As a spectator of Jane Moore’s inflammatory and enlightening foray into wine additives and Malcolm Gluck’s recent related revelations, I have been amazed at the response both within and without the wine-world. I have a few points of my own to add as well.
Malcolm first.... Mr Gluck says a few very valid points in his Daily Mail article (27th September) about the prevalence of underhand winemaking practices and widespread smoke screening within the wine industry, but there are a couple of things he rides a little rough shod over...
First of all screw-caps! Let’s get one thing straight: cork IS not the baddy. As Malcolm states wine does vary, the permeability of the cork allows wine to develop at a controlled and necessary rate rather than to be merely preserved as is the case with screw caps. Wine is a natural and living product and what Mal’ neglects to mention is the difficulties for reductive wines being closed with stelvin and the associated bottle stink. The only bad thing about cork is when sub-standard (often unsanitary) cork bark is used, which admittedly is far too often. Consider also that unlike screw caps the production of cork is a CO2 positive process and that it can also be recycled and is biodegradable. His sweeping assertion that cork is dead is absurd and unhelpful; the ease of the screw cap is laudable but that’s about it.
Secondly his dismissal of terroir as a myth is misguided (albeit a little predictable coming from such a disenchanted viewpoint). Whilst dismissing it as myth he unwittingly contradicts himself by mentioning that the AC system in France is a guide to quality (and historically he’s right), but in fact the real ‘origin’ of the AC system and its counterparts in Italy and Spain was to protect the typicity of these individual local styles and in certain regions their terroir, the great ‘Crus’ of Burgundy, Beaujolais and Alsace come to mind. Sadly this is no longer the case; the current AC system in France is near redundant as so many conventional AC growers have to manipulate their wines in order to recreate the terroir that they themselves have muted through years of chemical dependence and didactic oenology. To be fair to them they never meant to do this, they had to cut costs to chase plummeting prices driven by our indiscriminate buying practices. Making wine to order has been the nail in the coffin for quality affordable wine, it is too homogenous a requirement, it destroys a wines identity and who wants vinus coca cola?
The only place you’ll find wines with distinct individuality or terroir is from growers who value this quality. Please note the importance of growers here; at best a winemaker is just a shepherd, a guardian of good healthy fruit taking its natural path towards alcohol. I wonder if Darwin ever slipped a wry smile about the abundance of yeast populations on a grape’s skin! Ask any winemaker worth his salt and he’ll tell you great wine is made in the vineyard. Champagne, which has come in for the biggest bashing both from Malcolm and also Jane Moore’s Dispatches programme (Channel 4, 15th September), has a mainstay culture of mass production where very few of the top houses grow their own fruit, this is where the biggest rip-off’s ‘lie’ as the houses and their marketing machines try to pass off their quantity as quality. The difference here with small high profile growers (Larmandier-Bernier, Anselme Selosse two notable exceptions from a handful) is very much about terroir, the fastidious love of the soil and the health of the vineyard are paramount, is it any wonder that these are the wines that really do the talking?!
It is the journalist’s prerogative to inform the consumer and Jane Moore’s programme was splendid for airing the issue of ingredient labelling on wine. Personally I want to drink wines from vineyards which have never seen a chemical treatment other than sulphur, I want the health and vitality of the vineyard to shine through in the wine. I find this is best achieved through considerate winemakers who allow the fermentations to be conducted by natural /ambient yeast, avoiding manipulation of the wine. The wine will be bottled unfiltered and unfined and have only a smidgen of sulphur added.
What I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole is that which is all too common, the product of an intensively farmed vineyard with poor soil, disease prone vines and a residue of chemical treatments on the unremarkable fruit. These malnourished grapes are never fermented naturally because their flavour will need to be improved using engineered yeast. In most cases the juice will have been sulphured to kill any microorganisms anyway and natural yeast cannot function in such a solution. If there are no other faults then only sugar and yeast would be added at this point, but often enzymes and yeast nutrients may be added to maximise the extraction of flavour. Post fermentation the wine maybe acidified/de-acidified and de-alcoholised. If there are any faults these could be corrected with a plethora of winemaking chemicals some of which include heavy metals. Flavourings normally oak or tannin maybe added at this stage. Then flavour could be tweaked further by clarifying the wine with a variety of proteins (frequently animal) all with an effect on flavour, then the wine will be filtered, and sometimes pasteurised or cold-stabilised before being finally sulphured and bottled.
