The volcanic islands of Graciosa, Pico, and Terceira, specifically the parish of Biscoitos, are the demarcated wine regions of the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago just over 900 miles from the mainland. Legally recognized in 1994, each area has, nevertheless, been producing wine for hundreds of years. The vines are grown in the near complete absence of soil and sheltered from the wind and salt water by walls of broken basalt painstakingly built over the centuries. The ’soils’, slowly in the process of creation (globally, depending upon a series of site-specific geo-physical processes, the generation of an inch of soil requires many thousands of years), may be broadly divided into two types: shattered, heavily fissured basalt and a slightly looser, sandy version, its additional material largely water runoff and wind transported. This is most strikingly revealed on Pico where the vineyards come within yards of the open Atlantic. Coaxing vines into healthy production in either matrix is nothing short of miraculous.
I will have much to say on another occasion about all of the above. For now I want only to touch on the narrow dimension of Biscoitos’ private bottle label art, this after a few preliminaries.
The agricultural center of Terceira, this small town is home to S.D.A.T., the Adega do Servico de Desenvolvimento Agrario de Terceira (the cellar of Agrarian Development Service), the wine-making cooperative where, upon deplaning at Lajes Airport, we were taken by winery representative, António Espínola.
Producing over 40,000 liters of wine per annum off of 60 hectares, the local economy of Biscoitos, the wine sector, took a severe hit in the aftermath of the terrorist attack of 9/11. All the islands did. With new international airline regulations banning all liquid containers with volumes in excess of 4 oz. from being carried onto airplanes, the many thousands of tourists visiting Terceira each year went from purchasing multiple bottles of wine to buying just one now secured in checked baggage. Wine sales plummeted 50% throughout the archipelago and the sector has still not recovered. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the wines’ price points, as our soulless business language puts it. Indeed, given the extraordinary labor required to work with all the elements of the archipelago’s harsh terroir, it is stunning to see any Azores wine sold locally for as little as €10. With sinew and muscle, the farmer’s near indestructible will to go on restores to respectability the idea of hand-crafted, a notion rather limply exploited in American wine marketing, for example. Further, the oft-repeated promotional concept of how inexpensive are Portugal’s wines in general, fails miserably to grasp that it is rather a question of a sustainable price. No better example of this critical distinction may be found than on the Azores.
It has become more urgent than ever, especially in light of reduced tourist numbers in these sour economic times, to find a way to lessen the great downward pricing pressure and get the many fascinating wines of the Azores into the international market at a fair, sustainable price.
Like all the demarcated regions of the Azores, grape growing on Biscoitos is suffering from a generational shift. No longer willing to struggle for a living in the same way as their parents and grandparents have, the young are increasingly drawn to cities. To be sure, it is a pattern repeated in all agricultural sectors throughout the world. But in the Azores it is painfully evident, the abandoned vineyards immediately visible as overrun thatches of tangled flora. The disruption of traditional family practice is a very real threat to the long-term survival of this viticulture unique in all the world.
While at the cooperative, we were given precious insight into Biscoitos’ recent vinous history. Located within an older portion of the adega, António showed us what qualifies as their ‘wine library, a wall of honeycombed masonry (situated at the right in the photo). From the rough, abrasive chambers, an echo of the vineyards’ basaltic walls just outside, he pulled bottle after intriguing bottle of private wines, some made before the existence of the cooperative. As a tribute to the farmers and vintners of these mysterious verdelhos, the dominant white grape throughout the Azores, I will close this post with their simple, mute images.
(File size varies.)
Admin
Soil science is a very complex, elegant discipline. And having everything to do with the feeding of the world’s hungry populations, it can also be highly contentious. Though not overtly political, rival research programs within soil science nevertheless often butt heads against one another. Witness, for example, the heated debates, still underway, over the consequences of the Green Revolution, a massive post-war transformation of agricultural technological practice that led to very significant, if short-term gains in the ability of developing nations to feed their populations. Though initially successful in Mexico and subsequently exported throughout the world, a look at the remains of that model today reveals a Mexico teetering on the edge of collapse, its agricultural sector further strained under NAFTA’s relentless weight.
Now, of course the reasons for Mexico’s economic and social troubles are as multiple as they are tangled, but it is undeniably true that the soil science, as understood mid-century, played a significant role in the optimism energizing the Green Revolution.
All will agree that the ’success’ of the Green Revolution relied a host of social and scientific technologies formerly limited to industrialized nations: the zealous use of broad spectrum pesticides, often without significant independent scientific review; the insistence on monoculture at the expense of indigenous polyculture, and biodiversity generally; a structural necessity of greater petrochemical inputs; irrigation projects resulting in both reallocation and massive new drafts on local water reserves; displacement of underperforming farming populations in favor of mechanization; the planting of hybrids at the expense of traditional varieties, hybrids the farmer needed to purchase each year. These were but a few of the technological requirements imposed upon developing nations in the post war era. The upshot is that food production, its promise, would eventually become an instrument of foreign policy. I will pass over in silence the profound environmental consequences.
More narrowly, on the matter of new hybrids, they were selected because of their higher yields. Higher yields require greater amounts of Nitrogen (N). In this way did heavy applications of synthetic N become the order of the day. I will limit the balance of my post to this topic alone.
Formerly farmers were limited in how much they could grow by the need to replace the N their crops removed from the soil. Even the gardener knows how important it is to grow cover crop, to hustle up manure from a local ranch, at the very least to turn the soil so as to incorporate seasonal plant waste. The basic tenant of organic farming is ‘feed the soil’. It is no different for the large scale operation, at least it wasn’t until the rise of the synthetic fertilizer industry many years ago. With the mass production of synthetic N it became possible to use this to supplement the seasonal reduction of N reserves, but now in a more limited combination with plant waste, green and other manures. Further, it has long been believed that with these appropriate Carbon, Potassium, Phosphorus etc. additions along with judicious applications of synthetic N, soil health, including ‘relevant’ microbial populations, could be maintained for the long haul. As Ron Jackson puts it in his industry standard text book, Wine Science,
“Until the use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers, vineyard nitrogen supply was dependent primarily on the activity of free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil, nitrogen fixed by endosymbiotic bacteria in the nodules of legumes, and the addition of manure. Unlike other soil nutrients, nitrogen is not a component of the mineral makeup of the soil. Its availability, unlike that of potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium, is particularly dependent on the effect of seasonal factors, such as soil moisture, aeration, and temperature, and on how these factors affect the activity of soil microorganisms and cover crops. [....] The lower cost of urea and ammonia salts, combined with ammonia’s ready sorption to soil particles, generally makes it the preferred form of nitrogen fertilizer.”
And this approach is consistent with the broad research program of established soil science since the post-war era. But there is another parallel research program of similar historical pedigree. Often called organic, though well developed before its eviscerating codification in our era, it is properly explained, with an updated lexicon, by Peter Schmidt of the Delinat Institute.
“Just one cubic meter of good soil is home to nearly 60,000 species of microorganisms. They are all interconnected in the so called soil-food-web. All have different functions and maintain through their functional biodiversity the stability of the soil-plant-system. Each plant is symbiotically integrated in this very complex system. The plant offers to the microorganisms carbohydrates through their roots exudates and gets phosphates, nitrate, oligo-elements and water in exchange. The whole process is in an ingenious balance between give and take, fixating and releasing. If we intervene into this process with mineral fertilizers, the whole system gets out of balance as we favour some few species over others. It’s in fact a negative selection. As the plant gets easy fast food through the fertilizers it has no need to maintain the symbiosis with the microorganisms and it stops nourishing those microbes that usually fix nitrogen, carbon, phosphates and all the other aliments for the soil-food-web.
“And there is another point. Mineral fertilizers are salty which means that the most of the 1 billion microorganisms that one can find in 1 gram of good upper-soil dry up and die. Those that survive feed on the nitrate and ammonium of the fertilizers and on the carbon of the soil organic matter. The function of soil-food-web is surely as complex as the function of the brain, but it does not need magic to explain why nitrogen-fertilizers provoke the diminishing of soil carbon and the increase of greenhouse gases.
“To increase the functional biodiversity of agricultural systems is the most efficient and cheapest method for sustainable agriculture and resistance to climate change.”
It is by design that I select these two comments centering, as they do, on the question of synthetic N. There are other pressing distinctions between organic and industrial farming, and Mr. Jackson cannot fairly be said to be squarely in the latter camp. The point is that the organic community, broadly understood, has been historically critical of synthetic N; the industrial community broadly supportive. And for the past three score years this is where things have stood. Until now. Very important new research has recently appeared, research from within the university establishment itself. In a paper, titled Synthetic Nitrogen Fertilizers Deplete Soil Nitrogen: A Global Dilemma For Sustainable Cereal Production [click on right sidebar link for free download] by R.L. Mulvaney, S.A. Khan, and T.R. Ellsworth of the University of Illinois, the evidence from a decades-long project shows, according to the fine gloss of the paper by Tom Phillpott writing for Grist:
“[T]he net effect of synthetic nitrogen use is to reduce soil’s organic matter content. Why? Because, they posit, nitrogen fertilizer stimulates soil microbes, which feast on organic matter. Over time, the impact of this enhanced microbial appetite outweighs the benefits of more crop residues.
“And their analysis gets more alarming. Synthetic nitrogen use, they argue, creates a kind of treadmill effect. As organic matter dissipates, soil’s ability to store organic nitrogen declines. A large amount of nitrogen then leaches away, fouling ground water in the form of nitrates, and entering the atmosphere as nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas with some 300 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide. In turn, with its ability to store organic nitrogen compromised, only one thing can help heavily fertilized farmland keep cranking out monster yields: more additions of synthetic N.
“The loss of organic matter has other ill effects, the researchers say. Injured soil becomes prone to compaction, which makes it vulnerable to runoff and erosion and limits the growth of stabilizing plant roots. Worse yet, soil has a harder time holding water, making it ever more reliant on irrigation. As water becomes scarcer, this consequence of widespread synthetic N use will become more and more challenging.”
I contacted the lead author, Prof. R.L Mulvaney, with supplemental questions specifically related to viticultural practice.
Admin Does the long-term degradation of soils with the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer also lead to other mineral deficiencies? I’m thinking of phosphorous, potassium, calcium, boron and manganese in particular.
Richard Mulvaney Yes, organic matter depletion will adversely affect numerous soil functions that impact nutrient availability. The most obvious effect is on the supply of mineralizable N, P, and S from organic sources, but most of the other nutrients are also affected. Because of its high cation-exchange capacity, organic matter plays an important role in holding Ca, Mg, and K in exchangeable forms that are protected against leaching, and has a similar effect in stabilizing the supply of micronutrients. There are important effects on the soil’s physical properties, such as water-holding capacity, aeration and drainage, structural stability, and resistance to erosion and compaction. Soils with ample organic matter provide a good rooting medium that promotes plant uptake of immobile nutrients such as P and K, and of course also water. Not surprisingly, the world’s most productive soils in such areas as the U.S. Corn Belt and the Ukraine are known for having a high organic matter content.
Would the accelerated loss of organic material associated with synthetic nitrogen play any role in increasing levels of salt in soils? I’m thinking of the Salinas Valley in California. Another question following upon the first: Would changing the soil profile exacerbate problems associated with salt water intrusion? And would additions of organic matter help slow the destructive effects of salt on crops?
RM By impeding drainage, a loss of organic matter would exacerbate salt accumulation through evapotranspiration. Depending on irrigation water quality, the salt buildup could reduce productivity and restrict cropping plans.
Do irrigation methods make a difference? Perhaps an obvious question, but I’m thinking of a perennial crop, such as wine grapes. Does drip irrigation, often the synthetic nitrogen delivery tech of choice for large and small scale grape growers, ultimately have a deleterious effect? With drip irrigation the vine root system is encouraged to remain near the soil surface. So I’m wondering for established vines, whether synthetic nitrogen fertilizer applications would, over the life of the vine, result in the selective degradation of it’s immediate soil, the few square feet the vine inhabits.
RM Drip irrigation is the most efficient option for supplying water, and would also increase nutrient uptake efficiency with lower fertilizer rates in close proximity to the rooting zone. Under these conditions, C depletion should be minimized by synthetic N fertilization. Without long-term data on drip irrigation, any further comment would be speculative.
What are your recommendations for the rehabilitation of degraded soils? I realize it varies from crop to crop. Corn is a heavy nitrogen feeder; wine grapes. less so. But given the recognition by a grower of a degraded farm soil, what steps might be taken to begin to re-establish soil health?
RM The Morrow Plots and other long-term experiments have shown that mixed legume rotations and the use of manure are conducive to soil C sequestration, as opposed to synthetic N fertilization for continuous grain production. The damage in the latter case will escalate if residues are harvested for ethanol production.
What is you opinion of biochar as a method of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils?
RM Biochar can be a valuable amendment for soils that are very low in organic matter, and has been particularly useful in managing tropical soils subject to deforestation and shifting agriculture. Soil C will be sequestered, and plant growth will benefit from deeper root penetration with improved soil structure, higher water-holding capacity, etc.
Thank you, Professor Mulvaney.
RM Thanks for your interest in our work on this topic. I hope these comments will be helpful.
—–
Apologies to the reader for the breezy, rapid presentation of such a complex issue. I will post additional remarks on this important topic in the coming weeks.
Admin
A report just published by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication titled Americans’ Actions to Conserve Energy, Reduce Waste, and Limit Global Warming demonstrates the willingness of Americans to engage in a broad range of conservation practices even if they do not always follow through. Despite the recent body blows climate change science has suffered, it is clear from the report that the depth of America’s commitment to ‘green’ themes has only increased with time.
Conducted between the months of December, ‘09 and January of this year, 1001 Americans surveyed, 18 and over, readily agreed with the proposition that recycling at home, bicycling to work, using public transport, reducing energy use at home, among a few of the survey’s questions, were important personal pursuits and social values generally. However, the report also highlights the contrast between the motivation to act ‘green’ with the actual performance of the same. Now, what might prove of interest to the wine industry is that despite or perhaps because of shortcomings of the practical application of ‘green’ behavior of the surveyed, a large percentage indicated their willingness to reward companies perceived to engage in environmentally beneficial activities and to punish those companies perceived to be engaged in destructive behaviors.
