Summary of "The Future of Winemaking in a World of Climate Change and Wildfires"

Concise summary

Cole Serado (Oregon State University) studies the chemistry of smoke-affected wine, focusing on which chemical compounds transfer from wildfire smoke into grape skins and into finished wine, and on developing targeted ways to detect and mitigate resulting off-flavors.
Smoke taint is driven largely by a class of plant-derived phenolic compounds (commonly measured markers include guaiacol, cresols, and syringols), plus additional lower‑concentration compounds recently implicated in the persistent “ashy” or smoky flavor (a new class referred to in the talk as “theols”).
Many phenolic smoke compounds originate from lignin and are naturally present in plants. Grapes can glycosylate (attach sugar to) these compounds; the sugar-bound forms are less volatile initially but can hydrolyze during wine aging and release free phenols, increasing perceived smoke over time.
Direct impacts on vine health are generally minor from the chemicals themselves; larger risks to yield and vine health stem from fire proximity, heat, and reduced sunlight.
Whether smoke affects a vineyard depends on distance from fires, smoke density and duration, sunlight (photodegradation) through the smoke layer, local microclimates (humidity, temperature), grape varietal susceptibility, timing relative to berry development (véraison), and possibly rain/humidity interactions.
Mitigation and testing options exist but have trade-offs; better, targeted methods are a current research priority.

Phenolic smoke markers
- Guaiacol, cresols, and syringols are phenols derived from lignin combustion and are traceable from burned material → grape skins → wine.
Glycosylation
- Grape skins often bind smoke phenols to sugars (forming non‑volatile glycosides). These can later hydrolyze and release volatile phenols during aging.
Newly recognized compounds
- Researchers have identified an additional class (referred to as “theols,” discovered circa 2023) that contribute to lingering ashy flavors. Analytical advances now allow detection of such low‑concentration compounds.
Timing of exposure
- Smoke exposure before and after véraison can lead to uptake and later presence in wine; smoke between seasons when berries are not present generally poses little risk.
Photodegradation and transport
- Sunlight can naturally degrade some smoke chemicals during long-range transport, so distant smoke plumes often have less impact than nearby dense smoke.

Establish baseline (control) chemical profiles in non-smoke years.
Test grapes and wines for free volatile phenols and sugar-bound phenolic glycosides.
Use modern analytical instrumentation capable of detecting very low concentrations and newly identified compounds.

Blending with unsmoked wines to dilute taint.
Activated charcoal and bentonite fining to remove volatiles/undesired compounds (can also strip desirable compounds).
Reverse osmosis (effective but non‑selective; removes both good and bad components).
Skin‑less (or reduced skin contact) fermentations for red grapes to limit extraction of skin-bound smoke compounds (e.g., “white” Pinot Noir approaches).

Sprayable coatings/film formulations applied to grape clusters to block or absorb smoke uptake (ongoing development; must not harm vine health or wine quality).
Potential breeding or selection for more smoke‑resistant varietals or skin chemistries (early stage; no clear solutions yet).

Targeted chemical removal methods (analogy to targeted disease therapy) — aim to remove specific smoke compounds without degrading overall wine quality.
Large‑scale modelling: integrate weather/smoke transport, vineyard microclimate, and chemistry data using multi‑university collaborations and advanced statistical/machine‑learning tools (AI collaboration is starting but not yet mature for smoke prediction).
Rapid small-batch fermentations and sensory education to help growers/winemakers quickly assess smoke risk and tasting outcomes.

Test grapes even in non-smoke years to establish baselines.
Test again near harvest or before picking when smoke is a concern.
Keep communication and collaboration open with other wineries for blending or shared mitigation resources.

Which specific variables (humidity, microclimate, exact varietal skin chemistry, rain events during smoke) most strongly determine uptake remain unclear.
Better selective mitigation technologies are needed — current treatments are often non‑selective and can remove desirable wine components.
More comprehensive compound identification (beyond the classic phenols) and improved understanding of how glycosides convert back to volatile compounds during aging.
Scalable predictive models that link fire events, plume chemistry, local climate, vineyard conditions, and varietal susceptibility.

The phenomenon was first widely studied after Australian bushfires in the early 2000s; early work linked smoke taint chemicals to those found in smoked foods.
Advances in analytical instrumentation since those early studies have enabled detection of additional low‑concentration compounds and sugar‑bound forms.

Cole Serado — Assistant Professor, College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University (interviewed researcher).
Dr. Luya Ma — faculty, Oregon State University (developing food systems with AI; collaborator mentioned).
Dr. Elizabeth Thomasino — Oregon State University (leading a multi‑university grant/project on smoke and vineyards; collaborator mentioned).
Early Australian researchers/studies (early 2000s) — first to identify smoke markers and glycosylation behavior (not individually named in the interview).