What is the point of barrels?

We've all seen winery cellars stocked with oak barrels for aging wine. They're expensive but are they necessary?

Do they do anything that micro-oygenation and oak chips or staves can't achieve better and considerably cheaper?

Hi Peter,
Concentrate the wine in a natural way.

Salute

Peter, Hi...

Hypotheses I: Wines developed with oak chips or staves will not age as well as wines developed in barrels.

Hypotheseis II: The use of chips, especially with white wines, makes it especially difficult to avoid the development of volatile acidity

Hypothesis III: The use of chips encourages a "sharper" note of wood influence that tends to linger and not integrate into the other flavors of the wine.

Hypothesis IV: The use of chips and staves, because both "release" their impact on the wine earlier than barrels, tends to accentuate the tannins and the woody notes more than barrel aging.

Not to misunderstand - I am not "against" the use of staves and chips but am i favor primarily for wines meant to be consumed fairly young (2 - 5 years from vintage) and perhaps lacking in the complexities that a barrel. All of which is just fine for every day and even good quaffers. Also important to note that the wise choice of barrels (location of the forest, level of toasting, years of prior use, etc) is more flexible with barrels than with either chips or staves.

Best
Rogov

Hypothesis III: The use of chips encourages a "sharper" note of wood influence that tends to linger and not integrate into the other flavors of the wine.

Hypothesis IV: The use of chips and staves, because both "release" their impact on the wine earlier than barrels, tends to accentuate the tannins and the woody notes more than barrel aging.

Best
Rogov

Totally agree. I'm very good friends with a winemaker here in Maryland who has experimented with barrels vs. chips and staves and having drunk many bottles of both "styles", agree with both Hypothesis III and IV.

Drew

Anyone have any ideas why a stave made up in the shape of a barrel should impart a different properties than a stave sitting in the wine?

I don't like overt oak flavours in a wine whether they come from chips, staves or new barrels. Very discreet oak which is more felt than tasted can be attractive. Perhapsit may be possible to achieve that subtle effect with chips and staves, with the proviso that Rogov's Hypothesis iii & iv would mean that extremely deft handling would be required. We seem to be some way off at present.

It seems generally accepted that oak barrels contributed to the structure and feel of the wine through its breathing. This can be achieved by used barrels which have the benefit (for the likes of me) of sharply reducing and even eliminating (after two or three times) overt oak flavours. Perhaps the same effect can be achieved by micro-oxygenation but does anyone know of experiments which demonstrate this?

In general, I suspect that chips and staves are only used where overt oak flavours are sought.

Anyone have any ideas why a stave made up in the shape of a barrel should impart a different properties than a stave sitting in the wine?

Steve, Hi......

The barrel allows for a certain desirable level of micro-odixation. The staves are inserted into stainless steel vats and tanks and those do not allow for the required level of air exchange.

Best
Rogov

Anyone have any ideas why a stave made up in the shape of a barrel should impart a different properties than a stave sitting in the wine?

Steve, Hi......

The barrel allows for a certain desirable level of micro-odixation. The staves are inserted into stainless steel vats and tanks and those do not allow for the required level of air exchange.

Best
Rogov

Yes, I realise that, but Peter's question was explicitly phrased to include controlled micro-oxygenation in stainless steel.

Steve, Hi....

Keeping the possibility of controlled micro-oxidation in stainless steel or other inert containers in mind I would suggest that the major differences would come about because of surface exposure to and absorption potential from the staves or chips. True, with staves one can calulate the exposure to mulitple surfaces but I have yet to encounter staves whose toasting will replicate that of barrels.

Best
Rogov

My guess is that what happens in a barrel is actually very difficult to recreate via other methods. Even if you take oak flavor out of the equation - as happens with old, neutral barrels - I think the type of exchange you get through the walls of a barrel involve much more than just oxygen getting in. There's also a combination of alcohol, water, and probably some other small molecules getting out of the barrel. This results in a pretty complex situation that the addition of air or oxygen in a more "artificial" (for lack of a better word) manner can't match.

Just my guess, though.

I agree with Mike that it is likely to be difficult to simulate the conditions in a barrel. But you would think that the expense of new oak barrels would be a big incentive to do the necessary work.

I also find it difficult to believe that what happened to be the most readily available container some centuries ago just happens to provide the ideal conditions - with work it should be possible to improve on oak barrels. Providing we can agree on the desirable qualities of a wine that is - without referring back to the method of production.

I also find it difficult to believe that what happened to be the most readily available container some centuries ago just happens to provide the ideal conditions - with work it should be possible to improve on oak barrels.

Probably not. But it provided the conditions that we have all become accustomed to, and have set our standards to.

Sometimes, empirical evidence is the point. Why mess with a winning formula?

If using oak primarily for a “flavor enhancement” sure this could be duplicated using an oak alternative of some kind in a much more controlled manner. (You don’t have to treat the whole batch but only a percentage of the batch and then blend with the “untreated” batch for the “desired” oak flavor). As far as duplicating oxygen ingress just measure the oxygen ingress of the “best” suitable oak cask and duplicate it with micro-ox. The hardest thing to duplicate is the “natural” concentration that the wine experiences in an oak cask. A typical 59-gallon barrel could loss 5.5 to 6.5 gals of wine a year. For a barrel to be an effective “holding vessel” it must be kept “topped-up”. So the other thing to consider is the top-up material held in reserve for topping-up the barrel.