From the report:
Consumer Behavior
Q201. Over the past 12 months, how many times have you rewarded companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming by buying their products?
2010 2008
Many times (6+) 4 5
Several times (4-5) 7 11
A few times (2-3) 17 22
Once 5 4
Never 68 58
Q202. Over the past 12 months, how many times have you punished companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming by NOT buying their products?
2010 2008
Many times (6+) 5 7
Several times (4-5) 7 8
A few times (2-3) 13 14
Once 3 3
Never 72 69
Q203. Over the next 12 months, would you like to punish companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming by NOT buying their products…
2010 2008
More frequently than you are now? 32 40
About the same as you are now? 58 53
Less frequently than you are now? 10 7
Q204. Over the next 12 months do you intend to buy the products of companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming…
2010 2008
More frequently than you are now? 34 40
About the same as you are now? 58 56
Less frequently than you are now? 8 4
Clearly, benefits may flow to a winery able to raise its ‘green’ profile. I have written about The Gort Cloud in precisely this connection. And Social Media, Facebook, for example, offers the winery an easy way to reach potential customers and other influencers. However, if we examine the otherwise excellent list of 50 Facebook update ideas for wineries from a recent post on the wine industry blog Fermentation, we find no mention is made of ‘green’ practices of any sort (as of this writing). I believe this to be an unreasonable oversight. I would strongly encourage wineries to add such a category to their Facebook update cycle as well as to their blogs, and any other public interface for that matter. It can do no harm, and may successfully tap into the incompletely realized personal ‘green’ ambitions of the American public.
2/18 Update. Please see the just released Drinks Business Green Awards for 2010.
Admin
Presented here is a detailed look into a historic winery, the Adega Regional de Colares outside of Lisbon, Portugal. It is also the conclusion of my thorough interview with Colares enologist, Francisco Figueiredo. He was very generous with his time, spending more than two hours indulging my curiosity. I would encourage readers to, well, read the first two installments: The Vineyards of Colares, A National Patrimony At Risk and From The Vineyards To The Adega Regional de Colares. It is a strange twist of fate that well after thinking I should not soon pass this way again, in two days I shall in fact be returning to Portugal for more wine work. More details to come.
Admin You were bottling the other day? This is your machine?
Francisco Figueiredo Yes. It is a little messy in here because we just got forty pallets of bottles. We were bottling some of the red 2004 Colares. And this is our bottling machine.
I’ve seen these guys before. Is this Italian?
FF Yes. Many are. So are the crushers and de-stemmers. The press is French. We have, more or less, modern machines. We still have some work to do. We have some walls to paint. We laid down a new floor about two years ago. We have to go slow with the investments. We will repair the roof and the walls soon, I hope.
These are the old lagares where the grapes used to be crushed and pressed. And part of the reds were fermented here. We don’t use the lagares anymore.
Does anyone still use lagares?
FF Yes. In the Douro Valley there are places where they still use them. And some of our own growers, they also do their own wine at home, they use them… Here are the old cement vats, fermenters also. We don’t use them anymore, either. And here is an old centrifugal crusher. And our new one. We use a pneumatic press for our wines. We also have two hydraulic vertical presses over there which we can use if we have a problem with the pneumatic press. And we have a machine to fill the ‘bag-in-box’. We use that type of package for our table wines. They are the boxes with the small tap. We use vacuum filling. The wine stays good for quite some time. And that is now our substitute for the glass jug. We are getting good sales from using the bag-in-box system.
So we ferment in temperature controlled stainless steel. Some of the red, because we don’t have enough room in the stainless steel, we still use those big wood vats over there. We call them ânforas; we still use them for some of the table wine. Of course, we have no temperature control with them. An interesting fact about those is that, as you know, for our steel vats we have to use the pump to circulate the juice, from the bottom to the top, to pump over to get the color out. But in the wooden ânfora, the process is done naturally because the carbonic gas pressure that builds inside is enough to push the wine to the top; and it fills that cup on the top so that the pomace always stays beneath the wine. We can do this without the use of pumps or electricity, just the carbonic gas pressure which build up naturally during fermentation. I have not seen these anywhere else in the world. The system is the same for the cement vats called ânfora Argelina, but I have never seen wooden ones.
Where did these come from?
FF They were built here. The wood is Portuguese Chestnut. Each takes ten tons of grapes. And later we then bring over the pneumatic pump and open a small door to take the pomace to the press. This has a tube inside. The cup on top has a hole, in the center, so the wine goes up, fills the cup, and the wine then drains back on top of the pomace.
It’s like a giant coffee percolator!
FF (laughs) Yes. Almost exactly like a coffee percolator. This is the same system as the traditional cement that appeared in the ’60s.
May I climb up?
FF Yes. As long as you are not afraid of heights!
We climb up a narrow ladder.
FF You can see the tube. This is really spectacular to see during fermentation because the cup is filled with wine and it bubbles! It is a pretty sight.
The doors are very small. How do you clean out the interior?
FF We go inside. Someone has to go inside to remove all of the pomace. We put a ventilator up here and let the vat breathe for some time because of the danger of suffocation. In fact, four people have died in Portugal during this harvest time because of carbonic gas. They die without knowing it. We are very careful about that. For cleaning we have a special device that sprays hot water. But it is very difficult to be 100% sure that it is perfectly clean. It is wood, after all.
But we don’t have a problem with Brettanomyces because our wine has a low pH. And we don’t have a lot of sugar in the wine. We produce dry wines, around 12% alcohol. All the sugar is consumed by the yeast. So it is not easy for Brett. The main problem for us is not having temperature control here; not the wood but the temperature control. The wine can heat up quite a bit, around 40 degrees celsius.
Really?
FF Yes. That is high enough for the wine to lose a lot of the aroma. The tube, by the way, is connected to the crusher so that the grapes come through here. We use two or three of these vats or ânfora, each year.
Whose initials are these, JVN? The maker?
FF That means Junta Nacional do Vinhos, the National Wine Institute [founded in 1937]. Since the fifties, until 1994, this cooperative was a kind of hybrid organism; it was half cooperative, half was intervention by the state, the agricultural minister. Because of that all of the wine had to be made here in order to use the Colares DOC. That is no longer the case.
And what are these tools?
FF We don’t use them any longer, but they are for pushing down the cap. They were used if we didn’t put in a full 10 tons of grapes inside the ânfora. With less grapes inside, the carbonic gas would not be enough to push the wine out of the top. These forks would be used to push the pomace, the cap, down to mix with the wine. We now use a pump for that if it becomes a problem.
These are beautiful. I trust they will eventually end up in a museum.
FF Yes, yes. Some of them already are. And they are not permitted for use these days. They are made of wood and iron. What was done at the time was to paint, to use special paints to protect the iron parts in the tools and machines. Now it is all stainless steel. But every year all of the old tools had to be painted with the special paint that protected the iron from contact with the wine.
We climb down the stairs.
So, to be clear, someone has to climb into the anfora from the top…
FF Yes, yes. You go up to the cup and climb in from there using a ladder. The center tube is pulled out and someone goes down.
Do you ever have any cork issues?
FF No. We use only corks. I have never received cork taint complaint. Never. I will always choose cork.
I agree with you completely.
FF Would you like to taste some of the wines?
Of course! You know, I have a odd thing to ask. Being from America, we like to collect hats or shirts of the places we’ve visited. I’m looking for something with the name ‘Colares’ on it. Do you know where I can find such a thing? A rather silly idea!
FF No. But it is not a silly idea. It is an idea I have given to the directors. Why not a polo shirt or something? Even for the workers!
Not to mention Gonçalo, the winegrower we spoke with earlier. He wasn’t even wearing a hat!
Francisco laughs while getting two tasting glasses.
It must be very satisfying work for you. You’re doing so many things at the same time; preserving a way of life, preserving a wine culture, preserving memory…
FF Yes. It is all very important. I am also afraid that things might not go well in the future. The vines are in danger. That’s the only thing that I regret.
He uses a thief to draw a barrel sample. This is the white Malvasia, sandy soil, 2008. We will bottle it probably in a couple of weeks. [Late November.] Malvasia has a very citric, very minerally, acidic taste, and an almost salty taste, I notice. It also has an oxidative character; I think of hay or honey.
Very oceanic… very bright and fresh. How is the water quality here?
FF We analyze it inside our HACCP plant: ‘Hazard Analyses and Critical Control Points’. (laughs) There is some paperwork that we have to do. We have to analyze the water. It is good.
That’s one helluva name. So when you’re doing bottling session how many people would normally be here?
FF Working? Around four. We do it with a small crew to get into the rhythm. We can do about 1000 to 1200 bottles an hour. That is a good speed for a machine like ours. One guy puts the bottle on the carousal, another one taking it off and putting in the cork, another one carrying the bottles, another stacking the bottles. It would be quicker if we had one of those pallet movers, but we don’t have one yet.
Do you use wild yeasts?
FF No. We inoculate. The reason is that I had some experiences making the wine with natural yeasts, the wild yeasts, but I had some problems with starting the fermentation. It is too risky for me to risk that when I do 7000 liters of Ramisco or 2500 liters of Malvasia. But I did make an experiment. It is a question of trying to select a natural yeast from the area; that would be a project that I would like to do.
So you have experimented…
FF Yes, with several yeasts. For the whites we use a Portuguese yeast; it was selected in the Vinho Verde region, in the north of Portugal.
How was it done historically?
FF Naturally. But the big difference is that it would have been in an open lagar. That makes a lot of difference from using the closed stainless steel vats. I have made wine at my parents home using, not a granite lagar, but a small plastic lagar, more or less; and I had no problem starting the fermentation. Sometimes we have a problem with it stopping!
It can stop at 12% ?
FF Yes, before the sugar is depleted. That is a risk for the wine. But the main problem is fermentation within a closed tank. That’s when it becomes difficult. We would probably have no problem if I did the Ramisco in the lagar.
Francisco draws a second wine.
Have there ever been experiments done with fortified wines in Colares?
FF No. Just for the workers. I have done one this year. (laughs) We call it jeropiga or Abafado. I have taken the juice out of the tank before fermentation started and added our wine distillate. I made five liters last year. We give a small bottle for each of the workers. It is for drinking now. We have a tradition of drinking it during Saint Martin’s Day, the 11th of November. That day it is traditional to release the young wine for the first time; and you also drink abafado. An abafado is when the fermentation has started a little bit, like a Port, it is the same. Port is a special type of abafado. We add the spirits before the fermentation has started. One is usually a little bit sweeter than the other.
He pours the second wine.
FF This is the Ramisco. This has been in the big wood vats for around two years. Then it was put into these oak barrels. This is not young oak. It is three year-old oak. Our Ramisco wine doesn’t go well with new oak. It is too strong for our wine. So we use a two to three year-old barrel. What we are doing now is three years in the big exotic barrels in the other room [another part of the adega] and one year in the small oak barrels. We now see that this is the best for the wine.
How warm does it get in the other room?
FF This room is much hotter than the other. Even during the summertime the other room only gets to 16, maybe 20 degrees celsius. Here, no.
We drink the Ramisco. This Ramisco is regional because it has not yet been certified. It becomes DOC only after certification. Before that it is regional. Six months before bottling we have to send the wine to a certification board and they will certify the wine as DOC.
What does certification involve? And who is on the panel?
FF It involves a chemical analysis and a tasting. The panel is made up of one representative of the city, there are the persons who represent the associations and cooperatives of the Estremadura region, and then there are representatives of the producers. The panel or board has about 15 people.
What wine do you use for topping off?
FF We use the same wine held in a different vat. We can mix a maximum of 10% of different years of Ramisco. If we have the need we can do that, to play with the volumes. When you use new oak, and I’ve this experience in other places, you often have to use 15%. The Australians usually don’t top. They put the barrel on its side and leave it there for a only a few months. They probably do that in California as well.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of wine ratings, and wine descriptions, the tasting notes?
FF They are very exaggerated. Wine is simpler than that. I think that is the beauty of wine. Sometimes a wine smell like something, but the critics exaggerate. Sometimes the wine smells like something tangible, but….
We exit the adega and make our way to his car where I retrieve my personal effects.
What do you have here in the back of your car?
FF My mother-in-law sent this to my mother. It is a basket of walnuts and some chestnuts, and a bottle of jeropiga! (laughs) It is my mother-in-law’s present to my mother.
Thank you very much, Francisco. This has been an eye-opening visit.
FF It was a pleasure, Ken. Let me give you some wine before you go.
Does the adega keep a wine library?
FF Yes. Since 1931, the first harvest in the year of the foundation of the cooperative; the first wine we made.
Back to 1931? My goodness. So what is next for you, your next series of tasks?
FF We will bottle a few things. We always have a busy commercial time at Christmas. After that, in January, we usually transfer the young wines to the wood vats, take the lees out. Then we continue to bottle if we have the need. And I start in the springtime I get out of the cellar to give technical support to the vineyards. And then the cycle begins again!
Admin
This post comes under the heading of ‘unfinished business’. Some months ago I wrote a piece that caught the attention of Robert Cartwright, the winemaker at Ponte Family Estate. I thanked him for his comment and asked after his work. He generously offered to send me some samples. I received the wines a couple of months later, but owing to the hustle and bustle of my schedule, they were set aside and forgotten. Entirely my fault! Recently rediscovered, I thought it best to revisit the conversation, the well-designed Ponte Family Estate website and, of course, the wines.
