Ecological wines
Nils Gustaf Lindgren
At this night's tasting (rather uninteresting, hence no notes) the theme was
"ecological wines".
Correct me if I am wrong - the only thing in the process that can be
certified as ecological is the growing, right? Nothing in the cellar
procedures?
TIA
Nils
Emery Davis
Nils, do you mean "organic?" What the French call "biologique?"
If so, it is usually only the grapes that are certified organic.
However there are some "fully organic" wines I think, but I haven't
had. Apparently they spoil quickly and don't travel.
HTH
-E
AyTee
[...]
>
> The best compromise is low SO2, my friend Iris Rutz Rudel of Domaine
> Lisson in Languedoc uses at most 15g/l and all her wines are fine and[....]
>
I think Iris meant to use 15mg/l (15ppm). If she used 15g/l her wines
would certainly not be fine.
Andy
Nils Gustaf Lindgren
or, ecological as we tend to say in Sweden.
Yes/no?
I do believe it could be possible to point out more or less environmentally
sustainable practices for the cellar as well - use of water e g, contents of
solvents in waste water (and which solvents) ... but that is another
discussion.
Cheers, and thanks
Nils
Mark Lipton
> AyTee wrote:
>> I think Iris meant to use 15mg/l (15ppm). If she used 15g/l her wines
>> would certainly not be fine.
>
> Yes, thanks Andy, missed it by 3 orders of magnitude, small error :-)
<troll> Typical engineer! </troll>
Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net
Steve Slatcher
You are right that "organic wines" should strictly-speaking (and I
think EU law has something to do with it), be called "wines made from
organically grown grapes". In other words, it is the grape production
that is certified organic; not the wine.
The corresponding term that has come to become applied to wine without
additives is "natural wine". It is developing an increasing
following, but as far as I know there are no recognised standards.
--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
kennun...@gmail.com
The issue of "organic" vs "100% organic" vs "biodynamic" is confusing
to many wine consumers and even to many people in the wine industry.
I believe, based upon my research, that it is the regulations of the
final destination of the wine (the region/country in which the
consumer purchases and consumes the wine) that determines the
appropriate designation. It appears the the United Stated has the
most rigorous regulations. On my website www.kennuncorked.com I have
information about this confusing topic and the list, in progress, of
producers that offer organic wine. Due to the complexity of the
issue, I decided to use the United States designation "Made with
Organic Grapes" or "Made with Organically Grown Grapes" to apply the
term "organic to the producer's product. After visiting the website,
please let me know if you have any comments or questions. Sincerely,
Kenn (PS - I have tasting notes for various wines, most under US
$15.99 and indicate note the production practices.)
Nils Gustaf Lindgren
It appears you apply my first conjecture - the biological, or ecological,
wine is the wine made from "organically grown" grapes.
As for biodynamically made wines, they would be biologically grown by
default, but according to the anthroposophic principles handed down from the
ancients ... or at least Rudolph Steiner.
Cheers
Nils
Emery Davis
> sect that Steiner formed, it had nothing to do with agriculture, but is
> the basis of the educational program at Waldorf schools.
>
> Biodynamics, like the Waldorf schools, are an emanation of
> anthroposophy, originally developed for growing fruit and vegetables in
> Nazi times, but I don't think grapes were grown biodynamically then.
>
>
Well, anthroposophy is a little more mainstream than you let on, Mike,
although I'll certainly agree there are some wacky aspects. Biodynamic
agriculture certainly appears to be one of the more popular outgrowths
of it. When I was a kid at Waldorf school, we ate biodynamic vegetables
at lunch, but I never expected to see them elsewhere. Now I buy
biodynamic veg on the market! (Because they're excellent quality,
not through any philosophical choice). As the product of a Waldorf
education (until they kicked my bad-assed self out) I bear no
obvious scars, on the contrary I wish some of the aspects were available
to my own children. (One of the problems with Waldorf schools is they
are very autonomous, so the quality of one is no guarantee of the
quality of another).
With regards to wine, organic or biodynamic, the issue is one of
certification. IIRC there are two biodynamic organizations in
France. I don't know how many organic, perhaps just AB. But when
a French wine producer wants to be certified organic in another
country, they have to go through the process there. (This may
not be true everywhere of course). So my friends at the organic
winery Faucon Dore are in the process of becoming certified for
the US, although they are already certified in Sweden, which
required different hoops than in France.
-E
Nils Gustaf Lindgren
diesel guzzling behemoths in the harvesting - but would that imply that
biodynamically grown grapes were not, by default, biologically grown (it is
a really dumb term, "biologically grown" [1]! As if we could make in vitro
grapes by mixing various chemicals in a lab beaker ... )?