As Jancis Robinson pointed out in the Dispatches programme we can expect an increase in the polarisation of the two approaches outlined above. This is obviously very sad, but ultimately it is the consumer who decides. Jane’s stance was helpful in the sense that it raised questions, sadly it also set out from the beginning with a clear agenda to shock which for me dug its own grave. For example the sugar added to champagne is no big mystery or threat; the wine would be unpalatable to many without it. The word Brut itself dictates that sugar is present in quantities up to 15g/L! I’m not scared of sugar, I’m scared of pesticide residues! Cut the wheat from the chaff please!
I applaud Jane and Malcolm’s bravery in speaking out against the complacency and deceitful self protection of the wine trade. After the food revolution of the last 10 years or so, wine seems to me to be a bit of dark horse. Wine may be a natural product but not all wines are created equal in that regard. Let’s have some transparency. Through education and awareness we can demystify, the consumer can then be informed enough to make a choice and reverse this sad polarisation of wine production. Let the debate continue and improve!
Monday, 6 October 2008
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Anything but....
There are many a wine slurper who when asked what they would care to be served, retort, "A-B-C darling ..anything but chardonnay!"" Its an all too common phenomenom which makes me fell a little sorry for the much maligned Chardonnay. Because its not really Chardonnay they hate, ok they may hate some of the obtuse and ordinary oaked varieties, but its the repition of a theme, they're just screaming - 'give me a change....save me from mundanity!'
It seems we live an age of ignorant consumption, and that wines are chosen more by brand than by their real merit. A boon for the marketeer; if Chardonnay is the wine of the moment, then why not push, push, push the chardonnay. In the end it becomes so ubiquitous that no one can stand the sight of the stuff. Pinot Grigio will be next and then after that who knows maybe Chenin or Viognier, sooner or later we'll be back where we started because the average (ok very average) consumer will never seek to know more and will always follow the forgetful heard.
It seems so tragic as it is the bulk wines which determine the markets ultimate direction, these wines so often are the most bland and one dimensional. All the special, heart warming, sincere ones (and ok hands up the more expensive) are left on the shelf. It was only a few days ago I was supping the new super cuvee of Domaine Begude's finest chardonnay, 'L'Etoile de Begude' that I remembered just what JoBlogs is missing.
If you could forget for just one minute the awful, flacid, chewy chardonnay's of boomtime western Oz and the hotter parts of California and wipe the slate clean then what a place to start. The 2006 'Etoile' is lightly scented with piercingly clean fruit, lime and mineral steeliness, the smidgen of fine Oak is warming and inviting with a hint of clove and vanilla. The palate is delish, the balance is remarkable, understated and with real finesse, the hint of green acidity says more of youth than any wrong. The length is huge and lasts just about as long as your silly cat smile!
If only everyone could try it, anything but all those bloody awful chardonnays....
It seems we live an age of ignorant consumption, and that wines are chosen more by brand than by their real merit. A boon for the marketeer; if Chardonnay is the wine of the moment, then why not push, push, push the chardonnay. In the end it becomes so ubiquitous that no one can stand the sight of the stuff. Pinot Grigio will be next and then after that who knows maybe Chenin or Viognier, sooner or later we'll be back where we started because the average (ok very average) consumer will never seek to know more and will always follow the forgetful heard.
It seems so tragic as it is the bulk wines which determine the markets ultimate direction, these wines so often are the most bland and one dimensional. All the special, heart warming, sincere ones (and ok hands up the more expensive) are left on the shelf. It was only a few days ago I was supping the new super cuvee of Domaine Begude's finest chardonnay, 'L'Etoile de Begude' that I remembered just what JoBlogs is missing.
If you could forget for just one minute the awful, flacid, chewy chardonnay's of boomtime western Oz and the hotter parts of California and wipe the slate clean then what a place to start. The 2006 'Etoile' is lightly scented with piercingly clean fruit, lime and mineral steeliness, the smidgen of fine Oak is warming and inviting with a hint of clove and vanilla. The palate is delish, the balance is remarkable, understated and with real finesse, the hint of green acidity says more of youth than any wrong. The length is huge and lasts just about as long as your silly cat smile!
