A couple of weeks ago I picked up Sanctuary Wines 2006 Marlborough Pinot Gris from the local Sainsbury’s supermarket. Apart from liking Pinot Gris one of the other reasons the bottle made it into the trolley was the CarbonZero logo on the label, something I remembered reading about in a magazine article earlier in the year.
CarboNZero is a scheme set up in New Zealand by Landcare Research Institute to facilitate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions based around accurate measurement of those emissions, and the parent company of Sanctuary Wines, The New Zealand Wine Company became the first winery to get the certification in 2006.
The idea of being Carbon Neutral has been around for a while, with many individuals and organizations subscribing to Carbon offsetting, paying into projects that, theoretically, reduce emissions and balance their Carbon footprint. In the UK the thought of Food Miles is becoming more common and consumers are looking to buy more locally produced goods, or produce that has Green Credentials. This is something that will likely become more important for winemakers to consider as well, as much of the growing wine market is made up of the “middle class” (pardon the use of such a typically British term) who are quickly developing an environmental conscience that needs salving – I know, I consider myself one! Of course just because something is flown half-way across the world to reach the supermarket shelves doesn’t make it automatically bad, but some green labeling will always help. A New Zealand Herald article from last year has an excellent review of this idea, and its final paragraph sums up the business side of the story, with the New Zealand Wine Company expected to double its sales in the UK.
So what are the ups and downs of being a Carbon Neutral winery? As reported in the Otago Daily Times instead of using a fleet of helicopters to move the air around and stop frost damage large fans have been installed in the vineyards, while changing packaging designs has led to a 12% reduction in shipping volumes and heat-recycling projects have cut down their heating costs. On the flip side a refrigerant leak at the winery contributed 400% more emissions than the whole year’s electricity use.
The key message from the CarboNZero scheme is that accurate measurement is the first step, you have to understand what your emissions are and how they’re affected by what you do before you can make any real attempt at reducing or offsetting them. 
This is clearly explained on the Sanctuary Wines site; Measure – calculate emissions, Manage– reduce emissions, Mitigate – offset emissions.
As for the Pinot Gris itself? This was a refreshing wine, reminiscent of Alsace with a waxy, sweet floral nose and full aroma. Heavy in the mouth, it was a full bodied white with a rich texture, a little grapefruit bitterness on the mid-palate into a medium long finish, not a bad wine to go with a clear conscience!
Greybeard.
On March 26th Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe issued a press release showing the discovery of synthetic insecticide and fungicide residues in a selection of 40 bottles of wine bought within the EU. Since the release I’ve read several related media and wine world offerings, although I don’t believe any of the single articles covered the range and implications of the topic and most disappointed me on the lack of detail and interpretation.
- WineCountry.co.za provides a sensational headline “South African Wine poisonous” (ironic since the only South African wine in the study had only trace levels of anything remotely dangerous), is light on detail, suggests a “storm in a teacup” but finishes on an optimistic tone about how the S.A. industry will improve.
- Jamie Goode shows the good research and offers some reasonable comments, although his summary plays down the importance of the findings and only looks at consumer side of the story.
- Wine Business International provides a light summary of the story and is a balanced mainstream view on the topic.
The use and issues of agrochemicals in the wine industry is not a new story, in 2002 the ATF started testing wines for these materials and California has had its own lobby group, CATs, since 1982 but this goes further back than that. In 1969 Champagne producer Jacques Beaufort needed medical treatment for an allergy to synthetic chemicals and 18 months later he stopped using pesticides on his family vines and started a practice of alternative methods for viticulture and vinification. 
The French site Grains Nobles does the story justice en Français (for the non French speaking Babel FISH makes a passable translation to cover the key points!), including his use of aromathérapie (inc. aromatic oils for mildew treatment) and l’homéopathie.
Back to the PAN Europe report. The full research, carried out by Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) in France, Germany and Austria, showed that all of the 34 bottles of conventionally produced wine showed traces of at least one, and as many as 10, chemicals, yet out of the 6 organically produced wines only one showed a low trace of one of the less dangerous substances, the other 5 being completely free of contaminants. The supporting information sheet contains the key facts to interpret the results and, as Jamie Goode points out, the levels of chemicals analysed in the wine are minute, typically in single or double digit ug/kg (micrograms per kilogram), and there is no suggestion that the wines are actually hazardous to health in any direct sense. However Jamie then references these concentrations to LDL50 or MRL values, the former referring to doses that KILL 50% of the test population and the latter a measurement of what has actually been found on samples (and not related to what is a safe level) – so neither is relevant to help our understanding on whether something is safe for widespread human consumption. It is known that 5% of grapes tested in earlier studies “contained pesticides in excess of legal limits” and also that “30% of pesticide substances (on grapes) could be transferred into wines”, also stating that “significant levels of pesticides present in the grapes were nonetheless transferred to the wines”.
To try and cut through the confusion I asked some questions to Elliot Cannel, the UK coordinator for PAN Europe, on the research and how it may affect the wine world. While he did qualify that he wasn’t an agronomist the advice seems reasonable:
- on residue levels compared to fruit & vegetables found in stores; “the EU sets legal limits for pesticides in raw fruit and vegetables. There are none for wine or other processed foods. So we’re unable to make that comparison”
- on the minimum acceptable levels of the contaminants; “as far as I am concerned, for pesticides such as procymidone – which is an EU classified carcinogen, reprotoxin, and endocrine disruptor, I don’t think any amount in food is acceptable.”
- on practical advice to winemakers who can’t realistically remove pesticides from their options. “I’d advise anyone producing food to stay away from using pesticides classified in the EU as being ‘carcinogenic’, ‘mutagenic’, ‘reprotoxic’ or ‘endocrine disrupting’. Secondly, I’d ask farmers to look at cutting back on pesticide use. Farmers in Denmark, for example, have cut back on pesticide use by 50% over the last 20 years.”