Nils
[1] "Environmentally sustainable" would be better except it is too long
Nils Gustaf Lindgren
Then I do believe we are in agreement (for a given value of agreement,
provided we can agree on what we both have the same opinion of ...)
I doubt that harvesting machines are environmentally sustainable, BTW.
> I believe all "wines made from biodynamically grown grapes" (picky, I
> know) must be first and foremost certified as "wines made from organically
> grown grapes", and for the latter harvesting machines are allowed. Unless
> the wine also uses an appellation label that forbids the use of harvesting
> machines (Champagne as the most notable example).
IanH
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:18:32 +0100, Mike Tommasi <nob...@tommasi.org>
wrote:
>anthroposophy, originally developed for growing fruit and vegetables in
>Nazi times, but I don't think grapes were grown biodynamically then.
This is untrue. Biodynamics was outlawed under the Nazis.
How do I know? Because I translated the standard Biodynamic text book
for winemakers into English, and there is quite a long section on the
history.
What's worse, it is a blatant attempt at tarring by association.
If you have reservations about the philosophy, that's entirely your
right. So do I for that matter. But it's unfortunate, to say the
least, and merely weakens your argument if you use untruths and the
sort of tawdry "guilt by association" tactics resorted to by the
gutter press. I've kept quiet before, but I won't let you repeat such
nonsense.
Believe all the planetary stuff or not, (and I find it ludicrous too)
but we've been growing vegetables for 35 years and this year, for a
laugh, we looked up Maria Thun's planting calender before planting out
our vegetables. Despite a horrid growing year, we have never had such
success with them. May well be coincidence, but if so maybe that's the
sort of coincidence that leads hard nosed winemakers like Domaine
Leroy , Trapet, Leflaive, Lafon, Zind-Humbrecht, Weinbach,
Kreydenweiss, Josmeyer, Jacques Selosse, Franck Pascal, Chapoutier as
you say as well as Huet & Joly in the Loire to switch.
As Jancis Robinson says, "These are not flower power sandal wearers.
They are thoughtful, practical vine growers who are worried about the
future of what we call ‘conventional’ farming on the planet and have
seen that biodynamism works – even if they have no clue how."
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges
Steve Slatcher
>Forgive me Mike, but
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:18:32 +0100, Mike Tommasi <nob...@tommasi.org>
>wrote:
>
>>anthroposophy, originally developed for growing fruit and vegetables in
>>Nazi times, but I don't think grapes were grown biodynamically then.
>
>This is untrue. Biodynamics was outlawed under the Nazis.
Mike was quite right that BD was developed in Nazi times - check the
dates - but it was unfortunate that he implied link between BD and the
Nazi Party.
There's an interesting article on Steiner on Wikipedia. If anyone is
interested in his ideas I'd strongly recommend it.
steve.s...@gmail.com
> There's an interesting article on Steiner on Wikipedia. If anyone is
> interested in his ideas I'd strongly recommend it.
Sorry, I forgot to mention it, but the article has some relevance to
this bit of the thread in that it discusses the Nazi's attitude to
Steiner and his philosophies. Basically they didn't like them! It
also mentions that Steiner had some controversial ideas about race of
his own - but then there were a lot of such ideas floating about at
that time - IIRC corectly Sweden was implementing a Eugenics programme
for example.
steve.s...@gmail.com
> Steiner was attractive to Nazi "thinkers", probably
> because of his wacky theories on race and the superiority of the white man.
You might have thought that, but apparently he was disliked by the
Nazis DESPITE some of his own racist ideas. Probably didn't help that
he was Jewish.
Nils Gustaf Lindgren
> for example.
Steve, I can confirm that Sweden was rampantly racist nad had a special
institute for studying the "Swedish race" which was founded in 1921. The
Nazi honchos came to visit and were most diligent students.
Shame, shame, shame. And in the late 30s Jewish immigrants were denied entry
on the grounds that their "culture would not be compatible with the Swedish
culture". Not that any other country has the right to gloat (except possibly
the Dominican Republic) but this is the wretched truth.
Cheers
Nils
IanH
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:06:50 +0100, Mike Tommasi <nob...@tommasi.org>
wrote:
>OK, unfortunate misunderstanding, it just happens that these things
>developed in Germany in the 30's...
But lots of things were developed at that time, Mike, and mentioning
it - in my view - shows some kind of implicit association. That's what
i was objecting to. Had you said "developed in the 30s" I'd have no
beef at all.
