Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 'Natural wine' ?


Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
last twelve months ?

It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.

Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
blog (see here : http://www.wineanorak.com/blog/label...al%20wine.html)
and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
subject.

http://www.morethanorganic.com puts quite a good case for the
difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.

Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
here : http://www.vinography.com/archives/2...tic_wine.html).

It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?

Any suggestions ?

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,849
Default 'Natural wine' ?

wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
> last twelve months ?
>
> It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
>
> Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
> blog (see here :
http://www.wineanorak.com/blog/label...al%20wine.html)
> and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
> subject.
>
> http://www.morethanorganic.com puts quite a good case for the
> difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
>
> Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
> called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
> here : http://www.vinography.com/archives/2...tic_wine.html).
>
> It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
> extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
> 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>
> Any suggestions ?
>


"Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
selection massale). Organic winemaking is far less restrictive since it
just concerns the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the vineyard.
For a good discussion of it, see Joe Dressner's recent article on his
blog: http://www.joedressner.com

Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On 2007-05-08, Mark Lipton wrote:

> "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
> to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
> favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
> little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
> selection massale).


What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? (I'm
guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
the used ones used for?)

--
I put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me!
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,849
Default 'Natural wine' ?

Adam Funk wrote:

> What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? (I'm
> guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
> the used ones used for?)
>


New oak barrels are exactly that: oak barrels which haven't yet been
used to make wine. New oak barrels, especially high toast ones or ones
made from American oak, are notorious for imparting very strong flavors
to the wine that have nothing to do with the grapes themselves. Many
people like those flavors; others do not. If you drink enough wine, you
might conclude (like I have) that new oak is like makeup: used with
restraint and a sense of artistry, it can enhance, but used clumsily it
can be grotesque. YMMV, of course.

Quercophobically yours,
Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 912
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On May 8, 2:39 pm, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
> > last twelve months ?

>
> > It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.

>
> > Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
> > blog (see here :http://www.wineanorak.com/blog/label...al%20wine.html)
> > and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
> > subject.

>
> >http://www.morethanorganic.computs quite a good case for the
> > difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> > feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.

>
> > Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
> > called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
> > here :http://www.vinography.com/archives/2...ntic_wine....).

>
> > It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
> > extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
> > 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?

>
> > Any suggestions ?

>
> "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. It refers
> to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
> favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
> little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
> selection massale). Organic winemaking is far less restrictive since it
> just concerns the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the vineyard.
> For a good discussion of it, see Joe Dressner's recent article on his
> blog:http://www.joedressner.com
>
> Mark Lipton
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com


I could not resist. The ultimate natural wine, is vinegar. There are
some misinformed people that take it as a matter of faith that natural
or organic is superior. This is a theology, and not based on
scientific facts or reason. It usually is useless to argue with people
with such beliefs, just as it usually is useless to argue with someone
about which religion, if any, is the best. More reasonable people try
to do what makes the best product, be it drink or food. This may be to
do nothing in some cases, or if may involve many steps by man in
others. While man has done some things that harm, on the average many
more things have been done right since the scientific era. One need
only mention the greatly increased life span in developed nations that
have enough money for food and other essentials for a healthy life.
There was a time when 50 years was very old.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,463
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On May 8, 1:45 pm, wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed this term steadily gaining currency over the
> last twelve months ?
>
> It used to be something you weren't allowed to say.
>
> Jamie Goode (not exactly a wine hippy) now regularly uses it on his
> blog (see here :http://www.wineanorak.com/blog/label...al%20wine.html)
> and both he and Alice Feiring are apparently writing books on the
> subject.
>
> http://www.morethanorganic.computs quite a good case for the
> difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.
>
> Even Hugh Johnson seems to have retracted an article in which he
> called the idea of natural wine 'bogus' (see, or rather don't see,
> here :http://www.vinography.com/archives/2...ntic_wine....).
>
> It now seems to be current as a way of describing certain fairly
> extreme organic wines. These may well need a term distinct from
> 'organic', but surely there has to be a better alternative ?
>
> Any suggestions ?