None of this suggests that what was found in the wine is actually dangerous to the consumer, but what about the producer? The Jacques Beaufort anecdote above shows the effects this can have on health and the BBC reported last year on related research on increased brain tumours for agricultural workers exposed to high levels of pesticides. The last page of the PAN report discusses the health impacts on vineyard workers and it is worrying reading - citing higher incidences of “allergic rhinitis, respiratory problems, cancers, and chromosomal and nuclear abnormalities, as well as lower neurological capacities.”
The French government, worried about health risks and water contamination, is already looking at allocating money to help reduce the use of pesticides and Denmark (and Sweden & Norway) have been involved in a Government based pesticide reduction/taxation program since the mid-1980s. This was touched upon by Elliot, “Yes, they were given support from the Danish government in doing so, but Danish fruits and vegetables are now six times less contaminated than equivalent imports.”
For me this is the immediate concern of the PAN Europe report, not that wine drinkers are at risk, because I doubt they are, but that this is an indirect sign of the volume and toxicity of the pesticides used in winemaking which is going to have a direct effect on those industry workers, the land they pump these chemicals onto, the waterways they drain into and which concentrates them into exotic cocktails which can have unknown effects on wildlife and the general food chain which, ultimately, has humans at the top.
Not every producer can afford to be organic or biodynamic but Elliot’s take home message for the industry seems appropriate to end the article - “cut out the worst pesticides, and cut back on the rest”.
Greybeard.
Great strides have been made in recent years by the cork industry to clean up its act. I refer specifically to the problem of cork taint. Excellent recent articles on this matter may be found here and here, both from Wines and Vines, a wine industry magazine of record. And the major Portuguese cork manufacturer Amorim, in particular, has gone on the offensive with a routinely updated, very informative web site. Deserving special mention is their publication Bark to Bottle.
This (possible) resurgence of the cork industry comes at a time when new questions are being asked about the screwcap, especially with respect to the matter of reduction. An interesting experiment using both cork and screwcap has been ongoing at Tablas Creek Vineyards.
While I remain an agnostic on the controversy of cork versus screwcap, especially with respect to young wines, one small issue frequently gets lost in the discussion: the carbon footprint of screwcap production and disposal as opposed to cork’s inherent recyclability. Indeed, many countries have begun cork recycling programs. Following, as part of Amorim’s media offensive they’ve recently announced a cork recycling pilot program (where else, but in Oregon) called ReCork America. Among their ambitions is to collect 1 ton of wine and champagne corks by September, 2008 for the purpose of recycling them into “flooring tiles, building insulation, automotive gaskets, craft materials, soil conditioner and sports equipment.”
However, I have found a Mom and Pop company, Yemm & Hart, deserving of greater recognition. Tucked away in the Missouri Ozarks, they have been involved with the recycling of wine corks since 2004. And so far, they’ve collected 3000 lbs of them! I had the pleasure of speaking with Steve recently. Yemm & Hart is the brainchild of Steve Yemm and Deborah Hart Yemm. Steve has been self-employed since the mid-seventies as a cabinet and furniture maker. In 1981 they incorporated, and by 1989 they were working extensively with post-consumer materials, particularly polyethylene, PVC plastic with embedded polyester strands and rubber from auto tires, materials that would have otherwise ended up in landfills. In 2004 they began an experimental, nation-wide program to recycle wine and champagne corks for use in flooring, wall insulation, and any other use the architecturally-minded might imagine.
Once gathered, the wine corks undergo a heating process which fills their contract factory with the heady smell of wine. The lovely scent eventually boils off, as do the winery markings disappear. What is left is a block of material that can be sliced into sheets of a requested thickness.
Steve and Debra’s ambitions are limited only by the public’s awareness of their program. What they need most of all is a dedicated list of suppliers. For all of us who have suffered a tainted bottle of wine or one that was glorious, give the cork a second life. I encourage readers to explore their site and, most importantly, find the time to send wine corks, still and bubbly, to Yemm & Hart. Keep a simple mailer near where you most often open your bottles; when full, drop it in the post.
Finally, their web site contains many useful links to world-wide organizations concerned with conservation generally. One of my favorites is an excellent, well-researched story that first appeared in Audubon about the extraordinary nature of the cork oak and the ecosystem(s) dependent upon their forests. An eye-opening read. It may be found here.
Steve and Deborah, my corks are in the mail!
Admin
On February 4th I posted on this blog “GM Wine, Cultural and Scientific Notes on ML01″. My earlier effort concentrated on the work done on ML01 at the University of British Colombia’s Wine Research Centre under the direction of Dr. Hennie van Vuuren. 
For a full appreciation of Dr. Hennie’s remarks to follow I strongly suggest reading that post first, visiting the links, and only then returning to the interview below.
Though I did a competent job on the Feb. 4th piece given my limited understanding of the rigorous science involved, I nevertheless knew its greatest shortcoming was not technical but the absence of Dr. Hennie van Vuuren’s comment. To remedy that omission, I contacted the gentleman and he graciously agreed to answer my questions.
How does ML01 differ from other genetically modified organisms currently in the marketplace?
Dr. Hennie All genetically modified organisms currently in the market place contain a selectable marker gene, usually an antibiotic resistance marker gene. ML01 does not contain any antibiotic resistance marker genes. We had to do a significant amount of extra work to screen (colony PCR) and find colonies that contained the malolactic cassette; this is one of the reasons why it took us so long to construct this yeast. I believe genetically modified organisms should not be released into nature if they contain antibiotic resistance marker genes. Furthermore, ML01 contains two genes from microorganisms that are present in wine. ML01 therefore does not contain any genes or proteins that are foreign to the wine making process.
What has surprised you most about the public’s response to the development of ML01?
Dr. Hennie I have published all of the research data on ML01 and this yeast has been fully characterized; it is the best characterized living cell in the market place. It is better characterized than yeasts that have been produced by mutation and/or classic genetic breeding. Apart from scientific presentations at conferences, I have also presented numerous popular scientific talks to the public. I find that people are intrigued that a yeast produced by genetic engineering can produce wines that are free of biogenic amines that act as allergens in many humans. Once people realize what we have done and why we have done it (not for the benefit of big corporations), many of them are interested in finding out where they can buy wine produced with ML01 since they suffer from headaches caused by bioamines in wine.
