Grape growing and winemaking is an old industry.  Really old.  We even know there have been wine critics since Roman times.  One asset of working in such an old industry is that a lot of important decisions have already been made for us.  For example, we know that Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon have been and will likely always be very popular grapes to grow and make wine from.  Humans are naturally very curious critters and have been selecting and breeding grape varieties since we’ve been making wine.  When we see an odd grape vine that has a special characteristic, say the vine seems to be more disease resistant or makes better quality fruit, we take it and clone a million more grape vines from it.  That’s the nature of discovery and progress.  So, after several thousand years of concentrated selection and breeding I feel comfortable that we have grape varieties that have stood the test of time as being compatible with human tastes.

It doesn’t stop there though, humans have unknowingly selected something else critical to the winemaking process – yeast.  Our best friend in the cellar is a single celled organism in the same family as fungi.  Like many single celled critters they have the rather fortunate ability to generate energy without the need for oxygen.  They prefer to make energy with oxygen, it’s a lot more efficient, but can make do without it.  In the absence of oxygen, such as in a vat of crushed grapes, yeast generate energy from grape sugar and produce ethanol (alcohol) as a byproduct.  Fortunately for winemakers they do it voraciously, in the presence of a lot of ethanol (that would otherwise kill most any other critter in the vat), and without a lot of stinky byproducts.  Slam dunk.  This magical critter has the scientific name Saccharomyces cerevisiae.  It is unique in those respects just mentioned and for something else – it is generally not found in nature.  In the vineyard, grapes have a myriad of single celled critters on their skins, many of which are yeast, but not S. cerevisiae.  This critter is so specially adapted to winemaking that it is only found in wineries.  It is the only yeast that can withstand the otherwise lethal amounts of alcohol  in finished wine.  It is the only species of yeast left over at the end of fermentation.  So, after thousands of years of winemaking, something found in microscopically small numbers in nature has found a home and a future in the winery.

As a winemaker with a science background I’m always experimenting in the cellar.  If something has always been done one way I want to find a different, better way to do it. Again, it’s the nature of being curious and progressive, and not relying solely on anecdotal evidence.  But we all have to make educated guesses and put our efforts towards those decisions with the largest potential for improvement.  Like I said before, some of these decisions have already been made for us, like what grape varieties to grow and what yeast to use in the cellar.  S. cerevisiae has an insurmountable track record.  Better yet, I can buy a 100% pure strain of S. cereivisae that was selected, isolated, and cultured from a famous Viognier winery in France for my own Virginia Viognier.  This is better than a slam dunk, this is a half-court shot at the last second to win the game!  Case closed, right?  Wrong.

Enter the “artisan” winemaker.  This is a person that likes to practice “traditional” methods in the cellar.  They will tout their minimalist style and wear their affectation like a gaudy full length fur coat.  In actuality, all fine wines are made relatively the same way, with modern techniques.  Stainless steel tanks, temperature control, yeast nutrient, cultured malolactic strains, oak barrels, these are all modern conveniences in the industry that everyone uses.  One of the latest fads is not adding a cultured yeast strain to must to initiate fermentation.  The idea is that indigenous yeast strains riding in to the winery with the grapes will do the job, more naturally, without the modern technology of cultured yeast strains.  And because the process is natural, without the intervention of the winemaker, the resulting wine is supposed to be more complex.

Early on in fermentation these wild yeasts are co-mingling and active to some extent even when a cultured strain of S. cerevisiae is added.  That seems to be established in the literature.  What’s also established is that these wild strains are very sensitive to alcohol, and if they are active to the greatest extent possible in a fermentation, they die off at around 5-7% alcohol.  The job is finished by S. cerevisiae.  Where did it come from though if it didn’t come in from the vineyard on the skins of the grape?  It was always there in the winery.  If you’ve ever added a cultured yeast strain, you can be sure it has taken up residence in your winery.  Single celled organisms are Earth’s most successful creatures and their reproductive techniques can withstand very long periods of dormancy and very inhospitable conditions.  Even if there is some fermentation performed by indigenous yeasts, the results are mixed at best.  Even proponents of wild fermentation admit that you can get some stinky results.  However, when the results are good, the results are really good.  Could this great result be the efforts of the wild yeast?  Sure.  Has it ever been proved?  Heck no.  Is it risky?  Of course.  Could it simply have been this great wine, not having received cultured yeast, was fermented in whole by a resident strain of S. cerevisiae?  Most likely. 

