.; Garau, V.L.; Melis, M.; Pirisi, F.M.; Minelli, E.V.; Cabitza, F.; Cubeddu, M. 1997. Fate of some new fungicides (cyprodonil, fludioxonil, pyrimethanil, and tebuconazole) from vine to wine. J Agric. Food Chem.; 45:2708-2710.

This information is provided to inform the wine industry of agrochemical product information, and should not be interpreted as an endorsement.

Username
Password

	Remember Me Lost your password? Sustainable Winegrowing Australia: click here to log in