Not Drinking Garbage

Not Drinking Garbage

Okay, now I’m furious. And you should be too.

I’ve been pretty tired of the holier-than-thou attitude of the so-called natural wine movement ever since Alice Feiring brought it into being in the late ‘90s. Chapter 22 in Postmodern Winemaking examines in great detail why there is no such thing as a natural wine movement, because it has at least eight disparate constituencies that want completely different things.  Will Rogers famously observed, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” The Natural Wine Movement is like that.

But just as we Democrats have largely ourselves to blame for the current chaos, the failure of winemakers to explain why we do the things we do – reverse osmosis, enological oxygenation, enzymes, yeast inoculation – Alice and her ilk are simply reacting to being kept in the dark. They can tell we’re not being straight with them, so they figure the things we’re hiding must be evil. Small wonder.

My position is, never do anything you’re not proud to shout from the rooftops. I love the way Wolfgang Puck plays with “molecular gastronomy” on TV. “Hey, I’ve got some gooey ripe brie I want to grate into my puffed sous-vide potatoes, so let’s freeze it with liquid nitrogen. Wanna watch?”  But winemakers just cop out – “I do the minimum.” Half of them couldn’t even tell you what reverse osmosis is, apart from knowing that it can remove volatile acidity (vinegar) and lower alcohol.

In truth, no winemaker wants to use additives and processes if they can be avoided. For one thing, they cost money. By its very nature, wine is the most natural alcohol you can drink.  In truth, all wine is highly manipulated. Those aren’t fresh grapes in your glass. Yet no wine is as manipulated as any beer or spirit, and you don’t hear trash talk in those quarters about unnatural products. Wine is unique in its variety of styles based on sense of place. No beer lover ever discusses the “terroir” of barley – maybe some chitchat about the provenance of hops.

Last fall I attended a Natural Wine fair – 36 wineries all claiming that badge. Easily three quarters of the wines were over the legal limit for VA. I’m sorry, folks, but benign neglect is not the road to great wine. I did find eight wineries who were making spectacular wines. Just sayin’ — it ain’t easy.

Thus I thought I had made peace in my soul on this issue. So why is my blood suddenly boiling? Well, I try to keep my eye on several bloggers in this area, including Simon Woolf’s Morning Claret, Alice Feiring’s The Feiring Line, and Aaron Ayscough of Not Drinking Poison. (If you really want to avoid drinking poison, my advice is to stay away from natural wine. Besides the VA, they average ten times the level of allergenic biogenic amines with charming names like putrescine and cadaverine.) These writers all alternate between useful advice (Simon’s recent treatise on wine scoring and Alice’s Icelandic restaurant reviews come to mind) and off-the-wall nuttiness. But Ayscough’s blog last week takes the cake.

If I may digress, I made the acquaintance of Master of Wine Isabelle Legeron on a 2011 USAID trip to the Georgian Republic. We climb the ramparts of a castle in Kakheti, she the instigator of the London Raw Fair going by the moniker “That Crazy French Woman,” and I cast as Doctor Evil, the wine technology heretic. Amazingly, we got along. She explained that she wanted to bring natural wine back into the mainstream where it had been for eight millennia before the post-WWII revolution. It reminded me of my ancient friend Charlie Barra, “I’ve been an organic farmer for fifty-seven years, but I only just found out about it twenty years ago. Before that I thought I was just cheap.”

So last Tuesday, I opened Ayscough’s blog entitled “Natural Turncoats.”

“It has been striking to witness many prominent supporters of natural wine renovate their language, some transforming, almost overnight, from defenders of vigneron liberty into fairly typical hectoring wine critics bent, above all, on consumer advocacy.

“La Dive Bouteille organizer Sylvie Augereau ruffled feathers last year when she cautioned participating vignerons that enological additives were preferable to undesirable elements in fermentation. RAW Wine fair series founder Isabelle Legeron, while never a voice of radicalism in the first place, adopts an even stricter tone in a slightly fawning interview by Eliza Dumais in Swurl.

“I think we really need to focus more heavily on delivering wines that are drinkable, well crafted, and balanced. In the world of natural wine, it should no longer be acceptable to pour wines that are mousy, unbalanced, or fragile, and expect that the market is going to buy them,” says Legeron. “I think we’re seeing this in all markets: people are leaning away from some of the crazier bottles and returning to more controlled styles.”

Ayscough goes on the attack. “Why is it that wine must be controlled to conform to the market’s demands, and not vice versa?  For a renowned natural wine writer and events organizer to insist that natural wine conform to market demands is to highlight the limitations, if not the utter superfluity, of her own public platform. It is rather too easy to blame unnamed but implicitly lazy or careless natural winemakers releasing bad natural wines. I would instead point to the public figures exacerbating public wine miseducation by insisting that truly natural wines should taste just like filtered and sulfited “natural” wines.”

So let me get this straight. Consumers need to adapt their preferences to enjoy spoiled wines by virtue of their puritanical hands-off doctrines? Isabelle needs to get off her high horse, her willingness to compromise the doctrine of zero intervention (what I would call “artisanal craftsmanship”) in the name of (gasp!) drinkable, well crafted, balanced wines? How dare she?

I would start a blog called “Not Drinking Garbage,” but I just don’t have the stomach for a weekly screed against this nonsense. I am proud of my wines and open about the techniques I employ. In 1992, I invented the reverse osmosis techniques for VA removal and alcohol trimming, and you’ll have a hard time finding a winemaker who doesn’t think the world is a better place. Even Alice Feiring says so.