"Montresor manages its vineyards only by natural means without the
use of chemical pesticides or herbicides."
Dee

  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 'Natural wine' ?


> http://www.morethanorganic.computs quite a good case for the
> difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.


We're not yet selling a product, although we do intend to start to
start importing later this year. At the moment the site is purely
informational. You can find our position on 'natural wine' as a term
in the section 'Wine terminology' (http://www.morethanorganic.com/wine-
terminology).

Obviously, we don't agree with the 'vinegar' argument, principally
because, as Joe Dressner points out, there is a group of winemakers
within France who describe themselves in this way, as well as cavistes
and restaurants who specialise in 'vin naturel'. They even have a
website (http://www.lesvinsnaturels.org/). We need a way to describe
these wines in English and 'natural wine' seems like the most sensible
translation. I suppose another option would be to adopt the French
term. Dressner himself prefers 'real wine' I think.

The other reason the term is useful, within the EU at least, is the
mess the law is currently in over organic and biodynamic wine.
Winemakers have effectively been forced to find an alternative because
the term 'organic wine' is illegal and the term 'wine made from
organically grown grapes' is not strict enough. There are plenty of
wines made industrially from organically grown grapes.

A bigger problem is agreeing exactly what qualifies as 'natural wine'.
Until that's done, you can't get a system of certfication running. Our
attempt at a definition is here (http://www.morethanorganic.com/
definition-of-natural-wine) but it should be seen as just that, an
attempt. There's another one, fairly similar, on wikipedia (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_wine).

Incidentally, how did you find morethanorganic ? It's only about a
month old and is still teething really. Nor is it set in stone, so any
feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Oliver Morgan
http://www.morethanorganic.com/

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 917
Default 'Natural wine' ?

This thread cross posted to rec.crafts.winemaking; from a winemaking
standpoint I'm not sure I followed the logic of natural wines when the
weather doesn't cooperate with the vineyard. In your definitions it
said natural wines contained no added acids so I'm wondering how they
will pull this off in hot years. Grapes are finicky, at the small
amount of sulfite you are stating this wine may contain the longevity
of the wine might depend on acidity. Lower acid wines may go off on
you quicker than higher acid wines.

I applaud your efforts; I'm big on minimal intervention myself but do
use acids and sulfites when the raw materials call for them. I don't
own my own vineyard. This position on acids seems to limit your
growers to very predictable climates and very predictable vines. I'm
not saying it's impossible, just harder. They will probably be
blending wines of varied acid levels due to ripeness which may work
out very well on some varieties; less well with others. They will be
less apt to pick a whole vineyard at once also, just picking areas at
optimum ripeness. None of that is bad, it's actually great for the
wine. You just need a lot more intervention in the vineyard, that is
all.
I thought this was a biodynamic thread originally, I see it's not.

Joe

On May 9, 3:05 am, wrote:
> >http://www.morethanorganic.computsquite a good case for the
> > difference between 'natural' and 'organic' wines, but I can't help
> > feeling it's just smart way of selling their product.

>
> We're not yet selling a product, although we do intend to start to
> start importing later this year. At the moment the site is purely
> informational. You can find our position on 'natural wine' as a term
> in the section 'Wine terminology' (http://www.morethanorganic.com/wine-
> terminology).
>
> Obviously, we don't agree with the 'vinegar' argument, principallcan given my starting point, you are trying to get your grapes right
> because, as Joe Dressner points out, there is a group of winemakers
> within France who describe themselves in this way, as well as cavistes
> and restaurants who specialise in 'vin naturel'. They even have a
> website (http://www.lesvinsnaturels.org/). We need a way to describe
> these wines in English and 'natural wine' seems like the most sensible
> translation. I suppose another option would be to adopt the French
> term. Dressner himself prefers 'real wine' I think.
>
> The other reason the term is useful, within the EU at least, is the
> mess the law is currently in over organic and biodynamic wine.
> Winemakers have effectively been forced to find an alternative because
> the term 'organic wine' is illegal and the term 'wine made from
> organically grown grapes' is not strict enough. There are plenty of
> wines made industrially from organically grown grapes.
>
> A bigger problem is agreeing exactly what qualifies as 'natural wine'.
> Until that's done, you can't get a system of certfication running. Our
> attempt at a definition is here (http://www.morethanorganic.com/
> definition-of-natural-wine) but it should be seen as just that, an
> attempt. There's another one, fairly similar, on wikipedia (http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_wine).
>
> Incidentally, how did you find morethanorganic ? It's only about a
> month old and is still teething really. Nor is it set in stone, so any
> feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Oliver Morganhttp://www.morethanorganic.com/



