The MW Dissertation (now MW Research Paper) is the final step in the testing trilogy of the Master of Wine exam. In the beginning, I thought it might be the easiest part because I was able to choose the subject, but I ultimately found it the most challenging. Yet despite frustration, anxiety, and incertitude, I also learned an incredible amount about research, data analysis, and critical thinking. My skills are more complete as a result of the experience, and I have also become a specialist in my subject.
My MW paper was part of the last group to be submitted under the dissertation format in June 2014. I spent a total of three years completing it. For the first 16 months, I was researching my first subject: trends in consumption of higher-quality Madeira within its two top historical export markets, the US and the UK. When my synopsis failed to properly take off, I changed course completely.
I had a lightbulb moment when the third Burgundian producer of a week-long visit told me he had begun experimenting with whole-cluster fermentation (which I will refer to as WCF), or the use of some whole bunches with stems during vinification. His hope was to increase complexity and balance in his wines. WCF is a technique as old as winemaking, but it was mostly replaced by destemming following WWII. I was intrigued by its resurgence as a regional trend.
I spent another year doing research before I wrote a synopsis that passed. I needed to understand WCF quite thoroughly before I could recognize which elements to address. I discovered a small number of producers had vinified a few experimental wines with and without WCF, and they were willing to give me bottles for a tasting. It was then that I was convinced I could make the subject work.
Once the synopsis passed, I spent another eight months on additional research, analysis, and writing before submission. Some days, I spent up to 14 hours working on my dissertation, so I cannot recommend strongly enough that students choose a subject they absolutely love, as this project will be their shadow and challenge them for a substantial amount of time.
As I learned with my Madeira experience, writing a passing synopsis is one of the most difficult components of the dissertation process. To move my topic from anecdotal to factual, I had to prove the increased use of WCF, illustrate whether it could influence wines both organoleptically and chemically, and identify whether the wines achieved the goals of the producers. I had to do all of this with a balanced approach. Any bias one way or the other would lead to failure.
In the end, my final synopsis proposed to investigate a number of subjects via a quantitative and qualitative study within 10,000 words. Through a survey, I would assess and measure current WCF practices in the Côte d’Or in terms of region (Côte de Nuits [CdN] versus Côte de Beaune [CdB]), increases/decreases in its use, and length of use. I would rank producers’ reasons to employ or refrain from WCF, percentages of WCF, and variances based on vineyards and vintages over 10 years (2003–2012). In addition, I would conduct a blind tasting to determine how WCF wines perform against the same wines produced with destemmed (which I will abbreviate as DS) grapes in terms of the winemakers’ objectives and other quality parameters. The tasting would further assess whether WCF is detectable and any wine preferences of the tasters. Finally, I would offer chemical analyses of the same wines produced with and without WCF to confirm any previously recognized notions of how WCF affects wines.
At the time, very little had been written on WCF even in oenological textbooks. Producers indicated it was not taught at their winemaking schools either. Most articles treated the information fairly superficially (i.e., consumer magazine articles and blogs rather than scientific studies). This made background research more challenging.
Several producers, including Maison Chanson and the Hospices de Beaune, had interns who carried out winemaking projects, comparing WCF and DS wines, for their own studies at the Université de Bourgogne in Dijon. I was able to access one of the theses in the university library and another from the student himself.
To study the history of WCF and DS approaches in vinification, I bought a number of winemaking books written in or about the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Bouchard Père & Fils reprinted one in 2004 called Mémoire de Dom Denise, moine cistercien, which was originally written in 1779 and recounts viticulture and vinification through the eyes of a Cistercian monk. The rest I purchased mostly used and “blind,” not knowing what actually was in them. Fortunately, the risk paid off even if it was only with a sentence or two. One helpful text was the reprint of Étude des vignobles de France pour servir à l’enseignment mutuel de la viticulture et de la vinfication françaises, Volume III (1876), by Jules Guyot. I also referred to scientific articles on lateral subjects such as stem tannins and carbonic maceration.
In order to gather background information during the synopsis research phase, I interviewed oenologists, viticultural experts, and 61 different producers. Among my interviewees were winemakers who employ WCF, such as Thibault Liger-Belair, Jeremy Seysses of Dujac, and Cécile Tremblay, and others who do not, including Étienne Grivot and Frédéric Mugnier, a former WCF proponent who decided to stop incorporating stems in the late 1990s.