Now, I don’t usually write tasting notes, a detail I made clear to Mr. Cartwright; but it became clear from reading the excellent Environment portion of their winery blog that I had to respond in some way. Truth is, they are doing a commendable job on the ‘green’ front. From using light weight bottles, to sourcing locally produced ingredients in their restaurant, from using 100% CFL light bulbs, to the elimination of plastic bottles from their facilities, they are making an effort. And ‘green’ extends to home life. Even the winery owner, Claudio Ponte, had turned in his SUV for a Prius; he advocates replacing lawns with drought tolerant plants and planting a vegetable garden. Small steps, to be sure. Of course, no mention is made of solar power or water recycling. And some ‘innovations’ are just plain silly, such as this one: “Our winemaker and his team are harvesting at night whenever possible. This effort allows the must to be chilled without using much energy.” But by and large, the greenwash is kept to a minimum.
The Wines
– 2008 California Chardonnay 13.6% alc ($23.95)
I tasted this wine at room temperature on a stormy afternoon. The nose is very tropical, with peaches, bananas and a strong coconut. It tastes very similar. The coconut is much stronger. A bit too much sulphur for having been open for half an hour. A hint of sourness that someone else described as green apple, but it’s more like a green apple Jolly Rancher candy to my taste. Very unctuous, thick mouth feel. It is not my style or to my liking, but I can taste no obvious faults. I know many wine drinkers who would like this wine.
– 2006 Temecula Valley Meritage 13.5% alc ($34.95)
This wine is a blend, naturally, of Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Merlot, Petit Verdot and Malbec. The bottle notes list the varieties in that order. No percentages are given. The nose is very sweet, with bacon fat (yes, though a vegetarian I can still remember the smell and taste of bacon fat) and bright fruit. A bit of sourness on the nose as well. Quite nice. Good acid, smoky body (oak), I would guess the Cabernet Franc percentage to be quite high. An entirely agreeable wine. Perfumey after taste. Long finish. Good, solid bottle of wine.
– 2007 Temecula Valley Holiday Reserve Zinfandel 15.1% alc (2006 sold for $26.95)
One of the most unusual Zinfandel noses I’ve ever smelled. Very curious. Sweet, baked trout? Almost an ocean spray and very ripe fig. Baffling. Medium bodied, sweet and sour cherry. A bit green, perhaps. Uneven ripeness from a multiple vineyard blend, I’d guess. Hot. Acidified. For a California Zinfandel collector this wine should definitely be added to the cellar. I’ve had a hundred Zins from throughout California and this one is a puzzle. Warming in the glass, the wine has taken on more of a Zin character. A bit of cinnamon candy now. Oak. Very unusual. Weird, but I like it for that reason. Take it to a blind tasting and no one would easily identify it! I don’t detect any microbial mayhem, by the way.
Very high quality corks were used for each wine.
Great thanks to Ponte Family Estate and Robert Cartwright for their generosity.
Admin
I received an important update from my friend Hans-Peter Schmidt. He is Managing Director and Head of Research for the Delinat Institute in Switzerland. He is also a viticulturist and winemaker at Mythopia, essentially the organization’s center. Founded June 5th, 2009, the Delinat Institute is dedicated to
“the scientific development of ecologically holistic strategies for an economically viable, carbon neutral farming with high biodiversity.”
One of the Institutes principle concepts is that of climate farming which argues for a rich mixture of organic, biodynamic and sustainable practices. From their website:
• Consequently breaks the monocultural systems
• Increases and sustains soil and above ground biodiversity
• Stabilizes the vineyard ecosystem and the commercial output by a sophisticated use of mixed cultures (vegetables, fruits, trees, shrubs, herbs, wine, flowers, mushrooms, bees, livestock, energy source plants in complementary coexistence).
• Optimizes nutrient cycles by the use of green manures, compost and biochar
• Renunciation of artificial fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides
• Protects the plants through stimulation of self-defence mechanisms and promotion of biodiversity, which is complemented by microbial and herbal preparation.
• Generates energy from solar power, wind and biomass
• Provides carbon sinks by the production of biochar and humus
• Is engaged in landscape protection through aestheticization of the agricultural space
• Maintains and conserves the diversity of varieties and species, protects endangered plants and animals
• Opens up new perspectives for humans to live in harmony with nature
And it is with these ideas, located under the concept of climate farming, that they approach all the vineyards at which they consult. Their vineyards include Château Duvivier (Var, France), Quaderna Via (Navarra-Spain), Albet i Noya (Penedes-Spain), Mythopia (Wallis, Switzerland), Fasoli (Veneto, Italy), Hirschhof (Rheinhessen, Germany) and Meinklang (Austria).
Now comes news of their recently published Charter for Vineyard Biodiversity, the update referenced above. But the Delinat Istitute is not interested in launching another certification program. As Peter explained to me,
“We do not plan a new label, certification or something bureaucratic. We try to motivate others toward ecological transformation and to inform about the background of the different measures. The Charter is not only an ecological statement but a plea for Terroir quality management and preservation of viticultural traditions. The Charter is designed in such a way that every winery client can walk through the vineyard and do the eco-control with his own eyes.
The Charter is the baseline for Delinat production directives, and will be implemented by about 100 vineyards throughout Europe starting from 2010. The Charter is open to every vintner and is actually finding a great interest from many vineyards owners, both organic and conventional. The Charter is the baseline for the consulting work of Delinat-Institut.”
One of the finest documents of it’s kind I’ve read in a very long time, I would encourage all to share in its nuance, beauty and scientific rigor. Delinat Institute’s Charter offers some of the best of progressive agricultural thinking a reader may hope to encounter. And they can make it profitable!
Charter for Vineyard Biodiversity
—Authored by the Delinat-Institute, Switzerland
The principal idea of the new methods for quality-orientated wine growing is a precise encouragement of biodiversity. Nevertheless, the idea only arises indirectly from that aesthetic image of a vineyard where one can smell flowers and where the grasshoppers are jumping around. Vineyard biodiversity is rather based on the concept of understanding the vineyard as an ecosystem, whose flexible balance is formed by means of a complex network of a high biological diversity.
The promotion of biodiversity is not the goal itself, but the path for the establishment of the vineyard as a stable ecosystem.
The main objective for the encouragement of biodiversity is to convert the vineyards into stable ecological systems and to increase the quality of the Terroir by means of a sustainable use of natural forces.
Biodiversity of the soil and the soil-cover
1. The encouragement of biodiversity in the vineyard starts from the reactivation of the soils. For this purpose only bioactive manure is applied: compost, compost extracts, herb extracts, green manure, biochar, mulch and BRF (fragmented wood). The uses of artificial manure, concentrated fertilizer, herbicides or liquid fertilizer are not allowed. An application of non-composted animal manure must equally be avoided.
2. Installation of a constant green manure through leguminous plants between the stocks. Re-creation of a closed material flow and thereby guaranteeing a nutritive supply of the stocks without the need of an additional artificial manure. The sowing of a grand variety of leguminous plants provides a very high biological activity of the soil and improves the storage of water and nutrients as well as controlling erosion.
3. Green soil cover all year round. The goal is to achieve a plantation rich in species with autochthonous flowers. At least 20% of the seeds mixture for the green manure must be composed of plants with flowers that attract insects. In total, one must be able to find at least 50 types of wild plants in the vineyard.
Vertical Biodiversity
4. Planting bushes at the end of the respective rows where they do not interfere with the work cycles. The criteria for choosing bushes is based on the potential attractiveness to butterflies and other insects, the nesting possibilities, the symbiosis of the roots and the use of their fruits. Autochthonous species will be planted.
5. Planting hedges as an intermediate line between the stocks. Depending on the local conditions, at least 2 x 20m of closed hedges per hectare. The hedges are potent biodiversity hotspots and as aisles, ideal for a network connection of ecological areas. As natural barriers between the rows they hold back epidemics of harmful fungus.
6. Planting fruit trees for the improvement of vertical diversity. Trees planted among plants of lower height and in badly structured cultivation areas represent an enormous attraction for birds, insects and other groups of animals, and encourage a re-population of the ecological habitat. Trees that are outstanding in an aerial plankton also act as collectors of spores; an area from where the yeasts and other fungus can expand in the vineyard (diversity of natural yeasts for the wine making and as a competition for harmful fungus). At least one tree should be planted between the stocks for each hectare of ground as well as several small trees on the appropriate boundaries with a NE-NW orientation. The distance to the nearest tree should not be more than 50m from any point of the vineyard. Possible losses in the harvest may be compensated by the harvest of fruits.
Structural Biodiversity
7. Ecological compensation areas rich in species of at least 2 x 20 m2 for every hectare
should be created as diversity hotspots both in the centre of the boundaries of the plots with stocks, where aromatic herbs and wild flowers grow (ruderal vegetation and flora, megaforbics). The distance to the nearest hotspot should not be more than 50m from any point of the vineyard.
8. Creation of structural elements such as stones and piles of woods for reptiles and insects. Installation of artificial nests for wild bees, insects and birds. The artificial nests may be integrated on the staking posts. Perches for birds of prey for a reduction of rodents. The pesticides used in the spraying must, therefore, be composed by harmless substances for bees and insects (renounce chemical pesticides and sulphur.)
Crop biodiversity
9. Cultivation of at least one secondary crop in the interstices of the main crop. This can be vegetables such as tomatoes or pumpkins, fruits such as raspberries or strawberries, a winter cereal such as rye and barley or aromatic herbs, planted or sown between the rows of vines. Also suitable are fruit bushes like chokeberry, sea buckthorn or sloe planted in lines between the vines, as are rows of fruit trees (vineyard peach, plum, almond, quince, etc.). Secondary crops also include bees, sheep, chickens, fish and other small farm animals. The areas earmarked for secondary crops must be large enough to ensure a proper economic return.
Genetic Diversity
10. Instead of grubbing the old vineyards and planting the surface again from scratch, the old stocks are replaced one for the other, choosing the plants by means of massale selection in the same vineyard and planting them as graft in the corresponding nurseries, therefore achieving a selection of varieties of multiple generations which adapt perfectly to the Terroir. The genetic diversity obtained reduces the pressure of infection due to plagues, increases the hardiness before the dominant environmental conditions, and improves the quality of the wine.
End
Admin
From December 4th-6th Vila de Frades (the village of Friars), a small community of 1000 souls, hosted Vitifrades, the festival of clay jar wines and olive oils. Begun in 1997, the Vitifrades Festival has been the principle showcase for this very rare tradition of winemaking. The Alentejo region of Portugal has seen a great many changes in wine production over the last 30 years. But what has changed little, what still clings heroically to life, in Vila de Frades, Vila Alva, Vidiguiera, and other local villages, is the dedication to a specific winemaking technology little changed since the time of the Romans. Winemaking in our time is obsessed with new technologies and is limited in its expression by narrowing differences foisted upon winemakers by marketing forces and the well-publicized palates of a very few. But who among we drinkers would not welcome the opportunity to visit Vila Frades and to taste the wines at such a festival? Indeed, it is a festival dedicated as much to clay jar wines (and olive oils) as to a local culture of resistance.
From a recent (vol 49, #4, 2009) Chronica Horticulturae article by Virgilio Loureiro titled ‘Historical Wines of Portugal’,
“Portuguese culture did not escape the ‘wave of progress’ that devastated the viticultural world in the end of the 20th century but contributed to affirm the wine as a global drink of prestige. Besides the Port, Madeira, and Mateus Rosé wines, which were already globalized, the Green wine, the Alentejo, the Douro, and the Dão reached international maturity. However, not everything has been positive. The powerful force of new technologies and the anxiety to produce more and lower-priced wine caused irreparable damages to regional originalities, the soul of world cuisine, especially in its millenarian grape and wine-growing patrimony. It is in this context that it has become urgent to speak about old European historical wines, so that one of the most important symbols of the Mediterranean World and Western civilization is to be understood as more than merchandise or business.”
And of clay jar wines specifically, he writes,
“White, red, or pale wines made in great clay jars, hence their name, have a long tradition in the Alentejo, the southern part of the country, and these wines continue to be made according to this Roman process. The special taste conferred makes it the preferred one to Alentejanos, who only drink another wine when jar wine ends. The jar manufacturers, that did not use the potter wheel, have disappeared, and the gateadores, who placed the patches (cats) in the jars, as well as the pesgadores, who waterproofed the interior of the jars with pitch, are almost gone. Among jar wines, the Palhetes of Vila de Frades assume particular relevance and are locally known as petroleiros. They are a variety of the jar wines that originated in the Saint Cucufate Convent. The friars, having used one of the largest Roman villae in Lusitania, now in ruins, created a petroleum color jar wine called palhete, made from a blend of about 80% white grapes and 20% red grapes.”
What follows is a series of photographs taken during this most recent Vitifrades Festival by Prof. Virgilio Loureiro. I post them here with his kind permission. Saludos!
A Jar Wine Cellar
Antonio Ferro (left) with Virgilio Louriero.
Participants.
A traditional wine bar.
Principle Pavillion.
Visiting another cellar.
People in the street.
Procession.
A wine cellar after the visit.
Admin
Jonathan Nossiter’s Mondovino, The Series, is a revelation from beginning to end. On four dvds, ten one-hour episodes, not only does it build upon themes pursued in the original 2004 theatrical release, but it substantially deepens them as well. For those who have only seen the original, they will be greatly rewarded by viewing the enormous amount of material that had to be set aside to fashion a marketable film. For those who come to Mondovino, The Series fresh, they are in for a hilarious, educational ride.
One of the most fascinating aspects of The Series is the sheer number of new insights uttered by all the original players. I well remember the harsh criticism heaped on Mr. Nossiter for his alleged politically motivated edit, especially of remarks by Robert Parker and Michel Rolland. Well, in The Series each gentleman greatly expand on their positions with respect to globalization, tradition and the use and abuse of history. Threadbare do the protestations of a slanted edit become when throughout The Series Parker and Rolland insist on digging deeper holes. But, one the other hand, they thereby become much more human, frail, seemingly caught in an echo chamber, a hall of mirrors of mutual admiration. For here recounted is no ordinary love story. Flaubert’s brilliant Bouvard et Pecuchét does come to mind. Yes, let us not forget Mondovino, The Series is high comedy.
