"There Is No Such Thing As Wild Yeast Fermentation"

OK, so a couple of things. If one has used commercial yeast, and if it is dominant in competition, it will take over, I expect. Even if it isn't dominant in competition it will leave genetic traces--which is what I expect the study proves. Human beings also have genetic traces of Neanderthal man. That doesn't mean we're Neanderthals (jokes here are too easy to be bothered with).

Now, regardless of of evolutionary explanations--and I know I'm not the only or the geekiest bread maker on this board--anyone who can't taste the difference between bread made with starter and bread made with storebought yeast must lack a sense of smell and a sense of taste. I don't doubt my starter gets regularly affected by other yeast floating around, everytime I use it, but that's how natural yeast works.
 
Anyone have a cite to the original article (not WBM, but the journal)?

I have a bunch of questions, and Tom Wark is not the ideal source for answers.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Anyone have a cite to the original article (not WBM, but the journal)?

I have a bunch of questions, and Tom Wark is not the ideal source for answers.

Looks to be a masters thesis; the author matches the name given in a WBM blog:

 
Interesting. I can't parse all of it but I believe she observed that the wineries still had distinct populations from each other as well as non-package yeasts present in all stages. This would not support the alarmist rhetoric offered by Perdue/Wark; it may do more to reveal their prejudices.
 
". . . Yes, you have a strain that is identified as wild. But that strain is almost immediately overwhelmed by house yeast. Within the first few days of fermentation, they are gone. The commercial strains fight it out for domination."

But those first few days are quite important.

Also, can you really have a conversation about yeast anymore without also having a conversation about yeast nutrient? Everyone I know who adds yeast also adds DAP.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:

I have a bunch of questions, and Tom Wark is not the ideal source for answers.

Having skimmed the thesis, my previous statement requires more emphasis. The guy is the Glenn Beck of wine.
 
From the comments at Wark's blog:

"This article does not disprove the existence of wild yeast, it simply determines which strains are common in Willamette Valley pinot noir. While this would indeed be useful information, it does not prove that wild fermentation does not exist. It does prove that some people only see what they want to see. And it proves that bad-mouthing natural wine is a great way for wine writers to get attention."
 
originally posted by David Erickson:
From the comments at Wark's blog:

"This article does not disprove the existence of wild yeast, it simply determines which strains are common in Willamette Valley pinot noir. While this would indeed be useful information, it does not prove that wild fermentation does not exist. It does prove that some people only see what they want to see. And it proves that bad-mouthing natural wine is a great way for wine writers to get attention."

Given what he says it does not prove--one might go further and say it doesn't really argue those things--it's hard to see how his conclusion follows or indeed didn't actually precede any reading of the paper.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by David Erickson:
From the comments at Wark's blog:

"This article does not disprove the existence of wild yeast, it simply determines which strains are common in Willamette Valley pinot noir. While this would indeed be useful information, it does not prove that wild fermentation does not exist. It does prove that some people only see what they want to see. And it proves that bad-mouthing natural wine is a great way for wine writers to get attention."

Given what he says it does not prove--one might go further and say it doesn't really argue those things--it's hard to see how his conclusion follows or indeed didn't actually precede any reading of the paper.

Today I skimmed Wark's blog for the first time and given the tendentious writing I am not surprised to find his headline not matching the facts.

"strains are common in Willamette Valley pinot noir" is very limiting to any conclusion, much less the one Wark leaps to.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by SFJoe:

I have a bunch of questions, and Tom Wark is not the ideal source for answers.

Having skimmed the thesis, my previous statement requires more emphasis. The guy is the Glenn Beck of wine.
But thanks, Steve, for the real thing.
 
originally posted by John Kafarski:
Let us also not forget the wise Tom Wark's fascination with comparing wine distributors to Nazis.

is ok. turd's blog is merely "set inside inside the world of wine..." in the same way that star trek was set in teh universe, and the simpsons was set in springfield.

it's true that the random chunks of polystyrene in the former and the yellow skinned wiener heads of the latter made for a more believable backdrop, but the fact is, they weren't having to deal with all that having to "mingle" that makes teh turd blog special...

uh, just so you don't be goin gettin your factions confused with your fictions in all this shit.

fb.

fps. fwiw, i have no idea what "mingling" is a euphemism for in teh contex of teh turd blog. what is way worse is that neither does teh fatsink. and he is a sink of teh wurld. since we have a healthy dose of perverts on teh board (including southpaws, it would appear), surely one of you must know?
 