If only everyone could try it, anything but all those bloody awful chardonnays....
Friday, 11 January 2008
January - Get inspired
After a regrettably gluttonous holiday the wife and I decided to follow the path of obligatory ‘detox’, although it’s not really a detox: more of a lonely road of zero alcohol travail. As if January wasn’t destined to be a mother of a drag anyway, we decide to highlight our guilt further by the suffering and self torture of booze deprivation. The long and short of it is I’ve been feeling a little glum. That was of course until today -how minor the little incidents appear to be in the rejuvenation of spirit! - perhaps it was the brilliant blue of the sky this morning or maybe the passing sight of someone a little more depressed than I, whatever the weather in my ascending spirits I happened across what it is that has driven me on these last three ‘Festival’ years, it was a quote from the enigmatic Michel Chapoutier:
‘the future of biodynamics will be limited only by the ability of the consumer to appreciate complex, sophisticated wine.’
Michel has a very good point and a spectacular belief in what he is doing. Michel has now converted his entire 250 hectare estate to Biodynamics, making him the single largest ‘BD’ producer in Europe. Like many other growers before him, it started with a trial and the results were convincing enough to convert the rest of the estate. Chapoutier, if you didn’t know already is one of the largest producers of quality wine in France’s Rhone valley. From supermarket wines at £5 to some of the best Ermitage at £150 he represents a good cross section of the market. His utilitarian approach to biodynamics has reaped as much as it has sown, but what is it exactly he’s doing differently?
”Key to biodynamics is considering the farm in its entirety as a living system. To this end, biodynamic farms are supposed to be closed, self-sustaining systems. Biodynamics also sees the farm in the context of the wider pattern of lunar and cosmic rhythms. In this holistic view, the soil is seen not simply as a substrate for plant growth, but as an organism in its own right. The idea of using synthetic fertilizers or pesticides is thus an anathema to biodynamic practitioners. Instead, they use a series of special preparations to enhance the life of the soil, which are applied at appropriate times in keeping with the rhythms of nature. And disease is seen not as a problem to be tackled head-on, but rather as a symptom of a deeper malaise within the farm ‘organism’: correct the problem in the system and the disease will right itself. Biodynamics is in effect a supercharged system of organic farming. Where biodynamics differs significantly in practice from organics is in the use of these special preparations and the timing of their application—in other ways the techniques employed are quite similar.” (From Jamie Goode’s fabulous article:http://www.wineanorak.com/biodynamic1.htm)
It has been seen through -albeit limited- scientific research that Biodynamic farms outperform both Organic and conventional farms in ecological terms and are level pegging on the fiscal front (see references), where the biggest differences have been noted have been in the arena of wine production. Unlike conventional agricultural crops, the vine is a complex perennial, its powerful root system and disproportionately small ‘top half’ predispose it to astral influences. Being so root heavy it is the latest flowering fruit tree, it’s flowering corresponding to the summer solstice when the sun is literally touching the earth. The lunar dimension is particularly powerful in the vine, the rise and fall of sap being heavily affected by lunar position, the quality of fruit and disease susceptibility are notable outcomes.
If the vine is tended and treated in recognition of these influences it will clearly be a happier, healthier plant and from a more complete system. The chain of thought goes: healthier system: healthier vine: healthier grapes: healthier wine. If all is well throughout the wine will inevitably be better, it seems though as Michel hints at, that not all of us are able to appreciate it.
As the recent campaigns of UK celebrity chefs have shown we can all understand and more or less agree on the environmental and nutritional benefits of more expansive / less intensive systems. The sad truth is that as wonderful as al lof this seems it remains financially out of reach for many, the history of food provision in the UK has arrived at a point where food produced in the best possible way i.e. locally and naturally is vastly more expensive than foods from foreign lands and/or frightening production methods.
Much the same can be said of wine, although some of us will pay the difference and treat ourselves to wines that herald the most excellent manner of conception and offer an entirely superior experience, most will keep returning to the same old place for the same old plonk. The sort of wines that taste the same wherever they come from: be it the ubiquitous varietal wines of the £5 bracket, or the one-dimensional big names at £10. It doesn’t have to be this way.