These interviews informed the development of my survey. I used SurveyMonkey, which enabled excellent cross-analysis. For non-users of WCF, the survey needed to be short and poignant, as they were less interested in participating. My questions also had to be worded carefully in order to capture the right type of data. Various books guided me in this effort, particularly The Good Research Guide, by Martyn Denscombe. During interviews, I found that many producers struggled to explain the mental processes that led them to utilize WCF and referred only to their intuition (le feeling). I needed to make these processes concrete through revealing questioning. For example, I asked producers to identify the three vintages from 2003 to 2012 where they used the most and least WCF, and why. The questions were reviewed by Olivier Leriche, a long-term WCF practitioner who previously worked as manager of Domaine de l’Arlot. As the survey was in French, language was also checked.
The audience had to be a manageable but representative number. I focused only on winemakers who produced and bottled 10,000 bottles or more of their own Pinot Noir (which could be from purchased fruit) and who had email addresses for ease and accuracy of survey results. I also had to show that the producers on my list reflected the overall population within the region in terms of location as well as domaine size. Producers with both a domaine and a négociant business counted as only one to avoid duplicate answers (i.e., the same practices applied in both). The survey population totaled 605. I achieved responses from 245, a statistically significant number at 5% margin of error and 95% confidence, a common parameter for such types of research papers.
A tasting was held in London, Burgundy’s largest export market by value, with 13 Burgundy experts and professionals. The group included well-respected critics and journalists, such as Allen Meadows and Neal Martin, and buyers from leading UK-based wine importers, including Jasper Morris MW (Berry Bros. & Rudd), David Roberts MW (Goedhuis & Co.), Matthew Hemming MW (Averys of Bristol), and Alison Buchanon (Corney & Barrow). Other long-term Burgundy specialists and educators, such as Anthony Hanson MW, Richard Bampfield MW, and Michael Schuster, were also present.
WCF wines were tasted blind alongside wines that were produced with DS fruit from the same producers, vineyard, vine age and clone, and pick date(s). Aging, stabilization, and bottling needed to be identical. However, since wines with WCF are vinified somewhat differently, variances in fermentation temperatures and extraction techniques were allowed, permitting winemakers to present the best wines possible within each style, since this is what they would want to achieve commercially.
To help foster impartiality, most tasters were unaware of the subject and were asked to judge the pairs side by side based on producer goals plus other quality criteria. WCF percentages ranged from 26% to 100% among six pairs and one trio. The trio included 0%, 50%, and 100% WCF and became three pairs of comparisons: 0% to 50%, 0% to 100%, and 50% to 100%. All wines were premier or grand cru quality, representing the following vintages: 2000, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012.
All participants tasted the pre-poured pairs in random orders to discourage tasting trends based on the same preceding wines. Ron Jackson’s Wine Tasting: A Professional Handbook and AWRI professional tasting guidelines helped me to develop tasting questions that produced numerical results and to analyze those results for statistical significance. For example, I needed 10 tasters out of 13 to agree in order to deem a judgment “significant.”
For chemical analysis, three pairs that had not been part of the tasting were included in order to better test alcohol, total acidity, pH, and tannin/phenolic levels. Overall, analyses were provided for the trio and a total of nine pairs.
Due to the rarity of the wines, I was allowed to use the producers’ own lab results for the majority of the samples. These analyses were carried out when the wines were considered “finished,” with malolactic fermentation complete but before bottling. I organized analysis of one pair at Burgundia Oenologie, a local lab.
One issue I encountered was that producers did not necessarily test for the same things. All tests analyzed alcohol, and most included total acidity and pH. Only some measured Indice de Polyphénols Totaux (IPT), or “Total Phenolic Index,” and some others tested tannins. IPT includes all phenolics, not just tannins, so it is not as accurate, but the readings still indicated the differences between pairs.
From the 245 producers who responded, slightly under half reported WCF use. There had been a marked increase in WCF adoption in the previous decade, both individually and by number of AOCs. The majority by population (percent of users) were based in the CdN. Those in the CdB who used WCF were mostly Pinot Noir-dominant producers. Most practitioners (63%) applied WCF to only some wines, not all. However, a majority of producers who regularly destemmed had also experimented with or used WCF as part of a regular regime.