So the artisan winemaker has used a cultured yeast strain on one lot of grapes in one corner of the cellar and performed a “wild” fermentation on their best lot of grapes in the other corner.  Both fermentations finish to completion and the “wild” fermented wine is not surprisingly deemed the better of the two.  Conclusion?  It must have been the “wild” fermentation.  The human mind is unfortunately plagued by this phenomenon.  We like to attribute good results to conscious decisions – usually those made that include a lot of thought, effort, or money.  There are a hundred decisions that we make in this business that influence the quality of the wine.  And still more factors beyond our control have their input (e.g. weather).  It may be wishful thinking to attribute good results to that one “brilliant” decision you made.  It very well could be, but at least have some data to back it up.  The methods you would have to use to prove that a wine was dominated by wild yeast are very technical, expensive procedures still relegated to university research labs. In short, they’re simply not done by wineries.  It is a bold (and probably erroneous) statement to say that a wine was fermented with wild yeast.  

We make wine at Rappahannock Cellars using what we consider to be minimally invasive, traditional techniques.  But those are vague concepts.  We do everything we think we have to and nothing that we don’t.  Sometime “minimally invasive” changes the character of the wine quite drastically – like ageing wine in oak barrels.  The change is, of course, for the better.  I’ll suggest here that using a cultured strain of S. cerevisiae is the more traditional, less invasive technique.  Using technology to extract the best of nature and leave the worst is progress.  It’s still natural, just the best of natural. 

-Jason

Responses

Good take on the wild ferm technique. But, is it possible that the COMBO effect of commercial and wild yeast strains actually do enhance the depth of aromatics and flavor of these "wild ferment" wines? While risky, I suspect like most organisms in life, the harder things work to succeed the better they tend to become. I have tasted--and liked--natural ferment wines. Are you "toying" with any wild yeast stains this vintage?
James Peterson | April 23, 2008

---

Yes, it certainly is possible that wine fermented with a yeast other than S. cerevisiae will yield some aromatics that you feel add to the complexity. My point is, no one can say for sure that they prefer "wild ferment" wines because wineries don't go to the lengths to prove that their wines were indeed significantly influenced by wild yeast. All that they can say for sure is that those wines were not given a cultured yeast strain. It's a stretch to jump to that conclusion.

Two points here:
1. Traditionally, yeast has never been used to produce a characteristic flavor profile. The job of yeast is to make alcohol. Yeast do contribute to fermentation bouquet, but that is just a character of the fermenter, it never lasts to the bottle. There are exceptions to this rule. In general though, it is a rule.

2. To say that a wine was fermented by indigenous yeast is jumping to conclusions, that's bad enough. But to say that it's a processing technique that can be only be mastered by "artisan" winemakers is really stretching it. Simply put, IF you believe that a fermentation is being significantly influenced by indegenous yeast, it certainly has nothing to do with the winemaker - that's the point right? It's "wild."

There's this idea that if grapevines have to "struggle" their grapes tend to make better wine. Yeast are not like that. If they are not 100% happy (well fed, plenty of nutrients) they will make hydrogen sulfide - rotten egg character. This is a byproduct if yeast synthesizing their own amino acids. Yeast don't know they're making fine wine, they're just trying to live and reproduce in an inhospitable environment.

