quote:

Originally posted by vinole:
Another question - I was in Paso three weeks ago and was surprised at the higher acidity levels than I am accustomed to from other CA regions like Napa. Is this due to Paso's cool nights, earlier harvesting, or do some producers add acid as I understand is done with some CA wines due to high ripeness levels?

Also a good question.

Paso has a bad rap for hot weather because the town of Paso is actually in a bowl of hills and has very little air movement. But the vineyards are on the windy Estrella Bench/Templeton Gap corridor or in the Santa Lucia foothills. West Paso gets about 22" of rain per annum, and has 1200-2000' elevations, so in some vintages ... yes, the wines can be tightly wound with higher acidity.

However, due to the current popularity of rich, high pH wines, there is also a trend to reach for that style and then counteract over-ripeness with acid additions in vintages that don't play nice. An experienced taster can usually spot this. It's experienced as a sweetness and fullness on the palate interrupted by a sharp citric streak down the midpalate.

BTW, I expect Larry, Randy etal to weigh in here?

quote:

Originally posted by Brunello Drinker:
I don't take Vitamin B, but I get what you're saying. I was interested to see, if like different oak regimens, different yeast strains could leave their distinct mark on a finished wine, but it seems the answer is no.

Keeping all of that in context, what then would be the benefit of using native yeasts as opposed to non-native if neither will produce a specifically identifiable result? One specific, true "terroirist" that I have spoken with considers native yeasts an essential part of the winemaking process, but it seems from your explanation that the choice is in fact quite arbitrary.

Different yeast strains do leave a distinctive mark, but in a very subtle way. Yeasts impart their signature as they function, and then they sign off and die. The taste of 'lees' as a bread/pastry effect is similar to the taste of oak...they are both in contact with the wine for a period of time but in the case of lees, that is just the flavor of the dead yeast cells. You never get a French vs. American lees taste. The real effect of a particular strain of yeast is hard to measure. Ashmanhaussen is renowned for enhancing pepper in a wine...but only if that quality already exists. Some yeasts are chosen, as I said, for their enhancement qualities, and some for their vigor.

Thanks for the info, Mary!

posted by Mary:

quote:

In Alice Feiring's book,

Arrghhhh

You HAD to bring that up? The single source of all wine wisdom. Just got around to reading it too. Thank God I didn't pay for it.

Brunello - I would ask that "terroirist" if he knows where his yeast came from - i.e. is it a feral yeast that came from someone down the road, a "commercial" yeast that was once used in his winery, a wild yeast that was found so useful it was actually propagated and thereby became a "commercial" yeast, or what exactly he is talking about. He should know for sure if he's really adamant about it being essential.

Greg, based on what I remember from discussions with him (Luca di Napoli, winemaker and owner of Castello dei Rampolla), the yeasts are native to his property in Tuscany.

Mary, thanks for the bog! Sorry I didn't catch my spelling mistake, intented to say So, not sop.

Anyway, I consume 75%+ of my wine in connection with a meal (nearly daily). I am not particularily against modern techniques to enhance wine but. My question was/is : Would you support efforts to require winemakers to list on labels additives in the wine as required for food? An example would be msg labeling for food. It's (msg) perfectly legal and heavily utilized in the food industry, but it's listed on the label. Sulfites is currently listed on wine bottles. How about other additives such as megaPurple, vitamins, tartaric acid, etc. List them and let the buyer decide. Where do you stand?

Since Mary asked, I figured I'd jump in here for a bit . . .

I have done both native and 'non-native' fermentations on my own wines. At this point, I have chosen to use commercial yeast for all of my wines for the simple reason that I do not see any downside to doing so, but there are a few downsides to going native - off aromas, higher level of stuck ferments, etc. Of course, this is simply my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

As far as yeast strains go, I do find marked differences in finished lots from the same grapes fermented with different yeast strains. Specifically, barrel fermented chardonnay and viogner exhibit radically different characteristics depending upon the yeast strain used - this may or may not have to do with the vigorousness of each strain . . .

And as far as truth in advertising goes, it will be interesting to see where this goes . . . as it is right now, there are things I've seen printed on labels that I find hard to believe . . . a lot of the time . . .

Just stirring it up for the next series of questions . . .

Cheers!

