Tag: winemaker

Posted on

Winemaker Visits Offer Benefits of First Hand Access

For a wine devotee, Denver is a blessed place. We have always had good distribution of even the most renowned and rare wines. Similarly, we are graced with countless visits from wineries eager to tap into our sophisticated market. Certainly one of the more enjoyable aspects of being a wine writer is the opportunity to meet and taste wines with winery owners and winemakers. Any loss of objectivity is balanced by the opportunity to meet these creative individuals one-on-one. In the latter months of last year, I had the pleasure of visiting with winemakers from all over the world.

Reflecting a growing trend in the wine industry, two of the winemakers emphasized their wineries’ commitment to sustainability. Dave Pearce, winemaker for New Zealand’s Grove Mill in Marlborough, explained the winery’s efforts to achieve carbon neutrality. Established in 1988 by a group of local growers and wine enthusiasts, Grove Mill has become a leader in eco-friendly practices and sustainable winemaking. Over the years, Grove Mill has implemented numerous initiatives and innovations that have helped reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and environmental impacts associated with the growing, production and shipping of its wines, including water conservation, heat recovery, packaging and shipping, and protecting the winery’s neighboring wetlands. As a result, Grove Mill has received numerous green certifications and touts its wines as among the first carbon-neutral products available to consumers worldwide.

In Chile, Emiliana has had sustainability as its primary objective ever since it was founded in 1986. Winemaker Antonio Bravo shared the winery’s commitment to producing wines using integrated vineyard management practices. To that end, they now farm more than 2800 acres in the some of the prime of regions of Casablanca, Maipo and Rapel. This success should be no surprise, as the winery is owned by the Guilisasti family, who also manages the wildly successful Concha y Toro brand. About ten years ago, they began a process of integrating their properties and establishing a network of organic and biodynamic (for the G and Coyam wine) vineyards. Utilizing sustainable agriculture and minimizing the use of synthetic products has garnered Emiliana its own sustainability certification.

With a bit more history behind them, the Boscaini family has been stewards of the vineyards of Masi since the lat 1800s. It seems you can’t last that long without being innovative. And this family, especially over the last fifty years, has been just that. From leading efforts in the 1950’s to identify the historic “cru” vineyard sites for Amarone, to reinventing the traditional technique of double fermentation with the introduction of Campofiorin in 1964, to updating the style of Amarone, using new appassimento and vinification technologies, Masi has been in the forefront of winemaking in the Veneto. Masi wines reflect a commitment to blending tradition with modernity. Masi’s vineyards in northeastern Italy are in the most historic and prestigious viticultural zones and its wines are made with indigenous grapes. But Masi’s winemakers also carefully employ modern techniques to ensure the highest quality.

One of the benefits of these winemaker visits is they offer the chance to learn first hand about new developments at a winery. A good example of this was a meeting with Brian Cosi, assistant winemaker at Freemark Abbey. This winery’s origins can be traced to 1886. The property went through numerous ownership changes in the ensuing decades. And its modern history began in 1966 when it was purchased by three partners who subsequently built it into one of the Napa Valley’s most highly regarded wineries. But it is now part of the seemingly ever-growing Jess Jackson wine empire and the future looks brighter than ever. Brian pointed out that under Jackson Family Farms, Freemark Abbey production has gone from 40,000 cases to 25,000. This is the result of stricter selections in assembly of their Napa Valley Merlot, Chardonnay, and Cabernet Sauvignon, and particularly the vineyard-designated Bosche and Sycamore Cabernets. The winery still produces admirable Sauvignon Blanc, Riesling, and their famous late harvest Riesling “Edelwein Gold.”

There also are exciting developments at J Vineyards & Winery in the Russian River Valley. For the winery’s first two decades, owner Judy Jordan focused on establishing the winery as one of California’s premier sparkling wine producers. She had established the winery in 1986, creating her own path to continuing her family’s winemaking tradition (Her father owns Jordan Vineyard & Winery). Although those years saw production of some pretty good Chardonnay and Pinot Gris, over the last decade, Judy has pursued a vision of establishing J Vineyards as a leader in California Pinot Noir, Chardonnay and Pinot Gris. Here’s where winemaker George Bursick comes in. A thirty-year veteran of the wine industry, George is the ideal winemaker to work with J’s prime Russian River Valley fruit. He was in town recently to showcase an impressing range of newly released single vineyard Pinot Noir. Look for “J” to become a highly sought after purveyor of this enticing wine.