I actually have experimented with cultured non-Saccharomyces yeast strains for the 2007 vintage. The package of yeast is a blend of mostly S. cerevisiae and up to 3 other "wild" species of yeast. I've had mixed results with them. I found generally non significant differences in the fermentation bouquet in the whites and absolutely no differences in the outcome of the red wines - compared to our normal cultured S. cerevisiae. I'm certainly open to using these "wild" cultured yeast. I just don't think we should jump to conclusions about what they can offer to a wine.
Rappahannock Cellars | April 24, 2008

---

Now most winemakers and those involved in the industry have a reasonable idea of what constitutes a proper amount of processing in a wine.  And, to a certain extent, less processing does reflect more of the actual character of the grape.  However, realize that even some very traditional techniques exist to craft something in a wine that does not come naturally.  So the question becomes what constitutes reasonable and egregious processing of fine wine?

This question has an answer from just about anyone you ask.  The most vocal, however, are those that hold a romantic view of winemaking.  Those that believe that the best examples come from a special place with properties that no other place possesses and from those individuals that hold some sort of mystical understanding of the process.  To employ perceived modern winemaking techniques on a wine destroys this mythos and reduces it to a mere “food science.”  Yet this general idea is exactly how many luxury goods are marketed, a perception that what you are consuming is somehow, some way, intrinsically better than something else.  But you just can’t quite put your finger on it.  The non-interventionist approach to winemaking plays perfectly into this mindset.  But let’s take a deeper look and dissect why there really is no such thing as non-interventionist winemaking.

Grapevines don’t know that they’re making grapes for wine.  All they are concerned with is making a seed dispersal system.  But what makes a grape attractive enough for a bird is different than what makes it good for wine.  Modern grapevines are the result of thousands of years of breeding, artificial selection and adaptation to foreign environments. Grapevines are trellised, trained, and pruned to produce fruit for a specific taste.  All wine-destined grapevines are cloned and self-pollinating, something very rarely found in nature.  Many famous wine producing areas find ways to keep grapes on the vine long after they would otherwise rot off.  The decision how to manage the leaf canopy, when and if to irrigate, and when to harvest are all judgments.  Quite a bit of intervention goes into growing grapes proper for wine. 

In the cellar, we nurture many reactions that may or may not happen in nature.  There are many species of yeast that can produce alcohol from sugar, but only one that makes a proper wine (the vast majority of the others are, in fact, spoilage yeast).  Wine is an ideal host for a particular bacteria that produces vinegar from alcohol.  I could argue that most of what a winemaker does is intervene to prevent spoilage.  These decisions, however, could be defended as expressing the nature of the grape.  But what about oak barrel aging?  Oak barrels are toasted over a fire to create chemicals that complement grape flavors.  Just the act of storing wine in a barrel encourages chemical changes in the wine that, though are attractive to us, have nothing to do with what nature provided.  How about malolactic fermentation?  This traditional technique deacidifies wine and produces flavors derived from bacteria.   Lastly, think about blending, the ultimate intervention.  This simple act, quintessentially intertwined with old-world winemaking seeks to create something that specifically does not come from nature.

Wine is not a mere reflection of nature.  What makes wine special is that it is an expression of both nature and human imagination.  It is a culmination of thousands of decisions, both artistic and ordinary.  It is the result of a cumulative effort of a lot of manual labor and a little inspiration.  Unfortunately, this story doesn’t make for sexy marketing.

Jason

Responses

Jason,

I read with interest your blog entry about wine not being just a reflection of nature. And I agree. Making high quality wine from simple grape juice seems to be a difficult process. But, I have heard that geography also plays an important role in the quality of wine that is produced. For example, recently I learned that Viognier and Cab Franc produce good wine in Virginia. Is this true? And if so, what is it about the Virginia climate and soil that culminates in a good bottle of wine?
Bill Jackson | February 26, 2008

---

There can be many factors influencing how and why an area becomes known for certain grape varieties. The biggest factor seems to be that people have a preference for the "European" grape, i.e. those varieties grown in Europe for centuries. So these varieties will be more popular to plant than others such as native varieties or French/American hybrids. In general though, the most pressing criteria for what we decide to grow is whether the wines can withstand the cold Virginia winters.