  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 394
Default 'Natural wine' ?

Crosspost removed.

Hi Mike,

On Tue, 08 May 2007 23:58:48 -0700
Mike Tommasi > wrote:

> "cosmoculture"...). I find the "science" behind biodynamics quite
> annoying and laughable, and the philosophy of the founder of biodynamics
> abominable, but paradoxically the belief in such nonsense (example:


As you know I agree very strongly with many of your points relating to
intervention and wine making.

But the above is at best a poor choice of words. Anthroposophy an abomination?
Although arguments have been made that Steiner was racist, these seem easily
countered by the principals of his philosophy. It is also note worthy that he took
unpopular stands against the antisemitism of the period.

Having been brought up in the Steiner (Waldorf) schools, I can assure you
that, although I sometimes (like you) find the principles of anthroposophy
-- and biodynamics -- laughable, they are at worst harmless conceits or
sloppy and perhaps outmoded thinking. At best they provide, like all religious
systems, a valuable structure and moral compass for the adherents. Certainly
the schools teach an abhorrence for racism and prejudice in all its forms (including
against the Anthropops, as we referred to them) which would be welcome in
more general education.

Let's keep it real. Killing people in the name of religion is an abomination. The
Anthropops are harmless.

Referring to the comment on rules defining "natural wine," unless we can get
the EC to impose some on us, I would think that the concept is vague enough
that splinter groups are inevitable.

vinous wishes from Normandie, "the new Loire,"

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit
http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 394
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On Wed, 09 May 2007 06:49:46 -0700
Mike Tommasi > wrote:

> Back to wine ;-)


Sold!

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit
http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,554
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On May 9, 8:40�am, Emery Davis > wrote:
> Crosspost removed.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 23:58:48 -0700
>
> Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> > "cosmoculture"...). I find the "science" behind biodynamics quite
> > annoying and laughable, and the philosophy of the founder of biodynamics
> > abominable, but paradoxically the belief in such nonsense (example:

>
> As you know I agree very strongly with many of your points relating to
> intervention and wine making.
>
> But the above is at best a poor choice of words. *Anthroposophy an abomination?
> Although arguments have been made that Steiner was racist, these seem easily
> countered by the principals of his philosophy. *It is also note worthy that he took
> unpopular stands against the antisemitism of the period.
>
> Having been brought up in the Steiner (Waldorf) schools, I can assure you
> that, although I sometimes (like you) find the principles of anthroposophy
> -- and biodynamics -- laughable, they are at worst harmless conceits or
> sloppy and perhaps outmoded thinking. *At best they provide, like all religious
> systems, a valuable structure and moral compass for the adherents. *Certainly
> the schools teach an abhorrence for racism and prejudice in all its forms (including
> against the Anthropops, as we referred to them) which would be welcome in
> more general education.
>
> Let's keep it real. *Killing people in the name of religion is an abomination. *The
> Anthropops are harmless.
>
> Referring to the comment on rules defining "natural wine," unless we can get
> the EC to impose some on us, I would think that the concept is vague enough
> that splinter groups are inevitable.
>
> vinous wishes from Normandie, "the new Loire,"
>
> -E
> --
> Emery Davis
> You can reply to
> by removing the well known companies
> Questions about wine? *Visithttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com


Emery, am I right you grew up in Rockland? So you went to Green
Meadow?