Mary, I do not care whether people add nutrients, yeast, acid, etc., as long as the wine is delicious, affordable and enjoyable with food. I have always viewed wine as a consumer product, like the thousands of other consumer products out there and I want wineries and farmers to be continually innovating to make their wines better tasting and more economical.

Bottom line folks, wines do not appear spontaneously. They are the result of tremendous human intervention at every level, from planting to growing to harvesting to fermenting, to ageing.

Larry et al. Please do jump in!

quote:

Originally posted by Brunello Drinker:
I was interested to see, if like different oak regimens, different yeast strains could leave their distinct mark on a finished wine, but it seems the answer is no.

Keeping all of that in context, what then would be the benefit of using native yeasts as opposed to non-native if neither will produce a specifically identifiable result? One specific, true "terroirist" that I have spoken with considers native yeasts an essential part of the winemaking process, but it seems from your explanation that the choice is in fact quite arbitrary.

A terroirist devotion to native yeast is an admirable thing, because as Larry pointed out, you have no control over your fermentations and it is risk-heavy. When it turns out well, a native ferment can add/accentuate complexity because the ferment is usually from a variety of yeasts. But since one strain is usually dominant, the other strains are minor. Still...

As Larry pointed out, it is easiest to see the differences that yeasts can create in some of the white wines. We have fermented the same vineyard lot of viognier with 3 different yeasts. Before ML the differences in each barrel were quite obvious. After partial ML (1 barrel) and time in oak, the differences were more subtle. Dan blended the 3 barrels together, and that vintage was one of my favorite DC viogniers. We have also done native yeast on viognier and liked it tremendously. In red wine, the differences are so subtle that probably only the winemaker would notice the difference.

Un-inoculated ferments are risky only the first few times you do them, and really only in one's mind. It's all about your comfort level as a winemaker. I do a lot of them and feel very comfortable in many cases. It's not a dogma, though, and I certainly keep plenty of yeast in my cellar, too. Winemaking by dogma is never a good idea, whether it be to spray every pesticide under the sun and inoculate @ 2#/1000 gallons and press at 0 Brix for every lot, or "non-interventionists" who refuse to touch their wine from September until the new year. IMHO, they both breed laziness and complacency.

I don't see any problem at all with freeze-dried yeast. Anyone who insists that native yeasts are vital to "terroir" is only sticking to their PR talking points.

And therein lies the problems with these sorts of discussions. Everyone wants to talk about things "the other guys" do. And whatever they do is the right way to do things, because "it respects the terroir" by their logic. Even others who do things similarly to them are doing it wrong. Of course, they don't do this or add that and would never think of it. And the fingers get pointed in every which direction as to who's manipulative and evil.

The focus has become on the process, not the results. And winemakers and wineries are largely to blame. For whatever reason, we've all started to write press releases about our "gravity flow" wineries and "Old World" techniques and our "traditional methods" and so on, focusing the consumer on what we do rather than what we produce. Are we surprised that many now want to lift up the curtain and see what's behind?

quote:

Originally posted by Sandy Fitzgerald:
My question was/is : Would you support efforts to require winemakers to list on labels additives in the wine as required for food? An example would be msg labeling for food. It's (msg) perfectly legal and heavily utilized in the food industry, but it's listed on the label. Sulfites is currently listed on wine bottles. How about other additives such as megaPurple, vitamins, tartaric acid, etc. List them and let the buyer decide. Where do you stand?

Personally, I would be very sad to lose the three square inches of real estate that is our back label. We write specific back labels for each wine, with remarks about that wine and the vineyards. It would be very sad, and basically worthless, to replace that with a nutrient label.

If it has to be done, though, I would fight long and hard to see that wineries are not subjected to label approval processes by BOTH the FDA and the TTB. Life is hard enough for small wineries (which comprise 90% of the wine producers in the US and in many ways are the last bastion of financially viable small agriculture.)

Specifically, I think it's useless because most things like MP and tartaric acid are just forms of grape juice, so it's like saying "this meat contains protein." Other additives, like yeast hulls, fining agents, etc. are processes, and not really additives. They are used to boost fermentation performance, clarify wine, etc. and are removed from the final product. SO2 I can understand, although food is not subjected to the same rules--canned acid products like tomatoes and pinapple have higher SO2 than wine, and while they may include it in their ingredient labeling, they are not required to add a SUFITE WARNING LABEL with mandatory caps and 8 point type. So I feel it should be one or the other, not both.

