'Natural wine' ?

"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:

Mark Lipton

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

:

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.

:

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

I would not call them "extreme organic". In fact, I doubt they are certified organic at all.

Europe is full of wineries that make such claims, and think they need nothing more than their good name to guarantee this. Without the guarantee of a serious organic certification by an organization certified and conformant to national laws and european directives, these claims are virtually meaningless and constitute nothing more than marketing hype. Considering that certification costs little and even gives right to generous grants, not to mention the marketing advantages, there is no reason for a company not to get certified (other than that maybe they do not comply with their own claims?).

I am not a staunch defender of wines from organically grown grapes, mainly because I find that on the whole this does not make for better tasting wines. OTOH many of the wines I like are from organically grown grapes.

in article snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net, Mike Tommasi at snipped-for-privacy@tommasi.org wrote on 5/8/07 10:31 PM:

Are you familiar with Coturri, from Glen Ellen, in Sonoma, CA? Tony Coturri insists he adds no SO2 or any other chemical stabilizers or preservatives of any sort to his wine. The grapes are all certified organic and the wines do not carry the 'contains sulfites' warning on the labels.

We've been trying his Syrah, Pinot, Zin and a blend called Albaretto for a while. For the most part they exhibit a huge fruit-forward quality, rather high alcohol and something of "larger-than-life" profile (the Zin is almost late harvest in style). He bottles by the barrel (one would presume to avoid unwanted cross-over of runaway problems between barrels) and the most-heard comment is that the wines are "Forrest Gump"s - you never know what you're going to get in each bottle. I generally enjoy them, but they're lot often what I'd call 'varietally correct'.

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'

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

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

but it should be seen as just that, an attempt. There's another one, fairly similar, on wikipedia

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

What you describe matches my experience with most wines with no added sulfites, they always seem to me transparent, able to transmit their aromatic charge more directly. They are also usually short-lived and extremely fragile, and short of treating them with the same care that one would give to a bottle of fresh milk, they cannot be enjoyed normally.

I would advocate putting an end to meaningless labelling like "contains sulfites", which applies to wines exceeding a ridiculously low threshold of SO2 (and therefore to almost ALL wines), and establishing a "low sulfite" label that guarantees reasonable limits for SO2, much lower than current EU rules and a little higher than current labelling requirements.

Too bad that this web site is so hard to navigate. It would be useful to have an easily accessible link giving 1) the list of all members, 2) the rules for vin naturel. While I can find some names of winemakers, the rules seem to be "no additives". As mentioned earlier, by this criterion almost none of the winemakers can honestly say they abide by this principle, some members of this group actually use sugar and enzymes and almost all use SO2.

True, but there is nothing implicitly wrong with making wine industrially (I assume you mean "in large quantities"). Most may be uninteresting but that does not change things. And besides, there are larger wineries that make very good wine.

I would have agreed with you if you had stated that "there are plenty of bad wines made from organically grown grapes".

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 am disappointed to read that the rules apply only to wine made # in small quantities, # by an independent producer Is wine made in small quantity and/or by an independent producer more natural? Not at all! Would it not be best to open up the world of natural wine to larger wineries? I personally prefer small producers, but large wineries can make very good wine. Would this not give more weight to the natural wine "lobby" and maximize the chances of success? How do you define small? Recently a meeting of "natural" winemakers was held in Montpellier, and the limit for "small" was set to around 35 hectares, which was enough to exclude from the forum one of the most credible producers and promoters of quality non-interventionist winemaking. I call that shooting oneself in the foot.

Remove those two criteria that have no bearing on the "naturalness" of a wine, and you actually have a good definition, right down to the more reasonable SO2 levels that I advocated in my previous post. Oh, BTW, please also define an SO2 level for sweet wines... there is natural botrytis! (

)

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

starting point, you are trying to get your grapes right

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

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 :

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

snipped-for-privacy@morethanorganic.com wrote: > The only part of your post that I would really take issue with is

That was my point. Why not? If I go to a fair that claims to be about "natural wines", then I would expect all present to abide by a set of rules.

As stated, I think the rules on your website are as good a definitioon as any I have seen. Why not have all participants sign a contract and establish some means of verifying compliance? You cannot have each winemaker make up his own rules, this is a real problem and lowers the credibility of the whole "movement".

That means working only with winemakers whom

The law will not change if the movement remains in a "classified" mode reserved for the few wine nuts that can develop a trusting relationship with their winemaking friends. The law will not change unless you get structured and present credible guarantees.

In an ideal world all future wine production will be "natural" according to a set of clear and reasonable rules. Winemakers would be free to experiment beyond the rules (for example without adding sulfites at all), but they must bear in mind that unless their wine is also good and reliable, they will fail. Shipping a bottle that has a 50/50 chance of reaching its customer either refermented or terminally oxydized or vinegary is a sign of lack of respect for your customer.

My favourite wines are of the "natural" type by your own definitions. These wines require great skill to produce and present no significant defects. While I find the folksy atmosphere of the natural fairs warm and lots of fun, I think that some of those winemakers lack the skill and discipline required to make a good stable natural wine.

Mark - you refer to a movement amongst French winemakers; how does this differ (if at all) with the very popular 'biodynamique' movement in French winemaking? Personally, as a grape grower and winemaker, I kinda feel the whole biodynamique thing is more attitude than science. but as one of the Wine Spectator writers accurately pointed out - if a winemaker is taking that much trouble with their grapes, then it is likely the wine is well made! But I'm a little skeptical of the 'natural' labeling.

In my own vineyard, I try to be as 'natural' as possible; no pesticides, only simple sulfur products (such as Kumulus) for fungicide; fertilizers are all organic with a heavy reliance of cover cropping (clover) and composting. All pruning, trimming, and harvesting is done by hand (duh!). And in the winery, I try to minimize KMS - but does that make my wine more 'natural' than another? Seems to me that is a marketing term more than a well defined protocol of vineyard management and/or winemaking. For instance; what really is more 'natural' about old oak versus new? And 'indigenous yeasts'? Some French vineyards are well contaminated with the more appropriate yeast strains - but many New World vineyards are not, and are home to less desirable yeast strains. So we use isolated yeast strains - but they are isolated from those same yeast strains that are pre-existent in some old world vineyards. Does that make the wine less 'natural'? I agree with others who feel that a more defined terminology is called for. It is more meaningful to me to know that a vineyard is pesticide-free; uses sustainable agricultural practices; or that a certain wine uses no sorbates and has SO2 levels below certain thresholds.