And there are many new characters: Jan Shrem of Clos Pegase, Bill Harlan, Jose Espinoza, psychoanalyst Jean Laplanche of Chateau de Pommard, Catherine Montalbetti, editor of the Hachette Wine Guide, a very curious plastic surgeon from Paris, Dr. Eric Auclair, Steve Harvey of Folie à Deux, Pierre Siri, proprietor of the artisanal-class Iris du Gayou, Becky Wasserman, Charlie Rodriguez, José Mounier… the list of new and interesting voices is vast. Indeed, Mondovino, The Series swallows the theatrical release whole. (Though there are a small number scenes in the original that did not make it into The Series. But I’ll leave their identification to the film buff!) Incidentally, the world premier of this expanded film was in December, 2006, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. I have not been able to determine if that release differs significantly.
What I would like to do for the balance of this post is to provide a brief summary of each of the 10 chapters for the convenience of the viewer. (All images below are used with the generous permission of Jonathan Nossiter.)
1) Where’s Asterix? (or Little Town, Big Hell)
This first episode expands on broader themes most closely identified with the theatrical release, the global versus the local, narrowly drawn, the battle was between the town of Aniane in the Languedoc, pop. 2,300, and the Mondavis of California. The conflict revolved around two nominally independent issues: the preservation of a forest and the resistance to a global corporation. But there is much ambiguity introduced into this new cinematic presentation. Of course we are introduced to Aimé Guibert of Mas de Daumas Gassac, wine consultant Michel Rolland (I wonder if he still smokes?), Laurent Vaille of Domaine de La Grange des Pères, the Mondavis and their winery staff, Bernard Magrez, the former socialist mayor, André Ruiz and his elected replacement, the communist Manuel Diaz. We meet Mr. and Mrs. Gay, the founders of Citizens for the Protection of the Forest. Many new locals speak about the conflict, and we hear more from the clergy and from a very entertaining police officer most concerned with parking problems additional tourism might bring!
Interestingly, the more the ‘players’ in this episode speak, the more nuanced do their positions become. A viewer upon finishing this first chapter comes away with a far greater appreciation of the multiple meanings, as much personal and political, of the battle to save the forest. There is as much bad faith as honesty, as much cowardice as courage. No political position is as it seems. It is in this discordance that comedy reigns surpreme.
2) Magic Potion
Next we’re off to Burgundy. In Volnay we meet Hubert de Montille, his wife Christiane, and their three children, Isabelle, Etienne and the sublime Alix. Lighting up the screen is the magisterial Aubert de Villaine of the Domaine de la Romanée Conti (pictured). Also in part two we are first introduced to Jean-Charles Boisset, Director of the Boisset Group, and young Alix Montille’s employer at the time. Jean-Charles Boisset will make numerous appearances throughout The Series, each more ‘revealing’ than the last. Of great amusement is Floris Lemstra, General Manager of Marketing for Boisset. He awkwardly spies on Alix’s every exchanges with Mr. Nossiter while they are on the Boisset grounds.
Of the Montille children, truly remarkable new footage is included. Our understanding of Alix and Etienne is improved, both fascinating people. We follow a harvest with the workers grumbling over labor issues and the family’s response. Greek and Libyan students on break from the University of London stir up trouble but are seemingly placated by a fabulous lunch prepared by Christine. Great exchanges are enjoyed throughout!
Back to Napa where we are introduced to Chateau and Estate Wines (Diageo) employees Gregg Fowler, the head of Vineyard Operations, and Peter Hall, VP of Consumer Strategies (can you say Red Chardonnay?) We close with a visit to Sterling, a subsidiary of Seagrams, a subsidiary of Diageo. Much mayhem is set upon the world! Here the noose tightens another inch on the issue of globalization.
3) Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day
This third episode is the most revealing, weird and refreshing one-hour look the wine industry likely to be shot for a very long time. Deserving of wide circulation, it is a virtually perfect series of contrasting personalities. We meet the eccentric Jan Shrem of Clos Pegase, a comic figure of the first order, reflecting on art, the good life and the triumph of a kind of western aesthetic imperialism. Throw in eerie footage of Bill Harlan haunting his own winery, opening and closing each and every door, briefly opening then drawing drapes in an apparent effort to contain or exclude some prowling malevolence; mix in the strangely remote Staglins, Sheri, Garen and their daughter, Shannon; add farm worker observations about working conditions and the absence of overtime with an explore of antiseptic environment of Opus One, all capped by a sunset barbeque with former farm worker, now winemaker, Luis Ochoa, his wife and neighbors outside their trailer/winery…. This is the merest hint of the brilliant cross-cutting hilarity Mr. Nossiter assembles. (I hasten to add that of all the dogs and cats we meet, it is in Luis Ochoa’s back forty where we see the one and only jack rabbit in the entire ten-hour series.)
There was one moment I found very affecting. Owing to the fuller fleshing out of characters the longer series permits, we are given, per force, finer shadings of the Mondavi brood. For reasons not entirely clear to me, when Michael Mondavi says, “I got my father back”, he relates a painful truth that was quite beautiful, at least to this viewer. Margrit at Copia is equally touching. Indeed, the Mondavi story, built fragment by filmic fragment through the ten-part series, will finally add up to a tour de force in its own right by the series’ end.
There is much else that is commendable but I cannot resist mentioning Bill Harlan’s reply to Mr. Nossiter’s question, “Does Napa have an identity?” Mr. Harlan replies, “To me the Napa Valley is kind of as it’s always been. It’s been in transition of becoming what it will be in another 100 years.” No post-modernist academic (or Stephen Colbert, for that matter) could have uttered a more confounding sentence. A pitch-perfect summation of episode 3.
4) Pax Panoramix
We begin in Jurançon, Pyrenees at the Domaine de Souch where we meet Yvonne Hegoburu. An exalted woman, she offers powerful insights into what growing grapes means. As well as in Sardinia, Bosa specifically, where next we land. Battista and Lina Colombu, again, express puzzlement at the increasing homogenization of wine globally. This episode is particularly rich in contrasting opinion. Neal Rosenthal hits back hard. Michel Rolland blithely goes about his business. There is more push back in Burgundy with wisdom from Hubert Montille and Aubert de Villaine. Michael Broadbent joins in. Patrick Leon of Chateau Mouton-Rothschild does not seem to know an artisanal-class winery’s vines are interplanted with his, those of Domaine Iris du Gayou’s. Pierre Siri, winemaker for Iris, is a shrewd addition to the film. There is shown a fascinating meditation on the 1855 Bordeaux classification from multiple points of view. Perhaps most delightful is an interview with Jean-Michel Cazes, owner of the 5th growth Lynch Bages. He takes the filmmaker on a delightful tour of the bizarre architecture of prominent Bordeaux wineries. “There is really no local architecture!”
5) The Appian Way
The viewer might be wondering what is left to prove generally about the globalization of a limited wine style having heard multiple voices either pointing to or demonstrating the affirmative. And yet we are only four episodes into The Series. Previously critics have laid the blame for the argument forcefully made in the theatrical version of Mondovino at Mr. Nossiter’s feet. It was his selective editing that was to blame. That argument can no longer be sustained. And with episode 5 the beat goes on. But a more aggressively drawn contrast begins to emerge. Here is considered the influence of Robert Parker. From Rolland to garagiste Jean-Luc Thunevin of Chateau Valandraud in St. Émilion, from a visit to Leo McCloskey of Enologix, the largest wine consulting firm in the US, to Parker himself, it is in this episode where the rubber meets the road. I defy anyone to sit through Mr. Parker’s greatly expanded comments on his own influence, on pricing, terroir, his indifference to history and not come away astonished at his arrogance. Michel Rolland, as well. And a new, fresh voice is heard here, Catherine Montalbetti, the editor of the Hachette Wine Guide. She speaks well of the standardization of taste. And she goes on to say, “Because no way can you tell whether it comes from California, Chile, Bordeaux or Languedoc.”
6) Quo Vademus?
What does an older bottle of wine taste like? Neal Rosenthal laments the way prominent critics interfere with the cultivation of a tasting culture. In a cross-cut Parker explains “As I get older, I like them younger.” Jean-Luc Thunevin, much to the displeasure of his wife, says “Well, I say I don’t like old women.” Quo vademus? Where are we going? This episode explores the ‘plastic surgery’ of wine, especially the increasing use of new French oak. Parker dwells on his liking of vanilla and toastiness, and considering its prevalence and that he likes wines younger, it is very amusing we are taken to the Paris office of plastic surgeon, Dr. Eric Auclair. Back in Napa, Leo McCloskey, CEO of Enologix, notes the similarity of palates of Parker and the Wine Spectator. Indeed, so closely have become the palates of leading critics that Enologix specifically works with wineries to predict what the critics will say! Tom Matthews of the Wine Spectator is interviewed. More from Burgundy. Marketing has assumed a central role. Among the Montille’s family, Etienne explains that the enemy is ignorance and standardization, over-simplification and money, of course. Diversity, he insists, is the highest value. It was a pleasure to see Becky Wasserman and Russell Hone make an appearance. Yvonne Hegoburu, Aimé Guibert, Aubert de Villaine, and Michel Lafarge all join in discussing the matter of marketing.
Tourists are caught plundering the grapes of Romanée Conti! Aubert de Villaine’s reaction is priceless. We close with a brief moments with the eternal Charlotte Rampling.
7) All Roads Lead to Rome
Episode 7 is framed by the question of authorship versus midwifery in the creation of a wine. We begin in Paris at the Ministry of Finance. Alain Châtelet of the Govt. Bureau on Wine Fraud leads us through the delicate question of consumer protection with respect to fraudulent wines. Very difficult to prosecute owning to the reluctance of victims to step forward. Great ego investment in wine. And what can you say about a wine that is both pleasurable and a counterfeit? Indeed, this entire episode could be called “the psychoanalysis of wine” for we next meet Jean Laplanche of Chateau de Pommard. “I have a complex life, to tell the truth. Did you know that?”, he asks. Laplanche remains one of Jacques Lacan’s greatest students. Author of a dozen books on various aspects of the Freudian oeuvre, Laplanche introduces us to what might be called the ’strong’ argument: that only the author’s signature on the bottle is the guarantee of quality and authenticity of the contents. In stark contrast to his position are those of Montille and Villaine who hold that they are simply midwives. In broadly psychoanalytic terms you have a repositioning of the question of the Father and the Mother. (The consumer plays the role of child, constantly put on the spot to declare his unconditional love for one or the other.) Great anxiety! But what all gentlemen can agree upon is that for Robert Parker, as Laplanche puts it, “The complexity of Burgundy repulses him.” This is, I believe, a brilliant insight. There is a tremendous amount of important material here. Why do consumers feel the need for the strong hand of wine gurus? Why the anxiety over being cheated or of not knowing how to taste? How is it that powerful marketing forces have come between the consumer and their palates?
We next meet Scott Harvey, winemaker for Folie à Deux. That winery was named after the founders’ madness of the same name: the condition of two closely related people sharing the same delusional idea, in this case, of starting a winery. But perhaps the most interesting moments of this episode belong to Jean-Charles Boisset, Director of the Boisett Group, #1 in Burgundy sales. I shall not soon forget his unique method pf punching down the cap! Or his plan to produce a limited edition of a super-blend of wines from diverse Boisset holdings, a wine with no origins, possessing neither Mother nor Father, neither terroir nor authorship. The episode closes on a very painful recollection by Bernard Magrez. It seems his father used to pin a very public sign on his back reading ‘I am a lazy boy’ when he was a child. As he says, “If you’ve lived through that it is much harder to love anyone”.
8 ) Crossing the Rubicon
9) Et tu Brute…
Intrigue and regret in Italy. Here is recounted, finished in episode 9, the story of the Antinoris and the Frescobaldis, both aristocratic families of great antiquity. It is a grand tale of betrayal and familial discord, of false starts and of finding the courage to go on. A deep history is on display. Ornellia’s loss is recounted. It is a particularly ugly aspect of contemporary wine culture that history counts for so little. From Rolland to Parker, Boisset to Mondavi, there is simply no room for historical reflection in the pursuit of global markets. Unless one may make a buck off of it. But as The Series reveals again and again, whether it be Lafarge recounting German occupation of his family’s winery, Aubert de Villaine describing Burgundy’s religious patrimony, or Aimé Guibert railing against the erasure of cultural memory, real families, real histories are grinding forward.
Among the most bizarre and destructive of personalities on display is that of James Suckling. His casual child’s play with the meaning of the lives of others is both laughable and chilling. I’ll say no more except that his comments are greatly expanded from those presented in the theatrical release of Mondovino. Episodes 8 and 9 are truly a tour de force.
10) Veni, vidi, vendidi (I came, I saw, I sold)
In the final episode we may take a bit of a breather. Introduced to Chile, Brazil and Argentina (and the film crew’s mysterious denial of entry into Paraguay) we meet many fresh faces, many new winemakers. But we are also introduced to the persistent racism and class struggle that have blemished so much of the southern continent’s history. Rolland’s shadow falls even here. There is a strange, indeed, terribly tragic way in which the world of wine is repeatedly limited, boxed in, by the presence of so few authorities and consultants. How strange to wander the back country of Argentina and still hear the names Parker, Rolland, the monotonous incantation of so few names. But now, at the episode’s conclusion, we, too, have names, new names: Charlie Rodriguez, Isanette Bianchetti and Mauro Tedesco, José Mounier…
I highly recommend Mondovino, The Series.
Admin
I have written extensively here on Cavitus, an Australian company on the cutting edge of High Power Ultrasonics (HPU). Long designed for the cleaning of wine barrels, the removal tartrate build-up and the elimination of living cultures of Brettanomyces, a new application has been recently discovered and patented, that of flavor and color extraction. Andrew Yap, former Roseworthy College and University of Adelaide wine science lecturer and presently director of Oenology and Industry Marketing at Cavitus wrote me about this.