>anthroposophy. Steiner was attractive to Nazi "thinkers", probably
>because of his wacky theories on race and the superiority of the white man.
As Steve et al have said, Europe was rife with wacky ideas about race.
Dreyfus (admittedly a bit earlier) in France and the known sympathies
of Edward VIII show that countries which should know better were as
racist as Germany was, in Steiner's day.
>I also believe that the quality of their results is due to the amount of
>energy they put into their winemaking activity and the respect they have
>for soil and plant and wine and consumer. If biodynamics brings that
>about, fine !
That argument is attractive, and you used it in your earlier post.
However, I suspect that it falls down for the following reason. These
growers (can I refer to Lafon?) were maniacal about quality long
before they embraced Biodynamicism. I remember a number of
conversations I had with René Lafon, the present Comte's father. It
was he who laid the ground work for Dominique to grow on, in my view.
Same goes for Joly, who I first met when his mother ran the place.
Same goes for Domaine Weinbach. I met the redoubtable Mme Faller long
before they embraced the methods. All these people were utterly
meticulous and maniaque about what they did. So why did they switch?
Surely, because they were convinced that the methods could bring the
wine an extra dimension, and it's not the bizarre philosophical
mumbo-jumbo that Steiner spouts, that will have convinced most of them
but something simpler. It works. They are convinced that they get
better results. And lets face it, they really ought to know, oughtn't
they?
>
> I don't understand why you have written as if I were some kind of anti-biodynamic ogre :-)
Well.. could it be that when you talk about biodynamics you talk as if
it were an outcropping of nazism? If that's not what you mean to say,
then I apologise gladly.
But somehow your repeated association of the two feels to me as if
you think there's some kind of philosophical association and , that
somehow the modern generation of Biodynamic winemakers somehow share
that discredited philosophy.
>My point is that Steiner was a total fruitcake, and his mumbo-jumbo is
>ridiculous stuff that cannot be proven, in fact it is so far out I would
>say it is impossible to discuss rationally.
Actually, youll be fascinated to read that the guy whose book I read
says exactly the same but from the other side of the fence. His book
(once you get past the mumbo-jumbo) is perpetually saying "we've no
idea why this should be, but this or that or the other has regularly
been observed to have that effect and I can't pretend to give any kind
of rational explanation for it." <grin>
Steve Slatcher
wrote:
>My point is that Steiner was a total fruitcake, and his mumbo-jumbo is
>ridiculous stuff that cannot be proven, in fact it is so far out I would
>say it is impossible to discuss rationally.
I think your last point is key here, Mike, and I agree 100%. BD as
such cannot be tested scientifically as the claims made are very
general, and BD involves such a broad range of procedures.
The rational way forward is to attempt to discover what aspects of BD
actually help, and to ditch the rest of the mumbo-jumbo and the DB
moniker.
But one also has to take into account that man is not rational, and
not discard any possible "placebo" effect BD may have. I know one
manager/owner (cannot remember which one) who admitted to being very
sceptical, but added that people who work in the vineyards think it is
great, and that it keeps them happy. And I am sure that happy
vineyard workers result in better grapes.
Steve Slatcher
wrote:
>As for the calendar stuff, this has been around for centuries, way
>before Steiner, and clearly there are mechanisms at work here that we do
>not understand. I do not object to people using the calendar - if it
>"works", all the better!
Providing it does not get in the way of doing things even better.
For example, BD racking is done according to the moon, and this is
often rationalised by explaining that high (or was it low?) air
pressures are best for racking, and that they correlate with the
position of the moon. Well fine, except that these day we have things
called barometers, so if air pressure really is so important we can do
the racking even better by actually measuring the air pressure and
using that as the guide as to when to do it.
James Silverton
>> OK, unfortunate misunderstanding, it just happens that these
>> things developed in Germany in the 30's...
> But lots of things were developed at that time, Mike, and
> mentioning it - in my view - shows some kind of implicit
> association. That's what i was objecting to. Had you said
> "developed in the 30s" I'd have no beef at all.
>> anthroposophy. Steiner was attractive to Nazi "thinkers",
>> probably because of his wacky theories on race and the
>> superiority of the white man.
> As Steve et al have said, Europe was rife with wacky ideas
> about race. Dreyfus (admittedly a bit earlier) in France and
> the known sympathies of Edward VIII show that countries which
> should know better were as racist as Germany was, in Steiner's
> day.
It's certainly an indication of the wacky beliefs of the time and a
refutation of then current notions about heredity that the opinions of
anyone as stupid as David Windsor could be taken seriously.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not