Q. Over the years, after having a haze in a completed white, I’ve gotten into the habit of pre-treating all of my reds and whites with pectic enzymes. I haven’t seen any problems, but I wonder if my wines would be better if I avoided this addition?
Lee Goodman
via email

A. This is a question where experience has quietly led you to a pretty good answer already.

Pectic enzymes have become such a standard part of modern winemaking that it’s easy to forget why we use them in the first place. Grapes naturally contain pectin, which helps give fruit its structure. While that’s wonderful for making jam, it isn’t always helpful when you’re trying to produce a brilliantly clear, stable wine with no hazes.

By breaking down those pectins, the enzyme allows juice to clarify more quickly and more completely. It also helps release more juice from the fruit and creates a more compact layer of solids that can be separated prior to fermentation.

So, you’ve been treating both your white and red grapes as a matter of routine and haven’t noticed any ill effects. Frankly, in my commercial winemaking career based in Napa, California, neither have I. For most home winemakers, that’s a very reasonable practice.

Are there downsides?

There are a few, but they’re fairly modest.

First, there’s the cost. Pectic enzymes aren’t terribly expensive, but they are another ingredient you’re purchasing every vintage. Expect to pay around $15–25 for enough to treat a few modest-sized home batches.

Second, using enzymes means giving the juice a little time to do its work before moving on to the next step. Usually that means waiting a day or so while the enzyme breaks down the pectins and the solids settle more efficiently. If you’re anxious to inoculate right away, that brief pause can feel like an inconvenience.

Finally, you’ll lose a small percentage of juice when you rack away from the sediment. That’s simply part of the clarification process. However, this loss is almost always less than what you’d experience if you skipped the enzyme. Without good pectin breakdown, the lees tend to be fluffier and less compact, making it harder to separate clean juice from the solids. In the end, winemakers actually recover more usable juice by treating with enzymes first.

To me, the bigger question isn’t, “Why use pectic enzyme?” It’s, “What happens if you don’t?”

One concern is timing. If you’re making white wine and relying on gravity alone to settle your juice, clarification may take considerably longer. During that extended settling period, your freshly pressed juice is sitting there rich in nutrients and sugars, waiting for something to start growing . . . and it’s seldom anything you want. 

Wild yeasts and other naturally occurring microorganisms can decide to get the party started before you do. Once a spontaneous or feral fermentation begins, it’s difficult to rewind the clock and inoculate with your chosen yeast strain. 

Using pectic enzyme helps the juice settle efficiently enough that you can rack, inoculate with your yeast of choice, and put your preferred fermentation program in charge before nature makes the decision for you.

The other benefit is better clarification. Enzymes are remarkably effective at helping suspended solids settle out. That means cleaner juice going into fermentation, which often translates into cleaner aromas, fewer clarification headaches later, and a wine that’s easier to finish.

Every winemaker eventually develops a handful of cellar practices that become second nature. Some are based on tradition, others on science, and many because they’ve proven themselves year after year. From what you’ve described, pectic enzyme seems to have earned a place in your routine.

Sometimes the best evidence that you’re doing something right is that you stop having the problem you were trying to solve in the first place.