Salute

Interesting point about the concentrating effects of barrels.

The final points to consider are:

1) The image issue. I am sure rows of pretty barriques in a cellar, along with stories of how expensive they are, helps sell wine.

2) Wood allows the passage of astral and earth waves, whereas steel does not. So if you want you wine properly energised, it has to be in wood. (Don't bother arguing with me on that point, but there are biodynamists that believe it.)

All good discussion points.


Steve & Dale have zeroed in on the real reason we use wooden barrels: they were the standard storage medium and we have become used to their effect on wine.

But almost everything else in winemaking have changed. I went to Champagne a week ago and the tours took us through cellars lined with riddling racks -- yet we know that only a tiny percentage is now riddled by hand. I'm sure curmudgeons at the time argued against gyro-pallets on the inherent (and intangible?) advantages offered by humans shaking the bottles.

Rogov says he has yet to encounter staves whose toasting will replicate that of barrels. but I have seen catalogues listing staves with toasting to match those offered by barrels from the same merchant.

A problem is that alternatives to barrels have been used to produce cheap wines so we can't compare like with like.

Not that I am advocating the dropping of barrels, but I wonder how many barrel stacked cellars tell the entire story? Like the riddling racks in Champagne cellars, there may be wineries whose final wine comprises both wine aged in barrel and some treated with staves and micro-oxygenation.

In early wine history, the clay amphora was the vessel of choice for storing and transporting wine. Due to the perishable properties of wood, the usage of wooden cask (probably go way back- Greek historian, Herodotus, noted that the ancient Mesopotamians might of used palm wood barrels to ship wine down the Euphrates River), but it is difficult to determine how far back. Surely in the beginning it was just the “flavor enhancement” which drew winemakers (and consumers) to the usage of wooden cask as a wine storage vessel, and this probably led to “experimenting” with many different types of wood (especially those readily available). But with the passing of time eventually it was noted or observed that some wine kept in barrels actually “improved” and “got better”. Even in today’s day and age, the exact science behind this is not yet fully understood, but we do know a lot more than the ancients did.

Peter, one can still read Cato and tour a “modern” vineyard and still see the connection. Because of modernization and technology (and our ever growing understanding of the subject of winemaking) the way we now do things might of change but the “basics” have remained the same.

Salute

As far as duplicating oxygen ingress just measure the oxygen ingress of the “best” suitable oak cask and duplicate it with micro-ox.

Easier said than done, I suspect.

The hardest thing to duplicate is the “natural” concentration that the wine experiences in an oak cask. A typical 59-gallon barrel could loss 5.5 to 6.5 gals of wine a year. For a barrel to be an effective “holding vessel” it must be kept “topped-up”. So the other thing to consider is the top-up material held in reserve for topping-up the barrel.

Not only that, but the differential rate of evaporation between alcohol and water, which changes the wine's balance of flavor.

The winemakers I know who are adept at both oak barrel aging and chip management (an art and science in itself), and did controlled trials, uniformly agreed that there was a difference even when variables like oak type and toasting were controlled for. However, this was before micro-ox was widely used.

Why mess with a winning formula?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Why mess with a winning formula?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Come, gaze into the maw of the Beast...

Here's another "barrel alternative" presentation.

One of the oldest containers, for both fermentation and elevage, is concrete. As it happens, some of the most inspiring wines, in my nearly 40 years in the wine business, were raised entirely in concrete. Concrete is porous, and because of that, can provide the same kind of "breathing" that wood can offer, with the important exception of not also binding the flavor and tannin from wood.
In 2009 I will finally (after 20 years of wishing the possibility existed here for the small-scale vintner) vinify a wine in concrete, in a tank produced domestically, in Paso Robles.(Disclaimer: I am so enthused with this development, that I'm representing the company whose tank I'm buying, in Northern CA. The current ESJ newsletter talks about it: edmundsstjohn.com/newsletter)

Jay, Hi....

Indeed concrete vats allow for a certain amount of air exchange. There are, however, several good reasons why concrete has largely been replaced by oak (or other woods) and stainless steel.

First of all, especially with relatively new concrete, the acids in the wine tend to interact with the cement and that is clearly an undesirable effect. For that reason many concrete vats were lined with tile. The problem with that was that as the tiles and ther material in the joints became worn wine would seep behind the tiles, that in turn causing several rather severe bacterial and yeast problems (not the least being an excess of Brett).

As a solution to that many started coating the interior of concrete vats with an epoxy solution, that preventing "problems" but eliminating the advantage of "breathing concrete". In effect, coating with epoxy turned the concrete vats into neutral containers having no influence whatever on the wine (unless staves or chips were added). Because even epoxy coated concrete vats are more difficult and more costly to maintain than those made of stainless steel, it was stainless that became the choice for most wineries.

One indisputable plus of concrete - much easier to dispose of dead bodies in concrete than in wood vats as is demonstrated rather nicely in one of Anthony Hopkins' films.

Best
Rogov

You can "cure" concrete with a tartaric acid wash, so there's no need to line it. Once the surface is neutralized putting wine in it works just fine. Meticulous hygiene is required, but concrete handled properly is less likely to harbor bug problems than wood.