What surprised me is that a few people continue to oppose the use of this yeast despite the fact that ML01 is safe and they simply ignore the benefits that this yeast will have for many millions of consumers.
What do you believe to be the greatest obstacles to ML01’s acceptance?
Dr. Hennie Fear mongering by those who oppose the use of genetically modified organisms; I have no doubt that most wineries will use ML01 if they can be assured that their wines will not be boycotted. I find it curious that some people will inject insulin produced by a GMO into their veins to treat diabetes but refuse to recognize that others who suffer migraines might benefit by consuming wine produced by ML01. Many of those who oppose the use of ML01 for commercial wine making refuse to examine the facts and often spread false claims to discourage others (see comments on my web site).
With respect to ML01’s current use in Canada and California, for obvious reasons wineries are reluctant to mention its use on their labels. How might a customer, one with a susceptibility to migraines for example, therefore discern which wine might be better for them?
Dr. Hennie Unfortunately it is not possible for them to do so at this stage. However, I believe that new laws that are being considered in the USA will force wineries to disclose on their labels if their wines contain bioamines and other contaminants that may cause health problems.
What is the most important feature(s) of ML01 the public should be aware of?
Dr. Hennie Four regulatory agencies (US FDA, Health Canada, Environment Canada and the Directorate Genetic Resources in South Africa) have examined the data and declared that ML01 is safe to use and that it poses no risk to the environment. ML01 has been fully characterized at the phenotypic and genetic level. It is very effective in conducting the malolactic fermentation in wine preventing spoilage and the production of neuro toxins by other wine microorganisms. Growth, ethanol production, fermentation kinetics and the metabolism of ML01 is unaffected compared to the parent strain. Wines produced by the ML01 yeast have lower volatile acidity and improved color properties than wines produced with the parental yeast and a bacterial malolactic starter culture. ML01 produces fruitier wines with an improved body and wines are of a higher quality.
How are the U BC Wine Research Centre’s Wine Library and Vinotheque coming along? Can you tell us of recent acquisitions?
Dr. Hennie It is coming on great! In a few weeks I will be able to tell you of a major acquisition, which includes many of the world’s best wines.
What are your current lines of research?
Dr. Hennie I am currently studying the stress response in wine yeasts and the aging of wine.
Thank you very much, Dr. Hennie.
In a separate communication Dr. Hennie referenced the results of a survey conducted by The American Vineyard Foundation. The survey concerned “how winemakers feel about biotechnology”. Results may be found here.
He also mentioned the American Society for Enology and Viticulture. They have “commended [our] work on the malolactic yeast for offering ideas for pilot experiments at wineries that can be tested under each unique environment”.
I encourage readers to consider the merits of Dr. Hennie’s work.
Admin
At first glance Genetics may seem a strange topic for a Wine Blog, but look closer and you’ll discover that humans have been genetically modifying the grapevine ever since it was first farmed over 6,000 years ago - by selecting the best growths and characteristics (results of genetic variation and mutation) and then locking them in by vegetative propagation, aka cloning. As we progress into the 21st Century advances in molecular genetics allow us to look deep into the DNA of this intoxicating plant to uncover its history and potentially allow further manipulation of its future.
First some background Biology. There are over 60 distinct species of fruit producing vines of the Genus Vitis, in the Family Vitaceae, but, with a few rare exceptions (such as the Norton grape) there is only one that attracts the attention of you and I – Vitis vinifera L. This is the Eurasian vine used in the production of grapes, raisins and wine which has spread around the world with human agriculture. (The L. often used at the end shows that this was one of the original plant species named by the founding father of biological classification - Carl Linnaeus in his Species plantarum in 1753.)
Most members of the Vitis species, and all V. vinifera, have 19 pairs of chromosomes; 38 units of hereditary that carry the DNA within each cell and on into the next generation. Research has shown that V. vinifera has approximately 30,000 genes spread over 500Mb of DNA (Mb = Megabase pairs, a unit of DNA length). Compare this to humans, who have 23 pairs of chromosomes containing 3300 Mb of DNA carrying..… 30,000 genes. Yes, as a species we have no more genes that a grapevine, just a lot more junk DNA in between them!
Most members of Vitis are dioecious, separate plants are either male or female and cannot pollinate themselves, while V. vinifera are hermaphrodes and can self-fertilise. The Norton variety mentioned above is referenced as V. aestivalis, but the fact that it can self-fertilise suggest more than a touch of V. vinifera in its parentage. However modern viticulture is based on using cuttings (cultivars) to produce clones of the original plant to preserve their desirable characteristics, such as fruit quality. There could be up to 10,000 cultivars of V. vinifera in existence (about 7000 red and 3000 white varieties) and these are the names we see on the labels of our favourite wines; Cabernet, Syrah, Riesling, Verdejo, Assyrtiko etc. In trying to visualise the varieties genetically I liked the description found on “Professional friends of wine” likening them to human populations “each variety should be considered a “surname” which can have it’s own close family and extended relations stretching back in time, but which may have different names or marriages into other families.
In their 2006 paper Vouillamoz & Grando of the Istituto Agrario di San Michele all’Adige 
discussed a key aspect of cloning, namely that it was difficult, often impossible, to know the family history of a single cultivar - genetically it may be tens, hundreds or even thousands of years old. While leaf morphology was used to guess relationships in the past now molecular genetic techniques allow for more precise identification of related varieties of V. vinifera. Similar to the 1997 finding at UC Davis that Cabernet Sauvignon is the offspring of Cabernet Franc and Sauvignon Blanc they showed that Pinot Noir, “one of the most ancient western European cultivars still in cultivation today” is related to Syrah (either a “great-grandfather, great-uncle or cousin”). Unfortunately they also pointed out that getting a complete family tree of the major varieties is not realistic as many of the contributory family members will likely be extinct, something just avoided with Gouais Blanc, the almost extinct white variety which, along with Pinot, was involved in the parentage of grapes such as Chardonnay and Gamay.