The wines:

Grove Mill

2007 Riesling ($15)
2008 Sauvignon Blanc ($15)
2007 Chardonnay ($16)
2006 Pinot Gris ($20)
2008 Pinot Noir ($22)

Emiliana

Natura Label ($11)
2008 Sauvignon Blanc
2008 Gewurztraminer
2006 Cabernet Sauvignon
2006 Carmenere

Novus Label ($17)
2005 Cabernet-Merlot
2006 Carmenere-Cabernet

2006 Coyam ($30)
2005 G ($90)

Masi

2007 Masianco (pinot grigio, $16)
2005 Serego Alighieri “Bello Ovile” (Tuscan sangiovese, $19)
2005 CampoFiorin “Ripasso” ($20)
2005 Amarone Classico “Costasera” ($33)
2001 Serego Alighieri Amarone Classico “Vaio Armaron” ($36)
2003 Recioto Valpolicella Classico “Casal dei Ronchi Sergio Alighieri”
(500 ml, $60)

Freemark Abbey

2007 Sauvignon Blanc ($24)
2007 Chardonnay ($22)
2005 Cabernet Sauvignon ($35)
2005 Merlot ($25)
2002 Cabernet Sauvignon Bosche ($70)
2002 Cabernet Sauvignon Sycamore Vineyard ($70)

J Vineyards & Winery

2008 Pinot Gris ($16)
2007 Chardonnay ($28)
2007 Pinot Noir Russian River Valley ($35)
2007 Pinot Noir Robert Thomas ($50)
2007 Pinot Noir Nicole’s ($50)
2007 Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast ($50)

Posted on

Consumer Information on Wine Labels on Tap for 2008

I expect one of the hottest issues for the alcohol beverage industry (including wine, beer and spirits) in 2008 to be whether producers should be required to include consumer information on their labels. The fact that there is controversy over this is in the industry is puzzling to me, especially when it comes to wine.

Since wine connoisseurs and aficionados, not to mention advocates, spectators and enthusiasts, regularly insist that wine is not merely a drink but actually food, why shouldn’t its packaging provide consumers with similar information to that required of other food products? This was the question that came to mind when I read (according to The Wine Spectator and WineBusiness.com) that some in the wine industry are opposing three labeling proposals for alcoholic beverages issued by the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

One rule would require all alcoholic beverages sold in the United States to carry serving facts information, such as alcohol and calorie content, carbohydrates, fats and proteins. Another would require a listing of ingredients, including products used in the winemaking process like grapes, yeast and preservatives. A third would require warnings as to whether the product was made using any of a list of allergens, such as milk, egg or fish products (which are commonly used as fining, or clarifying, agents).

As you might expect, the proposals are generating quite a bit of controversy. Notable supporters of the serving facts and ingredients proposals include the National Consumers League, the Center for Science in the Public interest, and Diageo, the eighth largest drinks company in the world.On the other hand, industry groups such as The Wine Institute and WineAmerica, reportedly are opposed. From the reading I’ve done, the most often stated concern of opponents is that the regulations would be a financial burden, especially on small producers.

With the allergen regulation, they also contend there is no proof of any allergen remaining in finished wine. Concerns also have been raised that the regulations actually could result in inaccurate labeling. This is because producers often decide whether to fine (clarify) a wine and which fining agents to use shortly before bottling, while labels are ordered much sooner. The timing disconnect could present a dilemma for winemakers, leading to labels that list an allergen when none was used. Understandably, that is not good enough for allergy sufferers who aren’t willing to
take that chance, even if cause and effect cannot be established beyond doubt. With some allergies resulting in serious reactions, even death, allergy sufferers insist that warnings are necessary to make informed decisions to protect their health.

At least one winery isn’t waiting for all this to play out. According to reports in The Wine Spectator and EnoBytes.com, Bonny Doon Vineyard (of Santa Cruz, California) has announced that it will include a list of ingredients on its new releases this year. Bonny Doon is believed to be the first major U.S. brand to display such information. Bonny Doon owner Randall Grahm probably isn’t going to make many friends over this move. But this isn’t the first time Grahm has surprised the industry with his foresight. He raised eyebrows when he switched 100% of his production to screwcaps several years ago, the first to do so in the U.S. I believe. A Bonny Doon representative has been quoted as saying they hope other winemakers will feel responsible for acknowledging their own additions and interventions and that full disclosure will encourage winemakers to be more hands-off and less interventionist.