“Our latest breakthrough is the use of HPU for colour and flavour extraction from red must immediately at crushing. We have being trialing the technology in 2008 and 2009. We have had many successful winery trials with Merlot, Pinot Noir, Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon and Sangiovese grapes. In the 2010 vintage, wineries are planning to trial grape varieties, including Viognier, Grenache, Pinot Noir, Shiraz, etc. The wines from treated musts have been stunning. The wines have now been formally tasted by more than 10 winemaking groups in Aust and CA and the Aust Wine Research Institue’s taste panel. In general, HPU-treated wines have better depth of colour, greater palate weight and structural and textural complexity. The treated wines also gained more quality points in a 20-point scale used in Wine Show scoring, according to the AWRI’s taste panel.”
In the September issue of Australia’s Wine Business Magazine (subscription required) was published a brief account of the serendipitous discovery. During the five years of working to refine HPU barrel cleaning technology, it was determined that there was, indeed, another benefit of HPU. As Prof. Yap writes,
“When applied to grape must, Cavitus grape colour and flavour extraction (GCFE) HPU increases red colour density and anthocyanin concentration by as much as 30%. It accelerates the transfer of flavour compounds, aroma and flavour precursors as well as tannins from grape skins from the cells into the juice. One of the positive aspects of Cavitus’ HPU is that as a non-thermal process it does not adversely impact the organoleptic properties of the must and final wine.” [emphasis added]
Why might this innovation be of great importance? It gives far greater flexibility to manage picking times. Indeed, with respect to Autralia, Prof. writes,
“The last few vintages have shown how climate change can radically effect quality. Using Cavitus’ GCFE, winemakers can pick grapes earlier as a risk management strategy to manage colour and flavour in the winery rather than trying to work with high alcohol levels.” [emphasis added]
Over the next month I will be posting occasional updates, specifically the primary research on GCFE. And a recent interview with Prof. Yap will be made available in the next week. For background reading on the barrel cleaning dimension of Cavitus’ technology please see Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of last year’s October interview.
Admin
The FTC has issued new guidelines concerning endorsements and testimonials for the blogosphere, and the internet generally. Last updated in 1980, the new guidelines take a much needed step forward to include emergent social media on the internet. Though multifaceted, with respect to bloggers, the October 5th news release writes,
“The revised Guides [...] add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization.”
For a fuller analysis of what this specifically means for bloggers we may turn to the FTC’s Endorsement Guides Notice itself.
“The Commission does not believe that all uses of new consumer-generated media to discuss product attributes or consumer experiences should be deemed “endorsements” within the meaning of the Guides. Rather, in analyzing statements made via these new media, the fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statement can be considered “sponsored” by the advertiser and therefore an “advertising message.” In other words, in disseminating positive statements about a product or service, is the speaker: (1) acting solely independently, in which case there is no endorsement, or (2) acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker’s statement is an “endorsement” that is part of an overall marketing campaign?
So how does one to distinguish between point 1 and point 2? Relevant facts would include:
” whether the speaker is compensated by the advertiser or its agent; whether the product or service in question was provided for free by the advertiser; the terms of any agreement; the length of the relationship; the previous receipt of products or services from the same or similar advertisers, or the likelihood of future receipt of such products or services; and the value of the items or services received. An advertiser’s lack of control over the specific statement made via these new forms of consumer-generated media would not automatically disqualify that statement from being deemed an “endorsement” within the meaning of the Guides.”
“Thus, a consumer who purchases a product with his or her own money and praises it on a personal blog or on an electronic message board will not be deemed to be providing an endorsement. 21″
Note 21 reads, in part,
“Even if that consumer receives a single, unsolicited item from one manufacturer and writes positively about it on a personal blog or on a public message board, the review is not likely to be deemed an endorsement, given the absence of a course of dealing with that advertiser (or others) that would suggest that the consumer is disseminating a “sponsored” advertising message.” (emphasis added)
However, page 10 is where it gets tricky.
“A blogger could receive merchandise from a marketer with a request to review it, but with no compensation paid other than the value of the product itself. In this situation, whether or not any positive statement the blogger posts would be deemed an “endorsement” within the meaning of the Guides would depend on, among other things, the value of that product, and on whether the blogger routinely receives such requests. If that blogger frequently receives products from manufacturers because he or she is known to have wide readership within a particular demographic group that is the manufacturers’ target market, the blogger’s statements are likely to be deemed to be “endorsements,” as are postings by participants in network marketing programs. Similarly, consumers who join word of mouth marketing programs that periodically provide them products to review publicly (as opposed to simply giving feedback to the advertiser) will also likely be viewed as giving sponsored messages. 22″
Note 22 reads,
“The fact that the participants technically might be free not to say anything about any particular product they receive through the program does not change the Commission’s view that positive statements would be deemed to be endorsements. The underlying purpose of these word of mouth marketing programs is to generate positive discussion about the advertiser’s products.”
The bottom line for the FTC (from pg. 11):
“[T]o the extent that consumers’ willingness to trust social media depends on the ability of those media to retain their credibility as reliable sources of information, application of the general principles embodied in the Guides presumably would have a beneficial, not detrimental, effect. And although industry self-regulation certainly can play an important role in protecting consumers as these new forms of marketing continue to evolve and new ones are developed, self-regulation works best when it is backed up by a strong law enforcement presence.”
Further, from pg. 39,
“The recent creation of consumer-generated media means that in many instances, endorsements are now disseminated by the endorser, rather than by the sponsoring advertiser. In these contexts, the Commission believes that the endorser is the party primarily responsible for disclosing material connections with the advertiser. However, advertisers who sponsor these endorsers (either by providing free products – directly or through a middleman – or otherwise) in order to generate positive word of mouth and spur sales should establish procedures to advise endorsers that they should make the necessary disclosures and to monitor the conduct of those endorsers. 79″
Note 79 reads,
“The Commission’s view that these endorsers have an obligation to disclose material connections with their sponsoring advertisers should not be seen as reflecting a desire on the part of the Commission either to deter consumers from sharing their views about products they like with others or as an indication the Commission intends to target consumer endorsers who use these new forms of consumer-generated media. As with traditional media, the Commission’s law enforcement activities will continue to focus on advertisers.”
This is a developing story. The precise implications for our community of wine bloggers is as yet unclear. But we can say:
1) Bloggers who routinely write about wines should disclose whether the wines have been purchased or given as samples by a distributor, agent, or winery.
2) The advertiser’s lack of control over the review is not sufficient to disqualify a blogger as an endorser of a product.
3) The blogger is primarily responsible for disclosing a material relation with distributors, agents and wineries when they have previously received similar products or services from a specific commercial entity or from multiple commercial entities, and when they are in the future likely to receive such products.
4) The vote was unanimous, 4-0. The Guidelines will take effect December 1st of this year.
Admin
A few days ago I had the pleasure of speaking with Professor Bob Kreisher, president of Mavrik North America (MNA). After having written a piece on smoke taint some days earlier, it soon became apparent proper explanations of key elements were absent. It has been my good fortune to have been contacted by Dr. Kreisher, an ernest student of the subject. He offered very valuable clarifications. Indeed, he offered much more, as you may read below.
However, a proper word of caution. Mavrik is a private company. Much of the interview revolves around successful results implied by the use of a proprietary technology on unknown wines from unnamed producers. Further, I have not personally tasted any of the wines, either before or after MNA’s smoke taint removal process. Therefore this interview is in no way designed to give a competitive advantage to one of a number of companies associated with this general tech.
That said, the writer in me takes a particular delight in Dr. Kreisher’s charming thumbnail bio:
“Bob was born and raised in Indianapolis. He graduated from Purdue University the year it started its Enology and Viticulture program, completely unaware of this development. After many years in university administration, teaching, and consulting, Bob moved to California to help with the organizational design of an emerging winery. Meanwhile, Bob developed a keen interest in developing technologies of winemaking that are gentle and cost-effective to allow cutting edge cellar techniques that enhance the expression of terroir and winemaking, rather than reducing wines to similarity. After intensive research into available and emerging technologies, Bob formed MNA with Mariana Brown. In his spare time, he enjoys cooking, film, hiking, gardening, travel, and spending time with his family and friends.”
Still, questions remain. Most importantly, in my view, is that of a wine’s aging arc. Inasmuch as a given wine is purged of offending compounds involved in smoke taint only to the sensory level of a given set of tasters, might it be possible that the ‘bad’ molecules remaining will reassemble over time, and at some point cross the sensory threshold? And could this possibility hinge on the kind of smoke released or the grape variety? Since the research into smoke taint is still developing, dating largely from 2003, it must remain uncertain, as a practical scientific matter, whether long-aging wines will show smoke taint or some other as yet unrecognized gustatory artifact in later years. After all, a comprehensive explanation of a wine’s chemistry has yet to be written. How is it that residual smoke taint molecules would not deserve a chapter? But this is a matter of pure speculation on my part.
Here is a relevant doc from MNA. MNA Smoke Taint Standard Operating ProceduresMB090715
On to the conversation. I spoke with Dr. Kreisher the morning of August 31st.
Admin Good morning. I understand you’ll soon be on your way to UC Davis. What is the purpose of your visit?
Dr. Bob Kreisher It’s a, I don’t know if conference is the right word, a symposium, let’s say. The Trellis Alliance is bringing Kristen Kennison from the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) to speak and to share some of her research.
Yes. That would make sense. Since the first smoke taint post my blog has been visited by a series of Australian universities.
BK Curtin and the University of Adelaide, I would assume.
Yes. And I’ve interviewed Andrew Yap about his company, Cavitas, and Forensics specialist John Watling, for example, both on unrelated matters. A few others.
BK Great. They’re certainly years ahead of us when it comes to smoke taint. I’ve told a lot of customers this. I’m sure that the Australians wouldn’t feel the same way about this, but we’re really fortunate that they got to endure a lot of the really bad taint, and then figuring out just what the heck was going on and what to do about it.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it is that the Australians are so far ahead of the US when it comes to research in these kinds of matters? It’s not simply smoke taint; it’s all kinds of wine related subjects.
BK Well, that’s true. But the big thing with regard to smoke taint is simply that they started to experience serious problems with widespread brush fires near vineyards. I’d say probably 2003 is generally considered to be the first year. Certainly the Australian Wine Research Institute is doing much of it, though it’s not only them. I think it’s that there’s a lot more money that’s being provided, for whatever reason.
Yes. It also appears the Australian research model is quite different from the American model. The Australian university system actively hires entrepreneurial outfits doing primary research, and provided they teach, assume a certain teaching load within the a given university, they could continue doing proprietary research on university grounds.
BK Yeah. I don’t know the model real well but I’ve been to the AWRI. One thing they’ve made very clear is that, although I think they were established with some public funds, they are completely self-sustaining. And AWRI operates a lab that charges for services.
So about the issue of smoke taint itself. First of all, what can you say about the varieties of combustible material. I’m thinking of eucalyptus forests as opposed to manzanita brush, a pine tree forest… are the chemical signatures of smoke substantially different with respect to the smoke taint of grapes?
BK Well, I don’t know that anyone knows the answer to that question definitively. But I can tell you this, I’ve had the opportunity to taste smoke tainted wines both in Australia and here. Obviously in Australia there’s a predominance of various eucalypts that are burning in most of the regions. And here there was probably some minor participation by eucalyptus; it was mostly manzanita, pine and redwood presumedly from of the fire up north. So the taste is pretty much the same. My cross-section here in the US is much broader than my cross-section in Australia, but I don’t notice any substantial differences. And I don’t see anything in the sensory literature that suggests that there are significant differences.
Early on some people were saying ‘Oh, it’s not going to be a big deal here because we don’t have eucalyptus.’ The truth of the matter is that eucalyptus next to a vineyard can and will impart eucalyptus oil to the skin of the grapes. And we’ve actually done some work removing that as well. But that’s a direct entry. Well, it’s not even an entry. It’s something that gets on the skins rather than something that’s in the skins.
So that’s a broad way of saying I don’t really see any reason to believe that there are significant differences. Which is not to say that there are not fine distinctions. It probably even matters what temperature a fire is burning at, how much moisture is in the wood, things like that. But when it gets right down to how the wine tastes, how you get the taint out of the wine, it doesn’t seem to me that there are any significant differences.
I’m wondering about the variety of grape and how it evolves in the bottle, that there might be different expressions from different smoke sources over time inasmuch as the chemistry in a bottle of wine is on-going, especially in an unfiltered wine.
BK There’s not. There’s both a good reason to assume that there wouldn’t be and also observational evidence that there’s not. I’ll talk about the first one first. The reason one would assume that would not happen is that, first of all, due to the very nature of their origins these compounds are the most simple form that is available. So what that means is that they’re not likely to be spontaneously generated from precursors say the way ethyl acetate is an oxidation product of ethanol. They’re not likely to react chemically speaking.
I do think there are important chemical interactions, but they are not likely to react with other components in the wine and evolve in that sense. We do know fairly well that they simply do not respond the way other phenols do in terms condensation or polymerization. Micro-oxygenation, oak chips, you name it, these phenols do not seem to take part in those processes, polymerization or condensation.
So the process of removing the offending elements from wine is not time sensitive? It can be done at any point in the vinification process? Or afterwards, even if its been sitting in tanks?
BK Almost! Not quite. Chemically speaking, from about the third or fourth day of primary fermentation the level of the taint is going to remain at least very similar. I’m not saying that it won’t change at all but that it’s not going to change dramatically. The sensory qualities, though, and no one has a good explanation for this at this point, but the sensory qualities do not seem to stabilize until after malolactic fermentation. There just seems to be this magic number of six weeks after ML completion that just seems to do it. And everybody I’ve talked to, I mean people are just blown away when they start to say ‘Oh, I thought the wine was fine, and then it started to show some character’. And I say ‘Six weeks after ML?’ They’re like, ‘Yeah! How’d you know?’ It just seems to be extremely consistent in that regard.
The reason I’m focussing on ’sensory’ is that you can remove the compounds no matter what stage of the wine’s life it’s in. The only reliable means, at this point, of determining the end point of processing is sensory. So if you were trying to do that before the completion of ML you’re shooting in the dark. You really don’t have anything to go on.