Cloning of our favourite varieties is not the only genetic dabbling done in the name of viticulture, how about hybrids and chimeras? The devastation of European vineyards by Phylloxera in the 19th century led to the widespread grafting of old world V. vinifera onto the rootstock of native American species such as V. aestivalis, V. riparia, V. rupestris, V. champinii, V. candicans etc (or on crossings of these with V. vinifera). Let’s just be clear here, the grafting of components of one distinct species onto another separate species or a hybrid cross of mixed species - that is genetic modification of the highest level, and something done in agriculture for hundreds of years, not just with grapevines. Of course all of this is done primarily for disease resistance and maintaining plant and fruit characteristics.
Like many plants V. vinifera is highly heterozygous, meaning that for its 19 pairs of chromosomes the 2 members of each pair (the homologues) show a large degree of DNA variation when compared to each other. This was highlighted in the 2007 mapping of the Pinot Noir genome by Riccardo Velasco & colleagues, also of the Istituto Agrario di of San Michele all’Adige. Their findings showed that, on average, there was an 11.2% variation between each of the 19 sets of homologues, which is an enormous amount. As both of Pinot Noir’s parents provided one of every homologue this shows how different, genetically, those parent varieties were, and by assumption all V. vinifera varieties - that level of variation is greater than across all the members of the great ape families; Orangutans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and, of course, Humans. This also explains why vegetative propagation of grapevines is a necessity, since V. vinifera does not seem to tolerate any degree of inbreeding and in normal sexual reproduction actively mixes up the DNA it passes onto the next generation, which would create chaos for viticulturists trying to maintain favourite features.
Velasco’s paper is the grape equivalent to the Human Genome Project and is a fascinating read, if somewhat technical, showing how genes for disease resistance make up a large proportion of the genome. But if this is so why are commercial varieties so vulnerable to disease? In comparison wild grape varieties typically exhibit significantly more disease resistance, and this is because they reproduce sexually and resistance evolves competitively with the diseases and vectors they’re exposed to – think of it as allowing their genes to download the latest Operating System updates and anti-virus software! However the Pinots, Cabernets etc, because of long-term cloning, have not been allowed to update to counter the new pathogens the vine is exposed to now. Of course you could cross wild and cultivated varieties to breed in the new resistance, but this would also affect the good characteristics you want to keep. Velasco suggests the research could lead to new “molecular breeding” programs, where clusters of resistance genes from wild strain vines could be selectively crossed into the domesticated varieties without losing the genes involved in grape or wine quality.
Elsewhere genetic research by scientists in Australia show that originally all grape varieties were red, but several thousand years ago two independent genes involved in skin colour mutated at about the same time to produce the first white grapevine, the ancestor of today’s white varieties. The earliest known white wine has been confirmed from the time of Tutankhamun, more than 3300 years ago.
It’s not just the vine itself that is now open to genetic changes, there’s another species involved in winemaking – Yeast. There are already new strains of these single cell organisms that can tolerate higher alcohol levels than ever before, perfect for the “No Wimpy Wines” generation and others designed to finish at lower levels to counter these Frankenwines, but that would be the start of a whole new controversy, so I’ll bring this article to an end by mentioning Dennis Gray of the University of Florida 
who has been working with Muscadine grapes for many years. According to The Economist last year, in their review of the Pinot Noir sequencing story, he’s already started field trials of genetically engineered grapes against Pierce’s disease (a condition which has been touched upon in an earlier Reign of Terroir post).
As a trained geneticist researching this topic allowed an intriguing glimpse into aspects of viticulture and winemaking I had not truly appreciated, and begs the question, should we be afraid of future genetic tinkering with our favourite beverage? For me the answer is no, partly because the fermented grape juice that makes it into our glasses doesn’t contain active DNA anyway, but mostly because we’ve been genetically modifying the vine for thousands of years - so why should we stop now?
Greybeard.
Additional references.
International Grape Genome Program
Science daily, Pinot Noir Grape Sequenced
Science daily, Ripening Secrets Of The Vine Revealed
On the occasion of Rudolf Steiner’s birthday, February 27.
Biodynamics (BD) apppears on course to become the next ‘big thing’ in viticulture and wine marketing. ‘Organic’ no longer seems quite enough. Witness on the web site Fork & Bottle (F&B) which maintains perhaps the only Master List of biodynamic wine producers. F&B’s list currently numbers 425. Actually, that’s not quite true. Despite the title the list also includes wineries “practicing very sustainable agriculture”, “practicing Organic with some BD practices”, making wines “from BD grown grapes”, “a mix of Organic and BD”, “converting to BD”. Which is to say the actual number of BD producers cannot, in fact, be learned from the list. Be that as it may, it is telling of Biodynamic’s popularity that F&B, as of this writing, offers has no comparable list of Organic producers. Has Organic become irrelevant or, at the very least, a mere servant to BD? And just what is “practicing very sustainable agriculture” besides a very general orientation? The list’s ambiguities are actually the consequence of Organic and BD certification requirements (including “converting to BD”) by the USDA and Demeter-International respectively. But the list also points to a wider debate between forms of certification and, too, the practice of “very sustainable agriculture” without benefit of a trademark.