I've actually sent notes to both the TTB and FDA that I support nutrient and ingredient labels on wine. I think that makes me and Randall Graham the only ones to support it

My opinion is that wine has a good story to tell regarding ingredients and nutrients. In an aisle with beer, soda, and sports drinks, wine will look like a good healthy, natural alternative.

I always list any and every addition I've made on my data sheets and release letters. I'm trying to get all the 'romance' off my back/side label as it is, so I don't include it there.

In 2005 I used commercial yeast and SO2 I also used tartaric acid on one bin.
In 2006 I used commercial yeast and SO2 I used tartaric acid on one wine.
in 2007 I moved into my own facility and did not use commercial yeast, a move I was very greatful for. I began to use 'Superfood' (a yeast nutrient made of naturally spent yeast by products), SO2 and Tartaric Acid on one lot.

I've also noted when I've had to add water to lots, which I did to one lot in 2005 and one lot in 2007.

I've never made any other addition, or subtraction (alcohol removal, ect.) I filtered two lots of 2007 topping wine, about 100 liters total, but I'm not sure that qualifies in this discussion. I also filtered one barrel that showed some Hydrogen Sulfide.

If I had a wine that had microbial issues, I'd most likely filter that as well.

That's it. I'd never do anything to any wine at any tmie, that I would not include in the information I send to my customers when they order.

I'd love to see proper labelling of wine.

But first I'd like to see proper labelling of food; doing away with arbitrary "serving sizes" and adopting a standard of per 1oz or per 100g, and eliminating the rule that says something can be labelled "trans fat free" if it contains less than 0.5g per "serving" - the limit should be more like 0.1g per 100g

Then I'd like to see proper labelling of beer. All beers should display the alcohol content clearly. It would be nice to force the likes of Budweiser to list all their additives, but I think that would mean bigger bottles just to hold the labels.

Right. Let's move on to MegaPurple.

I'm not sure where MegaPurple got its evil reputation. Perhaps its because the name just sounds so ... mutant. MegaPurple, MegaRed and MegaCherry are grape concentrates primarily used in the food industry. MegaPurple is used on occasion to add a blue luster to wines thin in color, and some silkiness to the palate. The concentrates are also high in sugar and so MP is sometimes used to "fatten up" a wine that has high alcohol but lacks the body to carry it. Since it's just *grapes* it is perfectly legal to use it, but it's generally only a fallback for a thin wine. Blending with another wine is the preferred method of correction among small vintners because MP has a weird Concord-like taste and astringent tannins. Mostly it's only used in really large lots of cheaper wine that need a quick fix. Still, having been around for a few years, I have seen some desperate measures. Bags of C&H stacked in a winery (strictly illegal) and grocery bags full of frozen pineapple concentrate destined for a viognier that was picked green. (I'm pretty sure that's illegal.) Mostly this kind of situation happens when a grower does a 'panic pick' and picks based on rising Brix levels without the approval of the winery and the winemaker is stuck with $1000s x 10 of insufficiently ripe grapes. A good way to get your contract cancelled. So, MegaPurple is just like the frozen concentrate you buy in the store, and no it will not make your thing fall off.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Baker:
.....and no it will not make your thing fall off.

thank God for that!

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Baker:
Right. Let's move on to MegaPurple. ... I have seen some desperate measures. Bags of C&H stacked in a winery (strictly illegal) ...

please help ... i'm ignorant ... what is "C&H?" Sugar?

C&H Pure Cane Sugar

OMG, hilarious. Look at their current promotion.

LOL

That is just grand!

You've never heard of C&H???

Classic! (No wonder you didn't go to Justin...)

Had a guess (was right) ... just wasn't sure. I cook, but don't bake. To me, sugar is either "plain" or "brown" ... no more, no less.... mister "mutually exclusive"!

quote:

Originally posted by Brashley:
Had a guess (was right) ... just wasn't sure. I cook, but don't bake. To me, sugar is either "plain" or "brown" ... no more, no less.... mister "mutually exclusive"!

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Baker:
We prefer to use the blood of online geeks as a fining agent, we find that the high protein/fat content, variable lecithin ratio, and low social attraction helps us settle the coarser elements out of a wine while leaving the finer particulate matter available for sensory study.

Beautiful.