The Australian Wine Research Institute

The Australian Wine Research Institute Blog

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.