One of the odd consequences of the Biodynamic movement as shaped by Demeter-International, its proprietary arbiter, has been the fixing of a date, 1924, for the birth of any and all sustainable agricultural practices. It was in that year Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) delivered his Agricultural Lectures, Demeter-International’s founding texts. A modern reader could be forgiven in thinking agriculture before Steiner was poorly practiced, misguided, devoid of ’spirituality’. But that is far from accurate. Virtually all of Steiner’s practical ‘innovations’, in fact, precede him. (With a notable ‘exception’ I’ll get to in a moment.) Take the multi-volume Encyclopedia of Practical Farming published in 1916 under the direction of Sears, for example. We read in the chapter “How Poor Soils May Be Improved” the following advice under the heading: How to Keep the Soil Fertile
- Raise Live Stock
- Rotate the Crops
- Grow Clover, Alfafa, and other Legumes
- Save Barnyard Manure
- Pasture Rolling Lands to Prevent Washing
- Add Humus-Don’t Burn the Stocks
- Supply Needed Elements
Or review the holdings of USDA’s National Agricultural Library under the title “Tracing the Evolution of Organic/Sustainable Agriculture”. There we find American texts from the 19th century forward dedicated to composting, growing cover crops for green manuring and nitrogen fixing, soil improvement through the incorporation of cow manure, Henry David Thoreau’s, ‘Walden’ (1854), among other volumes. Not included on the library’s page, but available for the dedicated researcher, are the thousands of agriculture-related essays, pamphlets, the serial run of the Farmer’s Almanac, and so much more, all printed on behalf of the US farmer.
And such historical farming bibliographies exist in the libraries of other nations, of course. The French periodical Annals comes to mind. 
And on the British list must be included the work of Sir Albert Howard (1873-1947). Howard was raised on a farm in England, was a mycologist, taught agricultural science before leaving for India where from 1905 to 1931 he conducted ag research. Though he is generally credited with founding organic farming, he did not coin the word. He called his approach Nature’s farming: “Mother earth never attempts to farm without livestock; she always raises mixed crops; great pains are taken to preserve the soil and prevent erosion; the mixed vegetable and animal wastes are converted into humus; there is no waste; the processes of growth and the processes of decay balance one another; ample provision is made to maintain large reserves of fertility; the greatest care is taken to store the rainfall; both plants and animals are left to protect themselves from disease.” From his An Agricultural Testament, 1940.
The term ‘organic’ was coined in 1940 by Walter Northbourne, and he meant it in its philosophical sense, “Having a complex but necessary interrelationship of parts, similar to that in living things”. Look to the Land, 1940. So, strictly speaking, we cannot really say the greater part of the history of agriculture before the modern era, before the environmental calamities of the Green Revolution or Intensive farming, was ‘organic’. (Or even ’sustainable’ for the word is ‘post-modern’, a shuffling of past and future without a decidable present.) Perhaps we can call it ‘custodial’ agriculture: the exercise of the principle ‘farm today so that you may farm tomorrow’. In any event, the most successful historical agricultural practices, from China and India, and from a host of researchers preceding Howard, all were gathered together, enriched by Howard’s own work, but only later placed by others under the concept ‘organic’, and with a small ‘o’. The point here is that Howard situated himself in an ongoing, informal world-wide research program. Any new development would be welcomed.
With Steiner, as read by Demeter, it is a bit different. Unlike Howard, Steiner himself knew little of farming. He admitted as much in the Discussions of June 11th in the essays. “I myself planted potatoes, and though I did not breed horses, at any rate I helped to breed pigs. And in the farmyard of our immediate neighbourhood I lent a hand with the cattle.” That’s about it. Yet, throughout his prolific body of writings he will often return again and again to the same few bucolic farming visions of his childhood. Of his younger brother, Gustav (1866-1941), born deaf, or his sister, Leopoldine (1864-1927), a seamstress, both with whom he gardened as a child, we read virtually nothing. Rarely has the potato been so fixed in a mind.
Of course its true, Steiner wrote and delivered his 1924 essays (at the insistence of others) as a response to the perceptible decline of soil and livestock vitality brought about by the increasing use of technology, of chemical fertilizers, and especially by what we might popularly call the ’scientific/materialist’ mindset. Still, his concerns, it is clear, were already shared by farmers, philosophers, and agricultural researchers decades earlier. Work on the subject was already well under way by the time he stepped into the matter.
So how, then, does Biodynamics differ from the centuries of farming that has gone before, whether custodial, sustainable, or organic? We shall never know from Demeter for they do research solely from 1924 forward. However rich and creative historical agricultural practices world-wide may have been, whatever instruction they might provide us, they are of limited interest to Demeter for a very simple reason: recognition of historical precedence would erode the centrality of Rudolf Steiner.
Demeter has its origins in the ‘Experimental Circle’, a group inspired by Steiner and ratified by his presentation of the Agricultural Lectures before them. They were largely gentlemen farmers of a decidedly aristocratic bent, hence, their ‘natural’ inclination was high-minded, exclusive. Of the peasantry they had little to say. Indeed, Steiner was aware, to his lasting credit, not only of the limits of his own farming background but, more importantly, of the danger the Experimental Circle posed to the preservation of what we might call ‘peasant memory’. Steiner, following the discussion of June 11th, 1924 (op.cit.) made very clear that he was of both the ‘high-minded’ and of the peasantry, however remote. He cautioned his host, Count Keyserlingk, that one must never forget what was called by the circle “peasant stupidity”. Steiner insisted we must draw from their agricultural efforts: “Then this stupidity will become — “wisdom before God.” Demeter and their trademarked Biodynamics, however, neglects this implied research program. Instead, after assuming organic agricultural principles, they take as their start and end point Steiner’s sole practical innovation: The Preparations.
The Preparations, numbered 500-507, are as follows: for spraying, 500-Horn manure, cow manure that has been fermented in the soil over winter inside a cow horn, and 501-Horn silica, finely ground quartz meal that spends the summer in the soil inside a cow horn. For the compost, preparations 502-507, yarrow, chamomile, stinging nettle, oak bark, dandelion and valerian. Specific formulations described in Steiner’s words may be found by clicking the Preparations link above. More modern expressions, with a few supplemental preps created since Steiner, may be found on the Josephine Porter Institute web site and that of The Biodynamic Agricultural Association, respectively Demeter’s US and UK distributors.