Now, the function of your technology is, of course, to remove the offending molecules, whatever they may be. Smoke is a very complex mixture. But if the analysis in the end is fundamentally sensory, then have you done experiments to determine in fact how much is removed? Are they, the tainting compounds, completely removed? Partially removed? Is your target exclusively sensory level analysis and not a molecular level analysis?
BK The target is sensory at this point. There’s simply no means in existence of making a molecular or chemical determination of the end of processing. Guaiacol and 4-methyl guaiacol are merely marker compounds. After processing they’re pretty useless. In fact, it’s one of our goals not to remove wholesale quantities of guaiacol and 4-methyl guaiacol because these are desirable compounds, especially at this stage, a year after harvest. A lot of people have intentionally put them into their wines through barrel aging, chips or whatever. And so, one of our goals in terms of the characteristics of our adsorptive media, is to not remove those compounds in significant quantities.
There is simply no means of determining that [making a molecular or chemical determination of the end of processing]. That said, we have been suppling samples to Davis. So far as I know, I don’t know it they are doing much with them yet. They’ve been looking for funds to get them on the HPLC [high performance liquid chromatography] because that costs them some time. It’s not owned by the department, I don’t believe. They have to essentially rent it from whatever unit of the university owns it. Anyway, we’ve been providing them with samples after processing with no markers as to where they came from; providing them with samples to analyze, to try to determine and identify some of these compounds. That’s an on-going struggle. I know that the various entities in Australia have tried the same thing. It’s not an area I know a lot about. I may know more about it this afternoon after meeting Kristen Kennison! I don’t really know the state of the art at this point.
With respect to your technology, Mavrik’s technology, how was the tricky matter of the molecular weights of the associated chemical compounds resolved? I know many of them are quite close. So it seems the adsorptive technology would remove all kinds of compounds in addition to the targeted compounds.
BK Well, that’s not entirely true. The first thing you said is true; that relatively speaking they are very close in molecular weight. That presents a challenge. But it also presents an opportunity in that we don’t have to take a huge broad sections of the wine for treatment. We can take a very narrow cross-section of the wine for treatment. That said, different compounds adsorb at different rates on different media. Even carbon, which is one of the less discriminating media, just won’t adsorb some things at all. And even when you’re talking about carbon, there are many different kinds of carbon with different sized macro-pores, different surface electrical qualities; there are ways of modifying any kind of absorptive media, chemically, electrically, etc. to make them behave in different ways. And so, is it a perfect process where you can hone in on something excruciatingly specific? No. But there are ways of figuring out what is in this permeate that we want to keep and don’t want to remove, and trying to find ways to leave that relatively unmolested.
About the only thing we’ve never been able to completely exclude is carbon dioxide. We feel pretty fortunate about that because carbon dioxide, of course, in the early age of a wine, removing carbon dioxide can be very desirable; and in the later stages, like now, we can remove too much carbon dioxide. But the beauty of it is that it’s both easy and legal to add back, and is considered to be a completely inert process, adjusting CO2. Almost everybody does it before bottling.
From a marketing point of view, is it your experience that wineries are reluctant to have their names associated with a smoke taint removal process?
BK Oh, sure! From a marketing standpoint my experience has been that wineries are reluctant to have their name associated with anything that doesn’t seem sexy and natural and hands-off, and so on. That’s a much broader spectrum but, yeah, sure. Wineries don’t have flaws! Wineries make perfect wine, vintage after vintage, and that is all the consumer needs to know!
It’s the nectar of the gods, after all. (laughs)
BK Exactly. Exactly. (laughs)
Just out of curiosity, what would you say (I suppose this is a political question), but what would you say to those who are biodynamically inclined or hardcore organically inclined, those with a spiritual ‘dog in the fight’; how would you characterize your process with respect to ideas of ‘naturalness’?
BK Sure. I would say, all in all, all of our… well, several things. First of all, the process is CCOF approved. Any organic winery can use it. Yes. And in fact, many have. I don’t know how Demeter would look at the process. I really have no clue. But I can tell you that biodynamic wines have been through our process. Those wineries, it did matter to them. When we did the wine, and I think it probably had to do something with lunar cycles and things they map out, certain days for certain things; I don’t know a lot about that so I’m not going to say exactly how that influenced it, but I do know it was important to them when we did the work. So, with that regard, it’s something that’s already pretty straightforward.
The question of ‘naturalness’… there are people that are going to find the notion distasteful no matter what. But when you get right down to it, every material, everything used here is excruciatingly inert. The machines are made out of stainless steel, and I don’t think anybody has issues with stainless steel these days. Or completely natural, like coming from natural materials. At the end of the day people don’t find the process very sexy but there is nothing here that is bizarre or out of this world, or that gets left behind in the wine when the process is finished.
Many of the concerns revolve around the politically charged notion of manipulation, with a capital M.
BK Absolutely.
And that is one of a suite of cultural terms that ‘interferes’ with a number of technologies, for good and for ill.
BK Right.
In your email to me you mentioned that blending is never… rather, it’s a long shot…
BK Let me interrupt. Sorry about that, Ken. I just want to go back and say one thing just to be sure it’s clear, because the CCOF asked me to be very clear about this. The process is CCOF approved. You can’t use the phrase CCOF certified. It means something completely different. I don’t know what it is but they asked me to be clear about that in my language. So if I’m going to get quoted somewhere I’m going to ask you to use the word ‘approved’ and not ‘certified’. Sorry to interrupt! I just wanted to be clear about that.
No worries. It’s quite alright. I’m going to change the subject actually, from blending to something else. The process, is it different for white wines?
BK No, not really, except for the fact that it tends to go more quickly, take much less time with white wines. It generally depends on exactly how the wine is made. It’s generally only heavy press fractions that actually express some smoke character. And generally speaking the levels are much, much lower in white wines. Other than that it is exactly the same process.
What the hell, I’ll ask the question about blending. You had said it was a long shot. A ratio of 50 to 1 would be required to dilute smoke tainted wine. But has it ever occurred over the course of your process that the wine might be too tainted, or that there might be some other wine addition protocol that you observe? In other words, during your process I understand that things are taken away but are things ever added?
BK As far as the work we do, no. I do know that people have looked at various tannin adjuncts and fining agents, things like that to kinda fine tune. But that’s not something we’ve been involved in. In general, I think people, I know people have definitely been disappointed with fining. Our recommendation is if you’re going to fine anyway, do it and see what it gets you. But be careful because what people who have tried it have found they will just fine out all of the character out of the wine except for the smoke taint! (laughs)
As far as covering it up, people have found that they may be able to smooth it out a little bit with out tannin adjuncts and things like that. But in general, I don’t think anybody really found that it’s useful for anything more than fine tuning.
Can you give me some idea of how widespread is this problem of smoke taint? It is not necessarily the core of your business, or is it?
BK No. Not really.
Is it in the tens of thousands of gallons? Can you give me a ballpark figure of how much tainted wine is out there requiring treatment? This would involve not only you’re company but others associated with this technology.
BK I’m sure that the volume of wine at this point runs into the millions of gallons.
This would include Australia, of course.
BK I’m just talking about California in 2008.
Millions of gallons?
BK Oh, definitely. What I know that has definitely been treated. That’s safe to say. How many millions? I wouldn’t want to venture a guess. But it is safe to say millions.
And this would all be related to smoke taint?
BK Yes.
Now, there are other companies out there. Do they use similar technology?
BK Well, it depends on what you mean by similar. When you boil it down to its simplest form which is making a separation, to separate the offensive compounds from the desirable compounds, and then doing something to try and remove those offensive compounds from the permeate essentially, then, yeah, they’re pretty similar. That said, the devil is in the details when it comes to this, most definitely. Because we’re right on the threshold here of passing and not passing the offensive compounds, and then removing the offensive compounds but not the desirable compounds. Broadly speaking, yes, and no, not in the details.
Thank you, professor. Thank you for your time. You’ve certainly done me a great service, and that of my readers.
BK Any time, Ken. I look forward to meeting you some day.
Take care and enjoy the UC Davis meeting.
Admin
Planned only a week and a half before, University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Farm Advisor Mark Bolda’s August 26th emergency meeting in Watsonville on the Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD) was thorough and informative. His up-to-the-minute research presentation, and that of his charming colleague, Martin Hauser, Associate Insect Biosystematist with the Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab, California Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA), Sacramento, provided the assembled growers, foremen, and associated persons, representing an estimated 75% of the caneberry acreage in Santa Cruz county, with insight into the history of the pest, the fruits under threat, the critical importance of early detection and identification, bait and capture techniques, the basics of field sanitation, and pesticide options for both the conventional and organic producer. But much work remains.
Mr. Bolda began with the acknowledgment of the group effort required for his summation. “I am standing up here by myself but in no way or form did I do all this wok on my own. I had a lot of support from people in the industry.”
What follows is a distillation of his talk, followed by that of Martin Hauser’s. My focus, of course, is on the wine industry, of the pest’s threat to vineyards. Hence, my notes taken from Messrs. Bolda and Hauser will faithfully report what might be the basics that a vineyard manager ought to know in advance of a potential crisis. For on-going research and breaking news, Mr. Bolda’s farm blog, Strawberries and Caneberries is a ‘must read’. And it is with his work that I begin.
History of the SWD in California
In 2007, in a vineyard in Paso Robles a suspect grape was picked up, but as no specimens were kept, it remains a rumor that SWD was the agent.
Late summer of 2008, in over just a few weeks, multiple reports came in of the presence of vinegar larvae in unharvested cane fruit. Something was different. Research established it was a different species of vinegar fly than hitherto known. Samples were sent to CDFA. That it was in the family of Drosophilidae was confirmed, but the matter was not further pursued. Fruit producers, however, knew it was a damaging pest. Independent studies, without CDFA’s assistance, were initiated by concerned growers and the UCCE.
Spring 2009. Colossal infestations of the new vinegar fly in cherries were reported. People sat up and took notice. It was then provisionally named the Cherry Vinegar Fly. The cherry industry was not pleased so the name was soon changed to the Spotted Wing Drosophila. It has now been picked up in plums, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, and olallieberries, but not yet in wine grapes. Additional infestations have been reported in Oregon and Washington.
The male is identified by the presence of black spots on the wings. For most people the female looks like a regular vinegar fly. But should spotted wing males be present in a field the presence of females may be confidently extrapolated. [Photo by Dr. M. Hauser]
SWD is native to South East Asia: India, Bangladesh, South East China. It has spread to Japan, Korea, it is in Hawaii, Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia. Neither the CDFA or the USDA has given any indication that this will become a quarantine pest. The entirety of California was infested at the same time, therefore it is not possible to create a quarantine around it. Because eradication is not possible the effort will be to bring down SWD to manageable levels.
Life Cycle
Fruits attacked by SWD reveal only a soft spot on its surface, slightly indented. No hole is casually visible. [See Mark Bolda's blog for pics.] When the fruit is cut open at the sunken spot a larvae may be observed. The female lays one to two eggs per fruit, with an overall capacity to lay 300 eggs. More than two larvae indicates multiple females laying eggs on the same fruit. The damage of the fly is not the feeding by the adult on fruit but from larval development.
Normally fruit flies most people are familiar with lay eggs on the surface of things. The ovipositor is benign. It does not insert eggs. The SWD, by contrast, possesses an ovipositor designed to saw through the surface of fruit. Not a needle-point but a saw-like structure. An egg’s deposit depth is believed to be approx. 1 mm or 2 mm.
The colder it is the longer it takes for the SWD to develop. At 54 degrees it takes 50 days to develop from egg to adult. At 64 degrees it takes 19 days to mature. At 77 degrees 8.5 days; 82 degrees, 7 days, one generation a week. Beyond 85-86 degrees the males become sterile. Reproduction ceases at that point.
Monitoring and Management
Early detection is critical. As is the use of preventative sprays and enhanced sanitation protocols. Cane berry growers are especially hard hit owing to the practice of closed canopies and tunnels. Once SWD is well established it becomes very difficult to control them. Sanitation methods currently enjoyed are insufficient.
SWD is a very mobile pest. It is felt trapping is the best method for early detection. Early expert advice (Dec. 2008) suggested using banana slices placed at the base of the canes. Extremely limited success was achieved. Next was banana slices and apple juice in a mason jar hung on a stake in a raspberry field. It worked far better trapping SWD but it required a lot of service by the larger grower. More efficient trapping methods were sought.
The next trap experiment used was GF120, a fruit fly bait, this time hung at a lower level in the canes because the SWD does not like the sun, it prefers shade. The bait worked moderately well but its attractiveness to the fly declined over time.
What do the adult flies like to eat? They like old stuff, fermenting materials. Again, only the larvae are destructive. Of other attractants, a strawberry purée or GF 120 were still working; methyl eugenol, currently advocated by the CDFA as a bait, did not prove effective in field experiments. In fact, it never picked up a single fly.
(It is important to add that only the male SWD was used as an indicator of their presence in the field. The females are simply too similar to vinegar flies when examined in the field to be of much diagnostic help.)
Other fruit purées were explored. Yeast and sugar mixed with water proved the most effective bait (one package of Baker’s yeast, four teaspoons of sugar and 12 ounces of water). Mr. Bolda then offered traps (see pic) to folks. He had assembled them for use in SWD detection with the recommended bait solution mentioned above to be added later.
Note that the sugar is added not for the SWD but for the yeast. The idea is to produce a rapidly fermenting liquid attractive to SWD. The monitoring traps are then placed throughout the field. Attention should also be paid to the direction the SWD appear to be coming from.
Control
GF 120 (not a spray, but OMRI certified). Sprays: Spinosads (permitted for organic use, [but broad spectrum]), Mustang, PyGanic (permitted for organic use), and Malathion were all discussed. As was the importance of preserving predators and parasitoids.
Mustang proved very effective, as did Malathion, even after five days. Spinosad (Trust), gave good results but lost efficacy over that same five day period. PyGanic was of minor efficacy.
A single application is not enough in a heavily infested field. Three applications, one every five days, was recommended to break the cycle. But early detection may reduce the need for repeated applications.