The move also displays a commitment to transparency that can only generate goodwill with consumers. By opposing the proposed labeling rules, other producers risk a breach of faith with consumer that will be difficult to restore. Just about every winery – from the smallest family-owned farm to the largest multinational conglomerate-owned operation – now markets their wines as the product of a natural process and a commitment to translating the authentic nature of the site where the grapes were grown into the bottle. In my opinion, by opposing these rules, producers just look hypocritical. Why not use these requirements as an educational opportunity? Consumers will reward the producer who gives them more information about the foods and beverages they choose.

Posted on

Consumer Information on Wine Labels on Tap for 2008

I expect one of the hottest issues for the alcohol beverage industry (including wine, beer and spirits) in 2008 to be whether producers should be required to include consumer information on their labels. The fact that there is controversy over this is in the industry is puzzling to me, especially when it comes to wine.

Since wine connoisseurs and aficionados, not to mention advocates, spectators and enthusiasts, regularly insist that wine is not merely a drink but actually food, why shouldn’t its packaging provide consumers with similar information to that required of other food products? This was the question that came to mind when I read (according to The Wine Spectator and WineBusiness.com) that some in the wine industry are opposing three labeling proposals for alcoholic beverages issued by the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

One rule would require all alcoholic beverages sold in the United States to carry serving facts information, such as alcohol and calorie content, carbohydrates, fats and proteins. Another would require a listing of ingredients, including products used in the winemaking process like grapes, yeast and preservatives. A third would require warnings as to whether the product was made using any of a list of allergens, such as milk, egg or fish products (which are commonly used as fining, or clarifying, agents).

As you might expect, the proposals are generating quite a bit of controversy. Notable supporters of the serving facts and ingredients proposals include the National Consumers League, the Center for Science in the Public interest, and Diageo, the eighth largest drinks company in the world.On the other hand, industry groups such as The Wine Institute and WineAmerica, reportedly are opposed. From the reading I’ve done, the most often stated concern of opponents is that the regulations would be a financial burden, especially on small producers.

With the allergen regulation, they also contend there is no proof of any allergen remaining in finished wine. Concerns also have been raised that the regulations actually could result in inaccurate labeling. This is because producers often decide whether to fine (clarify) a wine and which fining agents to use shortly before bottling, while labels are ordered much sooner. The timing disconnect could present a dilemma for winemakers, leading to labels that list an allergen when none was used. Understandably, that is not good enough for allergy sufferers who aren’t willing to
take that chance, even if cause and effect cannot be established beyond doubt. With some allergies resulting in serious reactions, even death, allergy sufferers insist that warnings are necessary to make informed decisions to protect their health.

At least one winery isn’t waiting for all this to play out. According to reports in The Wine Spectator and EnoBytes.com, Bonny Doon Vineyard (of Santa Cruz, California) has announced that it will include a list of ingredients on its new releases this year. Bonny Doon is believed to be the first major U.S. brand to display such information. Bonny Doon owner Randall Grahm probably isn’t going to make many friends over this move. But this isn’t the first time Grahm has surprised the industry with his foresight. He raised eyebrows when he switched 100% of his production to screwcaps several years ago, the first to do so in the U.S. I believe. A Bonny Doon representative has been quoted as saying they hope other winemakers will feel responsible for acknowledging their own additions and interventions and that full disclosure will encourage winemakers to be more hands-off and less interventionist.

The move also displays a commitment to transparency that can only generate goodwill with consumers. By opposing the proposed labeling rules, other producers risk a breach of faith with consumer that will be difficult to restore. Just about every winery – from the smallest family-owned farm to the largest multinational conglomerate-owned operation – now markets their wines as the product of a natural process and a commitment to translating the authentic nature of the site where the grapes were grown into the bottle. In my opinion, by opposing these rules, producers just look hypocritical. Why not use these requirements as an educational opportunity? Consumers will reward the producer who gives them more information about the foods and beverages they choose.