A range of new research projects has led to the need to distinguish the performance of individual vines, much earlier than conventional research winemaking allows.
Bragato Research Institute (BRI), Bioeconomy Science Institute (BSI) and the Marlborough Research Centre (MRC) have collaborated on a new ultra-small-scale microvinification system designed to unlock the potential of individual vines, such as novel clones or new hybrids. This new capability will support the screening process for BRI’s Sauvignon Blanc 2.0 programme, the BSI/BRI collaboration on hybrids and disease resistant varieties, and research in BSI’s Living Lab facility.
Why scale matters
At BRI’s Research Winery, research wines are made in volumes ranging from 17 to 200 litres. These formats are useful because they can replicate commercial winemaking more closely than very small ferments, but they require more fruit than a single young vine produces.
That creates a challenge when researchers want to study vines that we only have one copy of – such as those in BRI’s Sauvignon Blanc 2.0 breeding vineyard or BSI’s Living Lab.
The new microvinification platform helps bridge the gap for individual-vine research. The aim is not to reproduce a commercial ferment at miniature scale, but to provide a precise screening tool that can reveal relative analytical differences between vines to help identify those with promise.
Building a winemaking process around 30 ml ferments
Led by Muriel Yvon at BSI, the project team built the new system around the microfermenter, designed and obtained from the University of Adelaide.
The system can process 192 30mL fermentations simultaneously. The fermentation tubes are immersed in temperature-controlled water to ensure precise thermal regulation, and each tube is fitted with a magnetic agitator and modified airlock, allowing samples to be withdrawn with a pipette.
Working at such a small scale requires close control at every stage. Before the 2026 vintage, the research team tested and refined its approach to destemming, juice extraction, clarification and fermentation. Bunches were gently rolled over a rack above a container holding dry ice. This provided a workable balance between processing speed, berry integrity and protection from oxidation.
Juice was extracted using an automated culinary sieve. Early testing showed that fine sieves produced juice with higher turbidity, most likely because they caused greater disruption to skins and pulp. Moving to a 3 mm sieve improved juice clarity and delivered consistent extraction. Dry ice and argon were used at key stages to limit oxygen exposure.
Trials at 15°C took about three weeks to ferment, while increasing the temperature to 18°C reduced fermentation time to between seven and 12 days. This was considered more suitable because prolonged fermentation at such a small scale can increase the risk of oxidation or other quality problems.
Putting the microvinification system to the test
In its first trial, the microvinification platform was tested on detecting differences in juice and wine composition among eight Sauvignon Blanc clones. The trial looked at monoterpenes, wine aroma compounds associated with floral and citrus characters with known genetic specificity, to test the microvinification system.
The fruit was taken from a fully replicated Sauvignon Blanc clonal trial at the MRC’s Rowley Research Vineyard. The clones include 242, 376, 530, 905, Italian M1 and M2, and MS from two different nursery mother blocks.
Vineyard management was designed to make comparisons as fair as possible. The vines were arranged in a randomised trial design, crop levels were managed, and leaves were removed from the fruit zone before véraison to support ripening. All vines were harvested on the same day once the fruit had reached commercial maturity, helping to reduce the influence of harvest timing and weather.
Around 2 kg of fruit was taken from each vine. The fruit from every vine remained separate throughout processing and was divided into three replicate fermentations. The grapes were harvested at a similar level of ripeness, with no significant difference in soluble solids among the clones. Harvest weight, bunch number and juice extraction also did not differ significantly, giving the researchers a strong basis for comparing other aspects of juice and wine composition.
The refined process proved highly repeatable. Juice extraction averaged 731 litres per tonne, close to the 750 L/t target cited for commercial wineries in the report. Fermentation was also reliable, with no stuck ferments identified.
Differences emerged in the aroma profile
Although grape ripeness was similar, 11 of the 15 juice variables measured differed significantly among the clones. These included acidity, pH, primary amino acids, phenolics, and malic acid.
The resulting wines also showed differences in all seven monoterpenes measured. Their overall concentrations were low, as expected for Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc, but the method was sensitive enough to distinguish between the clones.
Some differences reflected the original juice composition. Clones 242 and 376, for example, produced juice with lower titratable acidity and malic acid, and higher pH, than the Mass Select control. The Mass Select clones produced the most acidic juice, consistent with the crisp profile commonly associated with Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc.
These results were not intended to identify a preferred clone or predict how a wine will perform commercially; they demonstrate that the system can reliably detect genetic differences in material grown, harvested and fermented under controlled conditions.
A screening tool, not a miniature winery
A comparison between the microvinification method and BRI’s 17-litre research winemaking confirmed that the two approaches do not produce directly comparable juices or wines. Differences in extraction affected juice yield and composition, which then carried through to the wine.
That finding reinforces the intended role of the new platform. It is not designed to predict exactly what a commercial wine will taste like. Instead, it provides a consistent way to compare and screen large numbers of individual vines and identify promising material for further evaluation. Larger-volume winemaking and sensory assessment would still be required once promising material had been selected and sufficient fruit was available.
For New Zealand’s wine industry, the value of this system lies in making earlier, better-informed selections. As researchers and growers assess new clones, improved plant material and disease-resistant varieties, single-vine winemaking could help narrow the field before committing land, time and larger winemaking resources.