Rotating the chemicals was stressed. Without rotation resistance will develop. And these are not the only sprays available. The ones tested were ready at hand. The idea was to provide immediate research results into the efficacy of some commonly available pesticides. Other chemical alternative may well, indeed, probably exist.
Sanitation
Dropping fruit to rot in the field is strongly discouraged. As is leaving incompletely harvested fruit. If not disced, the discarded fruit must be removed from the field and be physically destroyed.
Mr. Bolda stressed that the berry industry is only as strong as its weakest link. All growers must do their part to implement the research findings.
—–
Here now is a partial summation of the talk given by CDFA’s insect specialist, the very engaging and downright hilarious, Martin Hauser. It was his primary research that led to the identification of this new California pest, what is now known as the Spotted Wing Drosophila. [Martin Hauser's PDF to come.]
He acknowledged Mr. Bolda’s thorough presentation. His talk was to be a kind of positive reinforcement.
CDFA History of SWD
Last September UCCE sent flies to the CDFA. They were identified to genus level as a Drosophila and was considered completely harmless. The larvae always develop in rotten fruit, some in fungi, occasionally elsewhere. They normally eat the fungus which develops in rotten fruit. Again, the first estimation of the flies sent were considered completely harmless. CDFA was wrong.
Spring brought more and more calls from growers, especially of cherries. After a close look at the larvae specimens sent in it was again determined by the CDFA to be a harmless Drosophilid. Mr. Hauser said that in his defense it was rather like hearing from ranchers that there were rabbits attacking and eating their cows. Rabbits don’t eat cows! (laughter) They eat carrots. After a while one no longer believes these people, these ranchers.
A summary was given of other dangerous agricultural flies. But the fruit and vinegar flies were, up until now, thought to be drawn only to rotten fruit. Of no real economic importance. Though a single fly which falls into your glass of red wine can ruin it.
The larval samples initially received from cherry growers were too difficult to identify. Taxonomic identification could not proceed beyond the Family level. Indeed, there are 3,000 different species of Drosophilids in the world. And nobody over 100’s of years of agriculture in California, nobody ever reported or described the SWD here. It must be coming from outside. With increased trade and shipping the fly could be from anywhere in the world. So began a search through the scientific literature on the 3,000 species.
Identification
Only 125 Drosophilid species live in North America. There are 600 species in Hawaii. The islands’ isolation, abundant fruit, and absence of competitors allowed considerable speciation. But they are all harmless and restricted to Hawaii. The SWD could not be one of those well-described species. So, Dr. Hauser’s job is to identify insects, to give them a name, the scientific name. And this step is crucial. Everything is connected to the name. The scientific name is the key to the literature. One can then learn of a pest’s predators, parasites, biology, among many other things.
Deep in the literature was found the first description of California’s newest pest, suzukii (the Genus [Leucophenga] was not proper). In 1931 Matsumura Suzuki described the species as new to science in Japan. Just a few years later the species was then described as a pest in Japan. Dr. Hauser’s theory is that the species was not native to Japan. It was introduced from elsewhere, South East Asia, perhaps.
When a new species of insect is first introduced to a new area you have a massive, invasive explosion. It just eats. It has no natural enemies. There follows a few years of explosive populations. Then pathogens and parasites move in. The invasive insect population then begins its decline. In the Japan of today the SWD still causes trouble but not the catastrophic trouble California et. al. have here right now.
Description
The male fly has spots on its wings. There is no other Drosophila in North America with spots on its wings. Other flies have spots, there can be some confusion, but this characteristic makes it easy for even the relatively inexperienced person to identify them. No microscope needed. The females are harder to identify. They are relatively big and heavy Drosophilids. The large ovipositor is key. With it the female cuts through a fruit’s skin “like butter”.
Life Cycle
The eggs are very small. They cannot be seen in the field. There are three instars of increasing size. The third, the largest, is the one most often seen because the damage already done to the fruit has now become easy to see in the field. Then there is a pupa, the last transitional form to the fly.
The average time for one generation is about 12 days. [Mark Bolda's collaborative field research must take precedence here. See his comments above.] From adult to another adult, 12 days. Varies with season and temperature, as Mr. Bolda’s work shows. The female lays 350 to 400 eggs. The egg stage is between 12 and 72 hours, a very short time. Larval stages are between 3 to 14 days. The pupa, 3 to 15 days, depending on the temperature.
Distribution
The fly is originally from Asia, very likely China. But also Japan, Korea and Thailand. When calling colleagues around the world Dr. Hauser heard from an entomologist in Switzerland that he had just found it in Spain last year! It was also found in the early 2000’s in Hawaii, in fruit fly traps. It was not attracted to the fruit fly attractant but to the traps already full of fruit flies. It seems the rotting fruit inside the fruit flies attracted the Drosophilid. But there are no reports of agricultural damage there. The same for Spain.
The presence of SWD was detected in San Diego, all over the LA Basin, they are everywhere along the Coast and the Central Coast, the Central Valley up to Sacramento, the Bay Area. A lone maggot was trapped in Humboldt. Suzukii was recently detected in Florida. Dr. Hauser predicts SWD is all throughout the mid-west owing to shipping and distribution patterns. A fruit may be deemed sub-standard and tossed into the dumpster, for example, thereby allowing SWD to reproduce. The fly will eventually be found in every state with significant fruit production and that is not too cold.
As a side note: CDFA used Methyl Eugenol which attracts male fruit flies through mimicking the scent of the female. The male climbs into the trap and drowns. A good lesson, Dr. Hauser suggests! But the reason SWD is attracted to M. Eugenol is because of the presence of already fermenting fruit flies. This attracts the Drosophilids into the fruit fly traps. Therefore, the primary attractant that is used for fruit flies does not work, absent rotting flies, with SWD. It is agreed the use, the addition of yeast is ideal.
Natural History of SWD
A Japanese paper from 1939 was found describing the biology of the SWD. Eyebrows were raised when it was read that the fly infests cherries and grapes severely. Also apple, peach, plum and persimmon. Cherry infestation reached as high as 75% according to the ‘39 paper. SWD can have 13 generations in a year. They are active all year round in Japan. (And here. There is no snow or severe weather. Further up north they might try to hibernate. They probably could survive a ‘normal’ winter.) They are hardy flies. But the 1939 report also held out promise: it seems the larvae are parasitized by a specific wasp. The CDFA is looking hard to find natural enemies in other countries and to import them here for enhanced natural control.
What will it hit next? Cherries have been hit hard. The Spotted Wing Drosophila was initially called the Cherry Vinegar fly. But neither the Cherry industry nor the Vinegar industry wanted a fly named after them! Perhaps call it the Japanese Fly? No. The Japanese might not like this. So CDFA came up with the Spotted Wing Drosophila. It is also found in raspberries, strawberries, and recently, plums, Asian, Satsuma and Plumcots, blackberries, boysenberries, and surprisingly, nectarines. This is what has been found in California. But it is not thought they will go into apples or oranges.
And of grapes? This is always floating around. It is kind of a political issue. There have been reports of tomatoes, apple and apricots. Sometimes you can’t really trust these literature reports. People may have just found a maggot. The reports must be taken with a grain of salt pending DNA analysis. This is just the potential of the fly. There is still no proof they go into grapes.
10/13 This has changed. Please see this update.
UC Davis may have done some experiments where grapes were offered to SWD. They more or less forced them into the grapes. They gave SWD no alternative. Eventually the females laid their eggs where the stem enters the grape and grapes were infected. But the experiment was unnatural. It is still unclear whether SWD is a danger for grapes. There is no confirmed damage to wine grapes in Nature, so to say. Why might that be? It is felt grapes have a stronger skin the SWD cannot really penetrate. But there are many different varieties of grapes. Some may prove more susceptible than others. Dr. Hauser felt it improper to exclude healthy grapes at this point. SWD, however, does go into already damaged or rotting grapes. It is not clear whether SWD caused the damage or arrived after the grapes had already been corrupted in some way. More work needs to be done.
The USDA is currently taking no regulatory action because the SWD is already everywhere. And in a few years it will be everywhere in the world. Everybody will have it. There will be, therefore, no export restrictions on cherries to Japan, for example, because they already have the SWD.
END
Special thanks to UCCE’s Mark Bolda for extending me an invitation to the Watsonville meeting.
Admin
Here is a supplemental piece of some interest. More to come.
A modest piece I put together on smoke taint provoked much more discussion than I anticipated. Though the story was designed only to be a gloss on smoke taint research in the field, in the vineyard and in post-harvest grapes, and specifically excluded discussion of remedial technologies in the winery itself, many of the intelligent comments I received have forced my hand to widen the discussion. In the interests of intellectual honesty, the highest good, I needed to hear from more informed voices.
To that end I am pleased to announce a forthcoming interview with Bob Kreisher PhD, president of Mavrik North America. Mavrik is a privately owned company specializing in a number of remedial technologies of critical interest to the wine industry. Smoke taint is just one of a suite of problems they approach. From their website:
Our systems are all easy to use, with an integrated Programmed Logic Controller, and constructed entirely of the very best materials. We are NOT equipment distributors. We are winemakers and engineers who design the solutions, engineer the systems, and build the equipment. Our professionally engineered systems will last a long time, and we will be around to support them.
They can be used for a variety of high level winemaking activities:
Taint Removals
4-ethylphenol/4-ethylguiacol from Brettanomyces yeast
guiacol and 4-methylguiacol from wildfire smoke taint
excessive Hydrogen Sulfide (especially when you have copper fined to the limit)
Diethyl Sulfide, Dimethyl Sulfide, and a host of other sulfide compounds/aromas
Acetic Acid and Ethyl Acetate
Acetaldehyde
2,4,6 Trichloroanisole
Numerous undefined taints, off flavors, and aromas (trials easily conducted)
As well as:
Preventing Stuck Fermentations
Juice Concentration
Wine Concentration (where legal)
Tartrate Precipitation
Degassing
Water Purification
Though Mavrik is not the only company offering such solutions, it was Mr. Kreisher who introduced himself in an effort to clarify issues touched on in the aforementioned Reign of Terroir gloss and in the smart comments that followed. Of particular relevance was his statement:
“[G]uaiacol and 4methylguaiacol actually don’t have anything at all to do with the taint. [An Australian study was performed wherein] wines were spiked with g/4mg and, although there were some pretty funky flavors, nothing resembling smoke taint appeared. I am now convinced (not quite in the realm of scientific proof, but quite convinced) that there is no participation from them at all. Nonetheless, they are VERY useful markers, and VERY useful indicators of how bad the taint is, and we do a good job of vectoring in on processing based on these numbers. But it is really confusing to people because they know that if they barrel age their wines it will increase g/4mg to levels potentially beyond that of smoke taint, and yet the results are categorically different.”
My interview with Bob Kreisher will appear early next week.
Admin
After a solid initial presentation of Sterling Vineyards’ environmental and social initiatives by winemaker Alison Crary, (and a slightly hurried lunch), we strolled to the terrace to bask under the blazing Napa sun. Our way was led by Ms. Crary. She rhapsodized on her close, aesthetic relation to the valley. We were soon joined by Terry Hall, Communications Director with Napa Valley Vintners. What follows is virtually the entirety of their collective remarks. Also speaking are members of our wine blogger’s group. Good questions were asked.
Owing to the spontaneous nature of public speaking, I’ve made very slight syntactical changes solely to promote a smooth read.
If coming to this space for the first time, please read Part 1 first.
Alison Crary Come on in! I don’t bite. I swear. I hope the view is everything I billed it to be. This is one of my favorite views down onto the valley. From up here you can see Diamond Mountain off to the North, you can look all the way down the valley, to the Three Palm Vineyard, you can almost see St. Helena.
But over here, the reason I have you in this corner is I just wanted to point out this area that’s called Wild Lake Ranch. And Wild Lake Ranch is a ranch, but it has been purchased by the Land Trust of Napa County. Basically, this ridge line, as far as you can see, from the northeast corner, about four miles down Angwin, that is all Wild Lake Ranch. Since the 2004 vintage we’ve been supporting the purchase, maintenance, and continued expansion of Wild Lake Ranch through sales of our Wild Lake Ranch Merlot. We donate, this is another project that we donate to…, again, it’s all with the aim of preserving our natural landscape here. The Land Trust will keep this land wild and undeveloped so that this view will be available not only for the people who came up here the last forty years, but for everybody who comes up here in the next forty years. We believe in this, and we will continue supporting it every year.
I thought it was very interesting fact that the Land Trust of Napa County actually protects 10% of the land area within Napa County. That is more than is actually planted to vines in Napa County. Only 9% of Napa County is planted to vineyards. So our Land Trust, not only our support at Sterling, our support helps preserve agriculture and helps keep that land wild, but so does every other vintner involved working with the Land Trust and with Napa Valley Green. We’re all doing our part to make sure that we keep this valley just as beautiful as it is today.
I am sure there are a lot of people who would like to have homes up there! But through the continued efforts of the Land Trust and through the wineries that support them, we’re going to try and keep it as wild and beautiful as it is.
We’ve talked about Wild Lake Ranch; we’ve talked about the wines made from organic grapes we’ve just launched last year; we’ve talked about our Napa Green Winery certification (and we’re honing in on those last 175 acres to be fully 100% certified Napa Green land). Do you guys have any questions?
Group question Who’s the certifying agent for the Napa Green Land?
AC For Napa Green Land I believe there are three certifying agencies; they are independent certifiers. All of it, whether you’re in Napa Green Land or Napa Green Winery, you have independent third-party certifiers that come in and check on you, and recheck on you every three years to make sure you’re still doing what you committed to in the beginning.
Group question And is it through Napa Valley or is it part of a bigger organization, a national organization?
AC For the Napa Green Land it is through the Napa Valley Vintners, based off of the Fish Friendly Farming model.
At this moment Ms. Crary’s presentation was directed to a gentleman, Terry Hall, Communications Director from Napa Valley Vintners.