The Preparations are meant for any and all manner of agriculture. But of Viticulture, do they work? I mean, above and beyond organic methods? Here are three voices: The first from Red White and Green, an Australian web site dedicated to biodynamic viticulture. The second is a video testimonial from grower/producer Steve Beckman out of Santa Barbara. And the third is of special interest. Jennifer Reeve is a scientist from Washington State University, yet also well-versed in Rudolf Steiner. She grew up on a biodynamic farm, attended a Waldorf school and worked at the above-referenced Josephine Porter Institute. She has perhaps done the most detailed research on the actual benefits BD might bring to the vineyard. Now, if you think you already know what she would write you would be wrong. Here is her report, first published in the American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 2005. She later published an addendum of sorts wherein she writes, “I have to be blunt because it was a shock to me when I first started reading the small amount of scientific literature on biodynamics and conducting my own experiments: the dramatic results I had heard about simply were not there. Statistically significant effects in flavour [sic] of the preparations can be seen some of the time but not all of the time, and perhaps most telling is that the differences are very small.” Wisdom before God, perhaps.
[see comment #1 above for a correction. Admin]
Rudolf Steiner needs better readers. That is not to say I have done much here. The blog format has a significant weakness: brevity! The point is that Steiner wrote hundreds of books, thousands of essays, lectured daily for years, most have been recorded. He was afflicted with the dreadful German impulse to build a philosophical system to swallow the world. His work is as demanding as it is inconsistent and contradictory. But you’d never know from the texts of his acolytes and defenders. Similarly is his biography fraught with discontinuities and omissions. He forgets his siblings. Though married twice he had no children. Whenever ‘women’ were under discussion they quickly vanished, buried under a ton of ‘cosmic’ elocution. I read in vain the Ag Lectures for a single comparison of soil fertility to women, a pregnancy motif. Nope, not there. But it is to his childhood, even in the Agricultural Lectures, delivered a year before his death in 1925, that he returns to…potatoes.
Johann Steiner, Rudolf’s father, worked for the Southern Austrian Railway. He was the telegraph operator. Little Rudolf, maybe six, was in the train station with him one day. While his father sat in another room a few feet away, indifferent to the boy, silently transcribing electronic pulses into language, Rudolf had his first clairvoyant experience. Father and son, together they pluck messages out of thin air.
Happy Birthday, Mr.Steiner.
Admin
On February 11th I posted GREEN MANAGEMENT OF PIERCE’S DISEASE. In it I discussed UC Riverside’s effort to find a more environmentally friendly, a greener approach to combatting the Glassy Winged Sharp Shooter (GWSS), a newly arrived vector for an indigenous bacterium, Xylella fastidiosa, responsible for Pierce’s Disease. UC Riverside has been in the forefront of new research, especially in southern California. As previously mentioned, the Western Region of Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (WSARE) project is hinged on two principles, the participation of established organic grape-growers Bella Vista Vineyards and Sun World, and that grape growers throughout SoCal, in all counties affected, answer the base-line survey (see below).
Dr. Nic Irvin, PhD, of the UC Riverside Department of Entomology, has provided the following update: Sun World has left the program. They’ve decided to rip up the balance of their organic table grapes. But Bella Vista Vineyards troops on!
Further, here are the results provided by Dr. Irvin for the 2007 survey for the Western SARE project: “This project includes a comprehensive outreach plan to extend the results of this research to growers in Temecula, Lodi, Coachella Valley and Ventura grape growers. As part of these outreach efforts, a survey was mailed out in June 2007 and this will be repeated in June 2010 after this work and associated outreach are completed to measure the rate of adoption and percentage reduction of pesticide use resulting from utilization of our study cover crop plants.
In June 2007, this survey [click ‘project’ above] was mailed to 100% of growers located in Ventura (5 growers), Lodi (740 growers), Coachella Valley (30 growers) and Temecula (45 growers) with help of cooperative extension specialists Phil Phillips and Carmen Gispert, and Cliff Ohmart (Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commission) and Linda Kissam (Temecula Winegrowers Association). We had 225 replies from growers which is a 27.4% response rate. The surveys are currently being collated and information transferred into an Excel spreadsheet. The field work funded by WSARE will be conducted over the next 2 years and results will be extended to growers in Ventura, Temecula, Lodi and Coachella Valley following the comprehensive outreach plan detailed in the grant. In June 2010, the survey will be mailed again to determine rate of adoption and the percentage reduction in pesticide use.
Results:
Preliminary results show that 43% of growers that responded to the survey had maintained a cover crop in the previous season. The main reason for maintaining a cover crop was for dust control, while the main reason for not maintaining a cover crop was the extra irrigation required. None of the growers that maintained a cover crop in the previous season irrigated to ensure it continued growing over the spring and summer. The aim of the Western SARE research is to investigate the effect of using extra irrigation to maintain a cover crop over the spring and summer, and on the abundance of grape pests, their natural enemies, vine vigor, fruit quality and yield, and the abundance of weeds.”
Admin
The history of Pierce’s Disease (PD) in California is punctuated by lulls in its incidence and alternating narratives of successful management and on-the-ground setbacks. Though in the state of California for over one hundred years, the early 1990’s witnessed, beginning in Ventura County, the arrival (from Florida or Texas) of a new insect vector for the pathogen bacterium Xylella fastidiosa responsible for PD: the glassy winged sharpshooter (GWSS). Able to move faster and fly further than native sharpshooter species, though modest evolutionary gains, they proved decisive. The GWSS is now found in the counties of San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Kern, Tulare, Fresno, and Sacramento. And virtually the balance of the state is threatened.
Yet, as recently as ten years ago optimism ran high in southern California. In 1997, in the Temecula AVA, established in 1984 by the TTB, relief was briefly found in an arsenal of insecticides, specifically Admire. The GWSS seemed to be on the run. Yet Admire and the chemically related Provado, both produced by Bayer AG under the collective name Imidacloprid, proved a very limited solution. By 2000 the vineyards of the Temecula AVA in Riverside county had been devastated. Vine acreage lost between 1999 and 2000 alone was 17%, acreage of white grapes, 22%, owing in particular to Chardonnay’s vulnerability, this in addition to what had already been pulled up.