No such thing as wild yeast fermentation? Total nonsense. (These are Wark's words, not Lange's, so far as I know).

I'm not disputing that the BC study found what it found, nor am I saying that the data were mishandled. I am saying that other studies have shown that there is such a thing as wild yeast fermentation. So say the scientists, not Teh Natural Wine Taliban.

Y'all remember this study: Gayevskiy and Goddard analyzed 274 different genotypes of S. cerevisiae isolated in NZ vineyards with the database of 79 commercial wine strains commonly used in NZ, but only seven of the 274 genotypes closely resembled a commercial strain (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3379632/). They conclude, "spontaneous ferments are not driven by 'escaped' commercial isolates, even in large commercial wineries that also run parallel inoculated ferments (as was the case here), but driven by a diversity of natural isolates."

Constanti et al (Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1997) found that "S. cerevisiae MF01 [the yeast used in year one of the study to inoculate] competed with indigenous strains in both fermentations during the second year (uninoculated Garnatxa and inoculated Xarel.lo musts), although it did not completely suppress their growth. MF02 and MF03, mainly present in Garnatxa must, dominated this fermentation at different stages." So noncommercial yeasts made headway and competed with commercial yeast. This suggests that, over time, indigenous strains of S. cerevisiae could compete with or overtake ambient commercial yeasts in a winery, should the winemaker choose to stop inoculating.

And then Torija et al ("Yeast population dynamics in spontaneous fermentations: Comparison between two different wine-producing areas over a period of three years," http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11816978) found that in four wineries that had never used starter cultures, S. cerevisiae populations changed from year to year. The number of strains found during fermentation in each area in one year was around 30, yet over the course of three years, 112 strains were identified. Over the years, strains came, strains went. Moreover, no single strain dominated throughout fermentation. Rather, new strains of S. cerevisiae were found at various stages of the fermentation, while some strains that had been found during the early stages were not to be found in later stages.

To recap: S. cerevisiae strains in the wild have been found to mostly differ from their commercial cousins; wild strains may eventually dominate over commercial strains if a winemaker chooses to stop inoculating; and if you don't overwhelm your must with one or two or three strains of commercial yeast, then perhaps 30 indigenous strains will act upon the must. Which means to me that the notion that there's "no such thing as wild yeast fermentation" is total nonsense.
 
Interesting. The obvious question is what happens with an inoculated ferment. Do wild strains in the environment compete with the strain used to inoculate? Is there any such thing as a purely inoculated fermentation?
 
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
Interesting. The obvious question is what happens with an inoculated ferment. Do wild strains in the environment compete with the strain used to inoculate? Is there any such thing as a purely inoculated fermentation?
Sure, why not? Sterilize the must with heat or SO2 and add an overwhelming innoculum. The selected commercial yeast (which as someone notes on the blog, are just isolated individual natural strains) grow fast, and other stuff never catches up.

Kay is focused on the beginning of fermentation and the extra flavors you can get from the very diverse population that tolerates high sugar and low alcohol. Technologists are focused on the end of fermentation, to be sure they get to the end and generate a stable product.
 
Did someone ask for the original thesis? I have it.
There's so much wrong with this study--such as side by side fermentations--three against one native---on top of the sulfuring all the batches to 40ppm --enough to knock out too much of the yeast population in the native---which is being ganged up by not only strong presence of yeasts in the winery but new nearby inoculations.

The study only can talk to if you do side by side fermentations is the native influenced?

since the WBM story came out (where that writer gets his conclusions..) I've received two emails from winemakers--why even bother with native. The silliest quotes in the article IMO come from Ken Wright, supposedly a winemaker of some repute.

If you want a copy of thesis email me.
 
Put it into google translate (English to English) and got this: The study only if you can talk to the side by side is the native fermentations influenced?
 
Back
Top