Terry Hall So, the Napa Green Land Certification Program has actually 19 different agencies that are the third-party certifiers. It’s all channelled through Fish Friendly Farming which is Laurel Marcus, many of you know that. He’s a really great innovator. Each parcel is individually tailored so that there’s not a one-size-fits-all to the land use. So whatever may work for an individual ranch site here is not the same as what would work for Carneros. Each piece is individually tailored to create a uniform plan based on the farmed acreage, the non-farmed acreage, the roads, how the roofs shed, the terrain, all of that because it largely looks at the health of the streams. So all of the Clean Air, Clean Water Act endorsements are looked at. It’s local, state and federal agencies. All the agencies that certify the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, local uses such as… there’s a pesticide management board, there’s the local Ag commissioners, some land use policies that are locally initiated, all of them in total, there are 19, all of those come together through the certification process.
Of the enrolled acreage, there are 33,000 acres that are currently enrolled. You look at what’s enrolled and what’s certified, that process can either be very simple, but you need to do some riprap on your stream bed, or you need to do a willow planting, or perhaps you need to make sure there are wildlife paths through [your farm/ranch], or you need to add owl boxes; these can be very simple.
Other things can be multi-year projects, like stream bank repair. Or if somebody has taken your set of the Napa River in years past and actually dredged it, so there would be a lot of reed building that would have to be done there; or water collection ponds; things that would take many years to actually fulfill the obligation. So as people check up it is not just done. You continually renew [your certification work]. Your certification gets re-upped throughout the way.
The other thing that is really nice about it is that there’s no cost to the certification. There may be a cost to all the things you may have to do [for certification], but there is no program fee. It’s a really neat program.
And then the winery program was largely based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) certification, but then tailored uniquely to winery production facilities.
Alison Crary I really like the fact that the Napa Green is very much tailored to the individual vineyards. It is great for us because we have mountaintop vineyards up at Diamond Mountain, and we have valley floor vineyards down at Oak Knoll, for instance. And these are two very different ecosystems. They are two very different watershed systems. So the Napa Valley Green and Fish Friendly Farming programs are able to work with us and say ‘OK. This is really what you need to do here to control runoff and sediment, your cover crops’; these sorts of things that have come in handy and have helped us get certified. It’s been a very good program.
Terry Hall Being a river valley, everything about us is about wildlife and the river, keeping it healthy. It starts from the ‘end user’, if you will. If the fish are happy, then your farmland is happy. That is a really basic environmental principle.
Group question Is this green movement unique to Napa or are there other areas throughout the US doing the same thing?
TH There is Fish Friendly Farming programs that are lightly developed in other regions, but here there are unique farm plans that are very specific to grape growing. Although I will say Napa Green Land is not specifically, or not entirely, for vineyard land. Our goal is actually that for wild lands…, if you look ancient damn building or stream impediments, or what have you, a lot of that doesn’t take place on farmland. So our goal is someday we will get all of that land certified and have more healthy stream banks and watershed areas and parks.
We actually have some of the local high schools looking to put their land into the Napa Green Program because there is a lot of bad construction [projects] that have happened over the years. If you think of a baseball diamond or basketball courts, or parking lots, how they shed water, you’d want to look at that. That is a huge problem downstream from where those sites might be.
Group question We’ve been talking about watersheds. How much do you think a watershed area is basically its own little appellation?
Alison Crary Well, I think that’s a really interesting question. When you look at a watershed you’re really looking from ridge line to ridge line and all the way down to where that stream joins another one. I’m not exactly sure how it would overlap specifically appellations because I can imagine you would get different aspects, different slopes, and in the same watershed you’d be looking South, you’d be looking North…. So it would probably be pretty variable for your grapes. But at the same time I can see that some watersheds would be in a broader area, and [it] would probably make a lot of sense to be their own appellation, were they an inlet for a broader valley, for example. I think it would depend where the specific watershed or site might be.
Terry Hall The geopolitics of it are very much in play as well. If you look at the Upper Mississippi Valley AVA, which is before the TTB right now, which will be the largest AVA at 29,000 square miles. It does encompass one watershed! But it is this huge multi-state appellation. It very difficult. Do you have similar soils? Do you have similar climates? So just because you’re a watershed doesn’t necessarily mean you are one region. We’re about 700 square miles…
Group question But Napa Valley, even though it’s an appellation, I mean you’ve got enormous changes. Sonoma County, which is an appellation, what does that mean other than it’s a county line? So before they were drawn on where the roads were and where the geopolitical lines were… Carneros was the first that I knew of that actually crossed that. And there is another application right application for the Freestone- Occidental area, and that is all of one watershed except for an extension to include a couple of vineyards…
TH The Napa Valley appellation, which does, you’re right, cover the bulk of Napa County. There is a very small amount of the appellation, which is actually just on the other side of this ridge line [opposite Wild Lake Ranch], that is the only part of the county that is not part of the appellation specifically because it doesn’t drain this way. Pope Valley is a little nutty in terms of what we are as an appellation. It does have an eventual watershed drain. That peak line South of here drains East, but it eventually drains back into the Napa Valley.
The same thing is true of Dry Creek, which is the watershed. What makes Oak Knoll District in Napa unique in its nested appellation in the Napa Valley, is that it drains between the canyon of the Mayacamas; but it eventually does drain into the Napa Valley. Everything within our appellation does have a common watershed. It will come to the Napa River and go into San Pablo Bay.
So whether that’s the flatlands of Carneros… American Canyon is part of the Napa Valley appellation, all the hillsides on the East side of the Vaca Range, the hillsides on the West side… The Mayacamas actually has a canyon in between, which is still part of the county. So from about Oakville South there is a ‘V’, which is Dry Creek, and it drains South, and then it turns and makes a hard East and does a big dog leg; that’s what creates the alluvial fan for the Oak Knoll District. But most of the watersheds that you’ll see defining AVAs now [are closer to this]. Less close is the Upper Mississippi Valley, those huge AVAs. That’s kind of a ‘one off’ in the current school of thought. Most of them are more defined based on a very specific watershed occurrences, the alluvial fans. Saint Helena is an alluvial fan, Rutherford, Oakville, Oak Knoll, Yountville… Stags leap is an alluvial fan.
Other things that define AVAs are cultural. You look at soils. Here they are incredibly varied, 100 different soil variations in Napa Valley. Of the ten soil systems in the world, we have six of them here in the Napa Valley.
With respect to soil systems, I believe Mr. Hall is referring to Entisol, Inceptisol, Histosol, Aridisol, Andisol, Vertisol, Mollisol, Spodosol, Alfilsol, Ultisol, Oxisol, and Gelisol. Please follow this link for more information.
TH The Napa Valley is a very complex growing region. There are 33 different soil orders. If you look at all of that it’s like crazy with soil types. You also look at climate. We have an overarching climate which is Mediterranean, itself only 2% of the Earth’s surface.
Alison Crary Speaking of climate, it’s hot out here! (much laughter) Let’s get out of the sun!
Most of our group moved inside. I stayed, took a pic of Ms. Crary, and then asked her about the water recycling at Sterling.
AC The portion you can’t actually see from here is our settling tanks. So all of our processed water, from the top of the hill down to the bottom, it settles in a 80,000 gallon settling tank. Anything that is too heavy to be processed by our friendly little bacteria settles to the bottom of that. We mechanically remove that. The water then goes through our membrane bio-reactor, a large microbiological digester, which is a fabulous aerated pool. The water then goes into our first settling pond. And when it settles through that it goes into our second pond, and then we actually send that water out to be reused in the winery. Right now we’re only, until we do a more thorough, further testing, we’re only using it for irrigation, for feeding our vines.
You would think, most people would think, processing waste water sounds like a really dirty and not very nice business. But you go to this wonderful little aerated pool, it looks like a jacuzzi for micro-organisms. It smells like the best garden earth that you’ve ever planted anything in. And it’s wonderful.
We rejoined the group, all assembled at Sterling’s solar-powered aerial tram. Ms. Crary was thanked for rescuing us from the strong sunshine up on the terrace. She shared some insight into her organic garden, the joys of harvest, planting too much at the same time, the pleasures of eating what your hands have grown. Then, defying gravity, we silently descended the hill to our waiting bus.
Great visit.
Very special thanks to Alison Crary, Terry Hall, and to Sterling Vineyards.
Admin
The agricultural industry in California is working rapidly to meet the threat of a new fruit pest, the spotted wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii). According to an August 24th posting by the Western Farm Press titled New Name For Cherry Pest, though recently discovered, the fly is already well established and has been found from San Diego to Humboldt counties, but also in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia. It seems to have a preference for the cooler, more moist climes along the Pacific Coast.
After its initial discovery in cherries, the article points out the growing varieties of fruit where the fruit fly may now be found.
So far SWD has caused economic damage to sweet cherries, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, Ollalieberries and in backyard Santa Rosa plums in the San Jose area.
Can grapes be far behind? University of California, Berkeley entomologist, Bob Van Steenwyck is quoted as saying:
“Will it damage grapes? That is the $64,000 question. I believe it will hit grapes as they start to sugar. I think, however, it will not be a problem in the Central Valley because it is too hot for suzukii. I think the problem will be in the cooler (wine grape producing) areas of the state. It likes cooler climates.”
And it is for this reason, as assorted fruit harvests and the grape Crush looms, that an SWD Emergency Meeting will be held in Watsonville, August 26th. In an email exchange, Mark Bolda describes the meeting as “the most complete presentation of SWD biology and management to date”.
The meeting will be an important opportunity to hear the latest research by Santa Cruz County UCCE Farm Advisor Mark Bolda, the lead writer of an important paper on the fruit fly pest published in early August, A New Pest In California: Spotted Wing Drosophila. It is an eye-opening read.
I contacted Mark Bolda with a series of questions.
Admin How long has this species been known to exist in California?
Mark Bolda Probably since 2006.
What might have been its origin?
MB SE Asia, common to Korea, Japan and Hawaii.
Is its appearance possibly associated with climate change?
MB I doubt it, it was brought in on produce, something that got around the various checks at ports of entry to California. It is best suited to the cool, moist climate of the west coast apparently.
Have there been any reports of damage to vitus vinifera, wine grapes?
MB There are some rumors, apparently the very first unconfirmed hit was on a wine grape out of Paso Robles in 2006. Martin Hauser I believe will discuss this when he comes to talk on Wednesday. No specimens were kept out of the Paso hit, however, so we didn’t pick them up again until a major infestation in berries here in Watsonville in the summer of 2008.
Along with producing multiple generations, how many eggs does it lay per fruit?
MB 1-2 eggs per fruit, 200-300 per female. Lots of traveling around. Multiple females will lay in the same fruit, so you can get infestations of up to 40 in a raspberry.
Can you point me to additional research?
MB Come to the meeting, and look at my blog (not the fancy title like yours, but nonetheless should be pretty informative).
Spotted Wing Drosophila Meeting
Reunión de Drosofila de Alas Manchadas
August 26, 2009/ 26 de agosto, 2009
University of California Cooperative Extension
1432 Freedom Blvd., Watsonville, CA, 95076
9:00 Introduction/ Introducción
9:10 History and Management of Spotted Wing Drosophila in Santa Cruz County/
Historia y Manejo de Drosofila de Alas Manchadas en el Condado de Santa Cruz
Mark Bolda, UCCE, Santa Cruz County
10:00 Biology of Spotted Wing Drosophila/ Biología de Drosofila de Alas Manchadas
Dr. Martin Hauser, Diptera Specialist, CDFA
10:30 Close of Meeting
Because of the short lead time for this meeting, no continuing education hours will be available. For more information, contact Mark Bolda (831)-763-8040; 1432 Freedom Blvd., Watsonville, CA, 95076.
Please call ahead for arrangements of special needs; every effort will be made to accommodate full participation.
Spanish translation will be available.
END
For additional information also please see Another Exotic New Pest Threatens Variety of Crops published by the Cal. Farm Bureau Federation.
As I will be in attendance, I will post what is announced.
–8/30 Update has been posted.
10/13 Update has been posted.
Admin
Next Page »
The volcanic islands of Graciosa, Pico, and Terceira, specifically the parish of Biscoitos, are the demarcated wine regions of the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago just over 900 miles from the mainland. Legally recognized in 1994, each area has, nevertheless, been producing wine for hundreds of years. The vines are grown in the near complete absence of soil and sheltered from the wind and salt water by walls of broken basalt painstakingly built over the centuries. The ’soils’, slowly in the process of creation (globally, depending upon a series of site-specific geo-physical processes, the generation of an inch of soil requires many thousands of years), may be broadly divided into two types: shattered, heavily fissured basalt and a slightly looser, sandy version, its additional material largely water runoff and wind transported. This is most strikingly revealed on Pico where the vineyards come within yards of the open Atlantic. Coaxing vines into healthy production in either matrix is nothing short of miraculous.
The agricultural center of Terceira, this small town is home to S.D.A.T., the Adega do Servico de Desenvolvimento Agrario de Terceira (the cellar of Agrarian Development Service), the wine-making cooperative where, upon deplaning at Lajes Airport, we were taken by winery representative, António Espínola.
Like all the demarcated regions of the Azores, grape growing on Biscoitos is suffering from a generational shift. No longer willing to struggle for a living in the same way as their parents and grandparents have, the young are increasingly drawn to cities. To be sure, it is a pattern repeated in all agricultural sectors throughout the world. But in the Azores it is painfully evident, the abandoned vineyards immediately visible as overrun thatches of tangled flora. The disruption of traditional family practice is a very real threat to the long-term survival of this viticulture unique in all the world.
While at the cooperative, we were given precious insight into Biscoitos’ recent vinous history. Located within an older portion of the adega, António showed us what qualifies as their ‘wine library, a wall of honeycombed masonry (situated at the right in the photo). From the rough, abrasive chambers, an echo of the vineyards’ basaltic walls just outside, he pulled bottle after intriguing bottle of private wines, some made before the existence of the cooperative. As a tribute to the farmers and vintners of these mysterious verdelhos, the dominant white grape throughout the Azores, I will close this post with their simple, mute images.