And pesticides used against GWSS have remained of marginal value to this day, dealing only temporary blows against a tireless, advancing adversary. Further, the pesticides recommended by UC, Riverside, the institution at the forefront of GWSS research in California, all have, no surprise, well-documented environmental risks. Imidacloprid, for example, has been associated with a high incidence of bee mortality. Dimethoate, Cyfluthrin, and Fenpropathrin, each has unintended consequences of varying levels of toxicity, on aquatic life and beneficial insect populations, for example. But unless a grape producer is willing to witness the rapid destruction of their hard work and livelihood, GWSS pesticides remain a front-line necessity, especially for the larger producers. Yet, the financial costs that follow upon a pesticide regime, everything, from the machinery for effective spraying, to the chemical expenses themselves; from storage, field monitoring, EPA reports, to public relations, costs can be staggering, finally shuttering the smaller producer anyway. Everything costs money, subtracting not only from the environment but from the bottom line. All this for the most pastoral, ‘natural’ of libations! However, this unhealthy, unwinnable standoff may be about to change. And UC, Riverside is, again, leading the charge.
New research into sustaining viable vineyard populations of the parasitic wasp, Gonatocerus ashmeadi, a natural predator of the GWSS, through the planting of a variety of floral food resources among the vines, is well underway. Spearheaded by Entomologist Mark Hoddle from UC Riverside, he has already published promising results. And in another more recent study, funded by Western Region of Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (Western SARE), and also out of UC, Riverside, a study titled Nectar Cover Cropping for Sustainable Pest Management, it offers a fresh look, in part, at plantings of buckwheat in the vineyard for sustaining viable wasp populations, and is currently moving forward. In field trials this year, researchers will examine the success, over the next two years, of cover cropping two organic vineyards, the Bella Vista Winery in the Temecula Valley and a table grape property in Coachella Valley owned by Sun World, with the inexpensive and nectar-rich Buckwheat for the wasp, but also the cahaba vetch, to explore its ability to suppress damaging nematode populations.
A fundamental feature of the project will be to measure the rate of adoption of these techniques by growers. In the project’s words, “The percentage of Temecula, Lodi and Coachella Valley growers that practice nectar cover cropping for pest management will be evaluated at the beginning of the trial (July 2007), and again in June 2010 to determine rate of adoption. The survey will obtain data on whether buckwheat or cahaba vetch cover crops were sown for pest control, and the percentage reduction in pesticide use as reduced as a result of using these management techniques.” In other words, will the grape industry follow? If they do, a function of the project’s success, we may yet move toward a greener vineyard, at least with respect to southern California’s struggle against this awful scourge, the glassy winged sharpshooter.
Admin
Products and ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are everywhere present in the American supermarket. But this is not because consumers are fully-informed as to the choices available to them. Indeed, consumer demand does not remotely drive the associated science. Precisely the reverse is true. A recent study funded by the USDA and carried out by Rutgers University, found that 89% of Americans want GM labeling. Current US law has no such requirement. Neither does the US conduct much in the way of independent testing of GM-derived foods and additives, deferring instead to the research done by biotech companies and their university proxies. To be sure, the FDA does conduct primary research in other fields, often with headline grabbing results. So, too, does the CDC monitor the safety of the food supply, though with mixed results. Whether spinach contaminated with e-coli, mercury levels in tuna, or the possible use of ‘downer’ cattle in the meat supply, Gov’t. inspection too often occurs only after the food supply has been compromised, when the public has already been affected. It hardly comes as a surprise consumers, by which I mean Americans, do not very much believe that their elected officials and federal monitoring institutions have their interests at heart. It goes without saying confidence in the truthfulness of corporations is virtually non-existent. From cigarettes to airbags, lead paint and lead water pipes, nuclear power, DDT to Thalidomide, consumers have long been witness to the historical spectacle of gov’t. indecision and corporate ’shortcomings’, shall we say. Cost/benefit analysis wins the day.
Yet despite this messy cavalcade, the biotech industry, certainly with respect to GM foodstuffs, gets a special pass. Why might this be? I’ll save comment for another post. Suffice it to say that protecting patented gmos is also an important piece of American foreign policy. Most recently, in Iraq, it was felt the matter important enough to include in the 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority’s 100 orders. The issue is clearly international in scope.
Into this hostile, noisy intersection of culture and science steps wine biotechnologist Dr. Hennie J. J. van Vuuren of the University of British Columbia, director of The Wine Research Centre. He has played a central role in the creation of ML01, the world’s first genetically modified yeast. Controversy has dogged his efforts despite his (implied) insistence that ML01’s make-up differs in significant ways from GM as generally practiced. Dr. Hennie claims ML01 does not serve corporate but consumer interests, that, unlike Monsanto’s GM corn MON863, for example, wherein a bacterial pathogen has been added to corn, ML01 contains no foreign bacterial or DNA component, but only genes already wholly present within traditional winemaking. He is unusually forthcoming, seeming to promote transparency with respect to his research, a characteristic rather rare in the biotech field.
A few details. ML01 yeast is designed to collapse the traditional two step fermentation, sugar to alcohol by yeast, typically done by a species of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and harsh malic acid into the softer lactic acid (hence, MLF), by the bacteria, Oenococcus oeni, into one stable winemaking addition. The novelty of Dr. Hennie’s ML01 is that he has combined or added to the genes of the widely used S. cerevisiae yeast strain Prise de Mousse-S92 the malolactic gene from the bacteria Oenococcus oeni, via the malate transport gene from S. Pombe. It is now possible, he argues, to inoculate a must with ML01 from the very beginning to perform both fermentations simultaneously. There is no need to add a second ML inducing bacterial culture.