OK, impossible to address every comment to right person, so general
thoughts:

As I stated last time when biodynamics can up:
"Best I can come up with is that using Biodynamics means that the
producer is dedicated to putting a lot of care into the vines, and in
such a way that tends to bring out ...terroir (sorry all you terroir-
haters!). By its nature biodynamism is in some ways the opposite of
big agri-business, with all problems being solved by a handy
application of pesticide or whatever. It's not that the biodynamic
approach in itself is better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring
grower. Certainly there's lots of great growers who don't use
Biodynamics! "

While many of my favorite producers are "natural", "organic" or
"biodynamic", I've had plenty of bad wines from each category. I find
it amazing when a Coturri wine doesn't resemble a science experiment
gone wrong (others here strongly disagree). While I believe in *light*
sulphur use, I am wary of sans soufre bottlings, as they tend to be
variable.

I agree that it is possible to make large quantities of wine in a non-
interventionist fashion.

I'm not as quercophobic as some, but agree too much can mask other
qualities.



  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,554
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On May 8, 4:23�pm, Adam Funk > wrote:
> On 2007-05-08, Mark Lipton wrote:
>
> > "Natural Wine" is an actual movement among French winemakers. *It refers
> > to an ethic that minimizes/avoids the use of SO2 to stabilize wine,
> > favors a non-interventionist approach to winemaking (indigenous yeasts,
> > little or no use of new oak, etc.) and viticulture (hand harvesting,
> > selection massale). *

>
> What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? *(I'm
> guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
> the used ones used for?)
>
> --
> I put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me!


As to how you get used oak, tyically in "old days" a producer might
bring in a few new barrels to replace ones that were leaking (or if
production had increased). Typically these barrels would be used as
part of the elevage of the biggest wines in the stable. Or, a producer
might buy used barrels from another producer who typically used more
new oak (like the classified growths in Bordeaux, or most GC
Burgundy, etc).

Another factor in the perception of "new oak" is that heavier toasts
of the barrels tend to increase oak flavors.

Size of barrels in another factor. A 225L barrique has more surface
area proportionally than a big foudre.


  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 394
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On 9 May 2007 10:02:18 -0700
DaleW > wrote:

[]
> Emery, am I right you grew up in Rockland? So you went to Green
> Meadow?
>


Hi Dale,

I did indeed, until high school when they kicked my bad ass out of
town. Went to Steiner in the city before that.

The ostensible reason was for making out in the halls and ignoring
authority, guilty as charged.

You know people at the place?

> OK, impossible to address every comment to right person, so general
> thoughts:
>
> As I stated last time when biodynamics can up:
> "Best I can come up with is that using Biodynamics means that the
> producer is dedicated to putting a lot of care into the vines, and in
> such a way that tends to bring out ...terroir (sorry all you terroir-
> haters!). By its nature biodynamism is in some ways the opposite of
> big agri-business, with all problems being solved by a handy
> application of pesticide or whatever. It's not that the biodynamic
> approach in itself is better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring
> grower. Certainly there's lots of great growers who don't use
> Biodynamics! "
>


That's a succinct summary of it, to my view.

On the other hand, I say that if burying a horn full of muck to the light
of the full moon makes you happy, go for it. Doesn't bother me even
a little!

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit
http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,930
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On May 9, 1:02?pm, DaleW > wrote:
> On May 9, 8:40?am, Emery Davis > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Crosspost removed.

>
> > Hi Mike,

>
> > On Tue, 08 May 2007 23:58:48 -0700

>
> > Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> > > "cosmoculture"...). I find the "science" behind biodynamics quite
> > > annoying and laughable, and the philosophy of the founder of biodynamics
> > > abominable, but paradoxically the belief in such nonsense (example:

>
> > As you know I agree very strongly with many of your points relating to
> > intervention and wine making.

>
> > But the above is at best a poor choice of words. ?Anthroposophy an abomination?
> > Although arguments have been made that Steiner was racist, these seem easily
> > countered by the principals of his philosophy. ?It is also note worthy that he took
> > unpopular stands against the antisemitism of the period.