This sounds like a depressing conclusion, but it’s not, as Michel said the only real limitation to the future of these wonderful ways of producing our food is our willingness to appreciate and consume their fruits. The major force of change lies with the consumer, it’s an empowering and liberating thought, inspirational even!
Reference: Reganold, John P.; Alan S. Palmer, James C. Lockhart, and A. Neil Macgregor (1993). "Soil quality and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand". Science 260 (5106)
‘the future of biodynamics will be limited only by the ability of the consumer to appreciate complex, sophisticated wine.’
Michel has a very good point and a spectacular belief in what he is doing. Michel has now converted his entire 250 hectare estate to Biodynamics, making him the single largest ‘BD’ producer in Europe. Like many other growers before him, it started with a trial and the results were convincing enough to convert the rest of the estate. Chapoutier, if you didn’t know already is one of the largest producers of quality wine in France’s Rhone valley. From supermarket wines at £5 to some of the best Ermitage at £150 he represents a good cross section of the market. His utilitarian approach to biodynamics has reaped as much as it has sown, but what is it exactly he’s doing differently?
”Key to biodynamics is considering the farm in its entirety as a living system. To this end, biodynamic farms are supposed to be closed, self-sustaining systems. Biodynamics also sees the farm in the context of the wider pattern of lunar and cosmic rhythms. In this holistic view, the soil is seen not simply as a substrate for plant growth, but as an organism in its own right. The idea of using synthetic fertilizers or pesticides is thus an anathema to biodynamic practitioners. Instead, they use a series of special preparations to enhance the life of the soil, which are applied at appropriate times in keeping with the rhythms of nature. And disease is seen not as a problem to be tackled head-on, but rather as a symptom of a deeper malaise within the farm ‘organism’: correct the problem in the system and the disease will right itself. Biodynamics is in effect a supercharged system of organic farming. Where biodynamics differs significantly in practice from organics is in the use of these special preparations and the timing of their application—in other ways the techniques employed are quite similar.” (From Jamie Goode’s fabulous article:http://www.wineanorak.com/biodynamic1.htm)
It has been seen through -albeit limited- scientific research that Biodynamic farms outperform both Organic and conventional farms in ecological terms and are level pegging on the fiscal front (see references), where the biggest differences have been noted have been in the arena of wine production. Unlike conventional agricultural crops, the vine is a complex perennial, its powerful root system and disproportionately small ‘top half’ predispose it to astral influences. Being so root heavy it is the latest flowering fruit tree, it’s flowering corresponding to the summer solstice when the sun is literally touching the earth. The lunar dimension is particularly powerful in the vine, the rise and fall of sap being heavily affected by lunar position, the quality of fruit and disease susceptibility are notable outcomes.
If the vine is tended and treated in recognition of these influences it will clearly be a happier, healthier plant and from a more complete system. The chain of thought goes: healthier system: healthier vine: healthier grapes: healthier wine. If all is well throughout the wine will inevitably be better, it seems though as Michel hints at, that not all of us are able to appreciate it.
As the recent campaigns of UK celebrity chefs have shown we can all understand and more or less agree on the environmental and nutritional benefits of more expansive / less intensive systems. The sad truth is that as wonderful as al lof this seems it remains financially out of reach for many, the history of food provision in the UK has arrived at a point where food produced in the best possible way i.e. locally and naturally is vastly more expensive than foods from foreign lands and/or frightening production methods.
Much the same can be said of wine, although some of us will pay the difference and treat ourselves to wines that herald the most excellent manner of conception and offer an entirely superior experience, most will keep returning to the same old place for the same old plonk. The sort of wines that taste the same wherever they come from: be it the ubiquitous varietal wines of the £5 bracket, or the one-dimensional big names at £10. It doesn’t have to be this way.
This sounds like a depressing conclusion, but it’s not, as Michel said the only real limitation to the future of these wonderful ways of producing our food is our willingness to appreciate and consume their fruits. The major force of change lies with the consumer, it’s an empowering and liberating thought, inspirational even!
Reference: Reganold, John P.; Alan S. Palmer, James C. Lockhart, and A. Neil Macgregor (1993). "Soil quality and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand". Science 260 (5106)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