And all of this is done to promote health. Dr. Hennie suffers from migraines which he says are brought on by histamine sometimes found in wine, usually red wine (since MLF is not used for all white wines). It is estimated 13% of Americans are so afflicted. Further, Dr. Hennie claims a whole host of health threats may be blamed on traditional MLF, especially, but not exclusively, when done in cooler climates. The problem is the unreliability of Oenococcus oeni starter cultures which can lead, he writes, to “sluggish or stuck-fermentations”, the by-products of which are the “spoilage of wines and the production of biogenic amines” (emphasis added). Histamine is one such biogenic amine. And there are many others found in wine, virtually all producing “undesirable physiological effects in susceptible individuals”. Among the health problems he includes are headaches, palpitations, flushing, oedema, diarrhea, vomiting, both hyper and hypotension. But there’s more. “Biogenic amines [in wine] are also linked to carcinogenesis.” (Are you scared yet?) ML01, however, will produce wines “free of allergenic bioamines and precursors to carcinogens produced by lactic acid bacteria.”
One of the curious consequences of Dr. Hennie’s health concern is the inversion of the so-called ‘Frankenstein wine’ debate. In the case of ML01, biotechnology comes to the consumer’s rescue. I believe this is a deliberate strategy, for as one might expect, reception to ML01 has been chilly. To date only Canada, the US (of course), and Moldova have assented publicly to its use.
And here in California, despite the California Wine Institute’s opposition to GMOs in wine, and strong support among California wineries, we do know from ML01 dealer American Tartaric Products, Inc. that since 2006 wines so treated have been reaching consumers. But of course we don’t from know which wineries. Remember that labeling whether a product contains GMOs is not required in the US. Neither is it in Canada. So, a rather grim though amusing irony emerges: Dr. Hennie may never know which wines he may safely drink. And neither will the 13% biogenic amine sensitive souls. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how this labeling matter might be resolved, especially in light of some nation’s (Japan and the UK come to mind) requirement that imported products containing GMOs be so marked.
My sense of the man, Dr Hennie, is that he is honest and thoroughly convinced of the benefits ML01, 14 years in the making, brings to consumer and winery alike. But until the winds of controversy with respect to GMOs die down, until biotech companies and universities take a greater public responsibility for their science and the cascade of social and environmental costs which sometimes follow, until governments are more forthcoming about their compromising intimacy with big money, there is little hope for the public acceptance and commercial success of ML01, or for any other wine-related GMO on the horizon.
Admin
I was preparing a post on the NMR machine fabricated at UC Davis designed to non-invasively evaluate the quality of precious wine, when my attention was drawn to an essay from a professor at the Virginia Tech’s Enology-Grape Chemistry Group about Chinese wine production. My supplementary question became how might NMR tech be used to combat counterfeit wines. However, one cautionary passage from the professor’s essay stopped me in my tracks: “Over thousands of years, intensive breeding has rendered the silk moth (Bombyx mori) a blind, flightless, egg-laying machine[.]”
For those unfamiliar with an academic’s diplomatic double-speak required when having traveled and researched in a difficult country, let me offer a plausible translation: the message, subtle, is that production of fully technologically designed wines are only a matter of time. Indeed, far beyond detecting counterfeits and the simple evaluation of precious wine, I suggest NMR tech could one day neatly dovetail with the ancient lessons of silk moth domestication, and both provide new insights as to how a laboratory’s time might most profitably be spent building wine. Of course, proper anxiety over the rôle of science in overwhelming terroir and the homogenization/manipulation of wine generally is nothing new among the cognoscenti. Witness the recent dust-up over Mega Purple on another blog. But what might the public’s response be when the increasing centrality of science reaches a cultural ‘tipping point’ and becomes widely known, whether through bottle label reforms, the blogosphere or mainstream media? Will Joe Twelve-case particularly care? Altar or sacramental wines suggest one possible answer. Let me try to explain.
According to the Wine Institute’s 2005 figures, the Vatican City State of 932 souls consumed over 62 liters or 16 1/2 gallons of wine per capita that year, the highest rate in the world. It is reasonable to assume a fair percentage was altar wine. Mexico, by contrast, though hardly less pious, consumed a mere .14 liters, a little over a cup for each of its 107.5 million persons, 1/2 less wine than Mongolia! Understanding the importance of Catholicism in Mexico and the indispensable role wine plays in the celebration of Mass, I am suspicious of the low figure. Yet, try as I might I can find no reliable figures as to the percentage consumption of altar wine in that country. A partial explanation for this dearth of information must no doubt be proprietary. It is the Church’s business, after all. (And perhaps my limited time and research skill play a part!)
And even finding figures for the United States proves difficult. But we do have major producers of altar wines here that provide clues. The historically important Mont La Salle, near St. Helena, Ca., brands more than 150,000 gallons of sacramental wine a year. Sold to proper Catholic authorities, and to Lutheran denominations in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Pacific Rim countries, they do a thriving business. As does the equally important San Antonio Winery in Los Angeles. They produce 60,000 cases of altar wine per annum. To this distinguished list must be added Cribari Vineyards. A 1990 reference claimed their North American market share of altar wine at 90%, a figure I cannot confirm for 2007. They had the pleasure of providing the altar wine for Pope John Paul visit to Toronto in 2002.
Now, the most important feature of altar wines is that they must have the approbation of a Bishop. He alone can guarantee that the quality of a given winery’s production practices are in accordance with Canon Law 924.3. Nothing less than the reunification of God with his flock is at stake. However, it is generally felt that, with a few exceptions, in the main, altar wines are not very good. Needless to say, no terroir is either detectable or even desirable. They are sweet and simple, juicy and of a high alc., not unlike a Mollydooker, a good deal of Aussie syrah, and many boutique Cali cabs. In fact, I would argue that the current, dominant wine style, big, fat and structureless, without varietal distinction, shares more than just a flavor profile with altar wines. The dominant wine style, too, was born of the approval of an authority, whether a wine magazine or singular critic. Indeed, when the consumer drinks a wine on an advocate’s list they may thereby feel closer, more at one with the profound authority they follow. Authority informs flavor. And if I were running a winery I would look long and hard at how I might bring my vinous ‘product’ into line, and by whatever means necessary. Secular transubstantiation swells the bottom line, any marketer will tell you.
Admin
Next Page »
This is clearly explained on the Sanctuary Wines site; Measure – calculate emissions, Manage– reduce emissions, Mitigate – offset emissions.