>
> > Having been brought up in the Steiner (Waldorf) schools, I can assure you
> > that, although I sometimes (like you) find the principles of anthroposophy
> > -- and biodynamics -- laughable, they are at worst harmless conceits or
> > sloppy and perhaps outmoded thinking. ?At best they provide, like all religious
> > systems, a valuable structure and moral compass for the adherents. ?Certainly
> > the schools teach an abhorrence for racism and prejudice in all its forms (including
> > against the Anthropops, as we referred to them) which would be welcome in
> > more general education.

>
> > Let's keep it real. ?Killing people in the name of religion is an abomination. ?The
> > Anthropops are harmless.

>
> > Referring to the comment on rules defining "natural wine," unless we can get
> > the EC to impose some on us, I would think that the concept is vague enough
> > that splinter groups are inevitable.

>
> > vinous wishes from Normandie, "the new Loire,"

>
> > -E
> > --
> > Emery Davis
> > You can reply to
> > by removing the well known companies
> > Questions about wine? ?Visithttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

>
> Emery, am I right you grew up in Rockland? So you went to Green
> Meadow?
>
> OK, impossible to address every comment to right person, so general
> thoughts:
>
> As I stated last time when biodynamics can up:
> "Best I can come up with is that using Biodynamics means that the
> producer is dedicated to putting a lot of care into the vines, and in
> such a way that tends to bring out ...terroir (sorry all you terroir-
> haters!). By its nature biodynamism is in some ways the opposite of
> big agri-business, with all problems being solved by a handy
> application of pesticide or whatever. It's not that the biodynamic
> approach in itself is better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring
> grower. Certainly there's lots of great growers who don't use
> Biodynamics! "
>
> While many of my favorite producers are "natural", "organic" or
> "biodynamic", I've had plenty of bad wines from each category. I find
> it amazing when a Coturri wine doesn't resemble a science experiment
> gone wrong (others here strongly disagree). While I believe in *light*
> sulphur use, I am wary of sans soufre bottlings, as they tend to be
> variable.
>
> I agree that it is possible to make large quantities of wine in a non-
> interventionist fashion.
>
> I'm not as quercophobic as some, but agree too much can mask other
> qualities.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Dale,
I know Tony Coturri and I like Tony but to be honest, I find his
wines to be at best ....odd. I think that if one is to be organic
that it would probably be best to be "clean" not sterile but at least
keep the dog shit and flies out of the wine which I'm not sure that
happens at Coturri. I also think he lets the grapes hang too long but
it's his wine and he can do with it as he pleases. If you ever
visited there I'm not sure you would ever drink the wine.....



  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,554
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On May 9, 1:25�pm, Emery Davis > wrote:
> On 9 May 2007 10:02:18 -0700
>
> DaleW > wrote:
>
> []
>
> > Emery, am I right you grew up in Rockland? So you went to Green
> > Meadow?

>
> Hi Dale,
>
> I did indeed, until high school when they kicked my bad ass out of
> town. *Went to Steiner in the city before that.
>
> The ostensible reason was for making out in the halls and ignoring
> authority, guilty as charged.
>
> You know people at the place?
>
> > OK, impossible to address every comment to right person, so general
> > thoughts:

>
> > As I stated last time when biodynamics can up:
> > "Best I can come up with is that using Biodynamics means that the
> > producer is dedicated to putting a lot of care into the vines, and in
> > such a way that tends to bring out ...terroir (sorry all you terroir-
> > haters!). By its nature biodynamism is in some ways the opposite of
> > big agri-business, with all problems being solved by a handy
> > application of pesticide or whatever. It's not that the biodynamic
> > approach in itself is better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring
> > grower. Certainly there's lots of great growers who don't use
> > Biodynamics! "

>
> That's a succinct summary of it, to my view.
>
> On the other hand, I say that if burying a horn full of muck to the light
> of the full moon makes you happy, go for it. *Doesn't bother me even
> a little!
>
> -E
> --
> Emery Davis
> You can reply to
> by removing the well known companies
> Questions about wine? *Visithttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com


Green Meadow is a member group of my organization, they went last
weekend as a matter of fact.