The use of WCF had not only been increasing overall but also in percentages employed, particularly among those who began using it within the previous 10 years. This suggested that more experience in WCF encouraged more understanding and confidence.
Stylistic considerations encouraged WCF more than practical or physical motivations. The top four reasons given for using WCF were: more overall complexity (79%); enhancement of red fruit/floral aromatics (49%); more tension/precision (38%); and better capacity to develop/age (38%).
The top three stylistic reasons producers decided not to use WCF were: avoiding herbaceous aromas/flavors (77%); too many or too astringent tannins (63%); and preference for their current style of wine (41%). WCF practitioners echoed many of these concerns but chose to take the risk.
The majority of WCF practitioners (83%) also varied the percentage of WCF used, mostly based on the vineyard and vintage. However, some based this only on vintage (second) and others only on vineyard (third). The vintages with the highest WCF tended to be those with more ripeness, healthy clusters, and millerandage. Those with the lowest tended to be those with less ripeness, poor sanitary conditions, or thick/high ratio of stems (also present in millerandage). Vineyards with the highest amount of WCF were typically viewed as: “higher quality” (riper, more concentrated fruit, mostly premiers and grands crus); those that produce tannic wines (WCF reinforces this character); and those with soils, such as clay, that produce broad, dense wines (WCF can add layers and “soften” wines). It became clear that not everyone was using WCF to produce the same style of wine.
Differences that tasters identified between DS and WCF wines were subtle, though some WCF wines attained more “significant” (10 of 13 tasters in agreement) judgements in winemaker objectives and quality parameters than DS wines. WCF wines had notably increased aromatic complexity, particularly those with 100% WCF. While WCF wines were generally determined to have a firmer structure than their DS counterparts, the magnitude of difference between 100% WCF and all WCF wines was minimal (only 4%). This suggests that the composition of stem tannins had a noticeable impact on mouthfeel even at lower percentages of WCF. However, “firmer tannins” were not always viewed as negative but also as “high quality.” WCF was recognized in some wines, though less so in riper or more aged wines. I concluded that WCF may synthesize qualitative elements, creating a more nuanced wine, but subtly.
Overall, it was shown that WCF influences wines as expected, generally lowering alcohol (as much as 0.5%) and acidity (as much as 0.4 g/l sulfuric) and increasing pH (as much as 0.13) as well as phenolic content (by 10 IPT, or as much as 1.1 g/l, of tannin). There were a few small exceptions as well, but further research would have been necessary to evaluate the reasons for them. In addition, chemical analyses do not always translate into expected organoleptic results. For example, the only WCF wine that had lower levels of phenolics compared to its DS partner was still perceived as having firmer tannins by most tasters.
As challenging and emotional as I found the dissertation process, I took so much away from the experience, particularly in terms of understanding research procedure and statistical significance. I was relieved that I was able to see clear-cut trends, but a few findings were unexpected. For instance, though it is common for winemakers to incorporate WCF in ripe vintages, some opted to use more in cooler vintages to soften acidity. In some cases, winemakers actually minimized use in ripe vintages, as the benefits of stems were difficult to sense amid the richness of fruit.
I was also able to highlight seven offshoot subjects for additional research for anyone who might be interested in carrying forth the torch. One that especially intrigues me is that of the exact aromas associated with WCF—in particular, which come from the stem and which from the berry, due to intracellular fermentation. None of this is currently well understood. I am launching a book project focused on WCF in Burgundy and beyond, and I hope to tackle this as one of its many subjects.
Robin Kick’s 2014 MW Dissertation was entitled, “An Emerging Renaissance? An Investigation of Whole Cluster Fermentation in Pinot Noir in the Côte d’Or.”
MW Research Papers can be found here. For MW Dissertations, please contact the IMW office at info@mastersofwine.org.
A wonderful and inspiring article of your journey! Well done!
Brilliant!
Awsome read and interesting subject. Thank you.
A wonderful peek into your process!Thanks for the information
Thanks, Robin. I'll be sure to contact Patrick.