I was taught how to determine ripeness independent of brix, and I’m not shy about watering must to adjust alcohol. I’ve taught my system of pH adjustment with tartaric acid to 5,000 winemakers. So shoot me.

I use untoasted, air-cured Alliers oak chips in the fermenter for copigmentation, body and anti-oxidative power. My barrels are over 20 years old. I generally chop the skins of musts with a robot-coupe stick blender for quicker extraction and employ enological oxygenation at several phases of development. I maintain a microbiome balance in the cellar to out-compete Brettanomyces and I avoid sterile bottling of sound wines to permit the development of soulful bottle bouquet.

I publish all these details on my tech sheets and don’t apologize for them. It is through these techniques that I produce an array of balanced, Eurocentric, terroir-driven, age-worthy wines from lesser-known varieties. My wines are beloved by my 3,000 loyal fans and the rest of the world can drink Caymus, the poor dears.

Don’t let the bums get you down, Isabelle. You’re my hero. We’ve always been on the same side.

 

 

The Way Winemaking Is Supposed to Be

My favorite corollary of Murphy’s law is “Nothing is impossible for the guy who doesn’t have to do it himself.”  Today’s case in point, this time a person rather than a guy, is Sheila Donohue’s astonishing blog in which she touts the virtues of fiscal irresponsibility in the name of Natural Wine.  Check out https://sheilad.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/how-wine-making-is-supposed-to-…

These guys sound great. Yet I imagine that if you ask the Soccis if “not producing a vintage” is “the way winemaking is supposed to be,” they might just demur.

Surely even a fledgling blogger can communicate love for a family winery without attacking all the rest.

The plain fact is that the “many of today’s winemakers who strive to match the expectations of the mass market” constitute less than 1% of my colleagues who are working for the 250 or so national brands. They are good at what they do, and do not deserve Sheila scorn.  She should avoid their wines, as I do, when seeking anything beyond a standard beverage.

The other 99% of wineries make extremely small amounts of wines that strive for diversity and uniqueness in order to build personal connections with their tiny (often local) following.  They have to do this to survive, and they represent the vast majority of players, unless you restrict your shopping to Dean and Deluca.

If your winery is located in sunny Tuscany and your family has worked out the fine points over a thousand years, it’s easy to follow the practices of la dolce vita she describes, and Lord love them for it.

The real heroes, in my view, are the Mom and Pop in Des Moines who sold all but 3 acres of the family farm to Cargill ten years ago and are experimenting with a few hundred cases of La Crescent, Brianna and Marquette at 40 below zero, literally betting the farm on something that’s never been done before. This is the story of the 100 or so new wineries established in Iowa in the last decade.

Most U.S. States have similar untold stories. If they want to use a little technology to stay alive, I think the Lord will love them too. I hope Sheila will not wrinkle her nose and scoff at their efforts.

The “M” Word Has Got To Go

In my 2013 keynote address, I told the European Digital Wine Communicators Conference that accusing a winemaker of manipulation is like calling your wife a whore because she’s sleeping with you.  What, she’s supposed to do her duty and then feel bad about herself?  To place winemakers in this moral dilemma is to inhibit the acquisition of the necessary skill set which leads to invisibility of artifice and proper presentation of terroir.  Thus the accusation itself fosters poor practice, the real source of clumsy winemaking.

Brett in old wines

Hi Clark,

I have been meaning to ask you this question for a while:

Why we never see anyone saying that an old bottle of wine (let’s say older than 20 years) has Brett (or high levels of 4-EP if you prefer)?

I don’t know if you agree with this proposition, but I don’t recall ever in my life having opened an old bottle and going “ouch! barnyard!!”. Assuming that it had Brett in its youth, what happened?

Very best,

Luiz Alberto, #winelover
Founder & CEO
Member of the Circle of Wine Writers

—————————————————————————

Luis,

This is an area of some controversy.  To begin with, I have seen plenty of old bottles that are quite Bretty.  But I also observe that the apparent Brett has everything to do with the integrative power of the wine’s structure, which will vary over time.

4-ethyl phenol (4-EP) is not synonymous with Brett, merely a good indicator.  It smells like shoe polish and is not particularly offensive on its own.  Linda Bisson at U.C. Davis has shown that the Brett genome varies wildly from country to country, and doesn’t even have a stable number of  chromosomes. As a result, the mix of 4-EP, 4-ethyl guaiacol (a smoky/meaty aroma), isovaleric acid (the vomit small), VA and the mousy compounds varies greatly among strains and vigor within a strain.  The constituents of the wine are also important.  White wines have no coumaric  and ferulic acids, the precursors to 4-EP and 4-EG, and thus smell entirely different.

It is also possible that some of these constituents, such as the volatile phenols and iso-valeric acid (the vomit smell) react with other wine constituents to render themselves non-volatile or even pleasant.  T my knowledge, we haven’t studied this enough to know.  Finally, the masking effects of the wine’s overall aromatic development may incorporate an originally pronounced Animalia into something less apparent and even profound.

I certainly experience in sulfite free reds a “dump” of phenolics about three years into barrel ageing in which the wine appears to shed its skin and emerge as a well-integrated whole.  I would liken this to the transformation from ruby to tawny port, except that there is an active microbial component to the transformed aromas.

Clark