I agree re horns. Doesn't add to cost of production, either!

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,554
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On May 9, 2:54�pm, Bi!! > wrote:
> On May 9, 1:02?pm, DaleW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 8:40?am, Emery Davis > wrote:

>
> > > Crosspost removed.

>
> > > Hi Mike,

>
> > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 23:58:48 -0700

>
> > > Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> > > > "cosmoculture"...). I find the "science" behind biodynamics quite
> > > > annoying and laughable, and the philosophy of the founder of biodynamics
> > > > abominable, but paradoxically the belief in such nonsense (example:

>
> > > As you know I agree very strongly with many of your points relating to
> > > intervention and wine making.

>
> > > But the above is at best a poor choice of words. ?Anthroposophy an abomination?
> > > Although arguments have been made that Steiner was racist, these seem easily
> > > countered by the principals of his philosophy. ?It is also note worthy that he took
> > > unpopular stands against the antisemitism of the period.

>
> > > Having been brought up in the Steiner (Waldorf) schools, I can assure you
> > > that, although I sometimes (like you) find the principles of anthroposophy
> > > -- and biodynamics -- laughable, they are at worst harmless conceits or
> > > sloppy and perhaps outmoded thinking. ?At best they provide, like all religious
> > > systems, a valuable structure and moral compass for the adherents. ?Certainly
> > > the schools teach an abhorrence for racism and prejudice in all its forms (including
> > > against the Anthropops, as we referred to them) which would be welcome in
> > > more general education.

>
> > > Let's keep it real. ?Killing people in the name of religion is an abomination. ?The
> > > Anthropops are harmless.

>
> > > Referring to the comment on rules defining "natural wine," unless we can get
> > > the EC to impose some on us, I would think that the concept is vague enough
> > > that splinter groups are inevitable.

>
> > > vinous wishes from Normandie, "the new Loire,"

>
> > > -E
> > > --
> > > Emery Davis
> > > You can reply to
> > > by removing the well known companies
> > > Questions about wine? ?Visithttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

>
> > Emery, am I right you grew up in Rockland? So you went to Green
> > Meadow?

>
> > OK, impossible to address every comment to right person, so general
> > thoughts:

>
> > As I stated last time when biodynamics can up:
> > "Best I can come up with is that using Biodynamics means that the
> > producer is dedicated to putting a lot of care into the vines, and in
> > such a way that tends to bring out ...terroir (sorry all you terroir-
> > haters!). By its nature biodynamism is in some ways the opposite of
> > big agri-business, with all problems being solved by a handy
> > application of pesticide or whatever. It's not that the biodynamic
> > approach in itself is better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring
> > grower. Certainly there's lots of great growers who don't use
> > Biodynamics! "

>
> > While many of my favorite producers are "natural", "organic" or
> > "biodynamic", I've had plenty of bad wines from each category. I find
> > it amazing when a Coturri wine doesn't resemble a science experiment
> > gone wrong (others here strongly disagree). While I believe in *light*
> > sulphur use, I am wary of sans soufre bottlings, as they tend to be
> > variable.

>
> > I agree that it is possible to make large quantities of wine in a non-
> > interventionist fashion.

>
> > I'm not as quercophobic as some, but agree too much can mask other
> > qualities.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> Dale,
> * *I know Tony Coturri and I like Tony but to be honest, I find his
> wines to be at best ....odd. *I think that if one is to be organic
> that it would probably be best to be "clean" not sterile but at least
> keep the dog shit and flies out of the wine which I'm not sure that
> happens at Coturri. *I also think he lets the grapes hang too long but
> it's his wine and he can do with it as he pleases. *If you ever
> visited there I'm not sure you would ever drink the wine.....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I've never visited but still seldom find the wine drinkable. Once a
friend put in corkscrew, gave the slightest tug, and the cork blew out
like a Champagne bottle. Bubbly zinfandel (with some sewage odors).

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default 'Natural wine' ?

On 2007-05-08, Mark Lipton wrote:

>> What's "new oak" and what's considered undesirable about it? (I'm
>> guessing that it refers to aging in unused barrels --- but what were
>> the used ones used for?)

>
> New oak barrels are exactly that: oak barrels which haven't yet been
> used to make wine. New oak barrels, especially high toast ones or ones
> made from American oak, are notorious for imparting very strong flavors
> to the wine that have nothing to do with the grapes themselves. Many
> people like those flavors; others do not. If you drink enough wine, you
> might conclude (like I have) that new oak is like makeup: used with
> restraint and a sense of artistry, it can enhance, but used clumsily it
> can be grotesque. YMMV, of course.


OK! But that does mean that the winemakers who oppose new oak are
expecting other winemakers to do their dirty work (turning new oak
into old oak) for them.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,849
Default 'Natural wine' ?

Adam Funk wrote:

> OK! But that does mean that the winemakers who oppose new oak are
> expecting other winemakers to do their dirty work (turning new oak
> into old oak) for them.


Well, it's hardly regarded as dirty work. Many famous French chateux
will only use a barrel once and then discard it. So, other wineries
less enamored of the flavor of new oak will buy those used barrels for
their own use. Alternatively, a wine maker can fill his new barrel with
water, let it stand for a month or so and then dump the water. That's
supposed to remove a lot of the new oak flavor. In case you're asking
why a winemaker would want to use an oak barrel if they don't like the
flavor of oak, here's the answer: aging wine in oak amounts to a
low-level oxidation, rounding out a lot of the flavors and also imparts
some tannins to the wine to help it age. Thus, many winemakers seek out
"neutral oak" barrels to accomplish this.

Mark Lipton


--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking,rec.food.drink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 'Natural wine' ?


Thanks for your comments Mike, and for taking the time to have a look
at the site.

You are right that there is nothing, in princple, to prevent you from
producing a very natural wine on a large vineyard or in large
quantities. Nor to prevent a very large company from producing some of
its wines in this way. It's a question of method rather than size or
ownership. In practice I think this is unlikely to happen, but that's
a slightly separate issue.

The only part of your post that I would really take issue with is
this :

> This is actually not bad and a lot better than the lesvinnaturels.org
> site, but unfortunately you will find that most of the winemakers that
> regularly meet in France under the "natural" label do not meet these
> criteria. And in the absence of a means for independently certifying
> that these criteria are met, the whole thing is meaningless.


I think the absence of independent certification makes things
difficult, but not meaningless. You can't simply go to 'natural wine'
fair and assume that all of the wines you find there are naturally
made.

Instead, you have to be clear about what you mean by natural wine and
do everything you can to ensure that the wines you sell as 'natural'
meet your own definition. That means working only with winemakers whom
you know and trust and have seen at work. Of course, it is still
possible for someone to fool you. But that's a risk that you have to
accept.

Until there is achange in the law, either to establish a sensible
definition of organic wine or to make it necessary to label wine with
it's additives and means of production, that's all you can do. But
it's still worth doing.

Thanks again for your interest.

Oliver Morgan

http://www.morethanorganic.com/

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Natural Gas - Pictures and Diagrams of Natural Gas, Natural Gas Furnace, Natural Gas Grill, Natural Gas Heater, Natural Gas Water Heater and Natural Gas Vehicle [email protected] General Cooking 1 18-06-2007 05:32 AM
Natural Gas - Pictures and Diagrams of Natural Gas, Natural Gas Furnace, Natural Gas Grill, Natural Gas Heater, Natural Gas Water Heater and Natural Gas Vehicle [email protected] Cooking Equipment 1 18-06-2007 05:32 AM
'Natural wine' ? [email protected] Winemaking 18 10-05-2007 05:48 PM
'Natural wine' ? [email protected] General 17 10-05-2007 04:54 PM
natural predators & a natural life is cruel? "Yes" - according to usual suspect ipse dixit Vegan 121 29-05-2004 01:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"