Cabernet Franc is one such variety. It's not surprising that Cabernet Franc is also planted in a more northerly area in France that also experiences cold winters, the Loire.

Viognier is a different story, however. This variety comes from the Rhone in France which is far warmer (in the winter) and drier throughout the year than Virginia. But grapevines, like people, have different personalities and some are more adaptable than others. Viognier makes fine wine even when the grapes are not quite as ripe as they might otherwise become in it's native Rhone.

Soils are less critical of an issue now that rootstock grafting is mandatory. Almost all grapevines all over the world are now grafted to the rootstock of one of several species of native American grapevine. And because rootstocks also have their own personalities in the soil, choice of rootstock will help the scion (above the ground grapevine) adapt to many different soils.

These factors just mentioned will help select which varieties are best suited to Virginia's climate. But I will suggest that what culminates in a good bottle of wine is the human touch: following good viticultural and enological practices, a little inspiration, and a lot of hard work!

-Jason
Rappahannock Cellars | February 27, 2008

---

Jason,

I gather you are the head winemaker at Rappahannock. I am interested in a possible career in wine. It seems VA has a lot of new wineries and I would think winemakers will be in demand in the future.

Can you tell me the requirements to become a professional? And, what training/education did you go through to get your current job?And most importantly, do you enjoy it? Or, would suggest someone look elsewhere for a career?
Tim Alexandra | March 13, 2008

---

Dear Tim,

I agree that Virginia seems poised to explode on the winemaking scene, this is in fact one of the reasons I moved here.

Winemaking is a curious industry in that, in one sense, there is still a push to have it remain a traditional endeavor untainted by technology. Winemakers and owners who share this view tend to value lots of hands-on experience in the cellar and a familial connection to the industry. So, if you don't mind dragging hoses in the cellar for a few years under the direction of a winemaker then this is certainly an easy way into the industry. This path could potentially lead to an assistant winemaker position.

Other wineries are more like any other modern business in that they like to hire degreed professionals. In this case the best path is to obtain a "winemaking" degree from one of the universities that have a Viticulture / Enology department and that also offer degrees in this field. This is a science-based degree. When I was at UC Davis about 10 years ago most of the students were actually older students pursuing winemaking as a second career. There is still the need to gain lots of hands-on experience (dragging hoses in the cellar during the harvest), but the degree will certainly offer more and more lucrative prospects. In my case, I was from St. Louis and had absolutely no connection with the industry. I was pursuing an undergraduate degree in Biology and decided my only foot in the door was to pursue the academic route; I ended up getting a MS degree in Food Science from UC Davis. At the time, UC Davis did not grant "Enology" degrees, though they do now.

Lots of varied experience is highly valued, especially interning at a European or Australian winery. So after obtaining a degree or working a harvest or two, I'd suggest to look abroad for work. East coast wineries like to tout their climate as being similar to France so a stint there would look really good on your resume. These internships are difficult because they require you to be there day in and day out for long hours, but only for a few months, when the demand for hands-on labor diminishes after harvest. After that you're on your own until the next harvest. With optimism, a go-for-broke attitude, and a little luck you might make it work. For example, after working as an assistant winemaker at a large winery in California I decided to quite my job for a 3 month internship at a winery in Malta (a small English-speaking country in the Mediterranean Sea). Those three months turned into a full-time permanent job for 3 years. During that time I traveled all over Europe, to Africa, and eastern Europe where I met the woman who would become my wife.

A winemaker, especially at a small winery, is not a desk job. Here, for example, I might be in the cellar all day dragging hoses and cleaning drains. Other days I might need to chase down the best deal on barrels or filter sheets behind a desk. This is certainly a physical job and you should have no reservations about doing manual labor. But I actually enjoy the hands-on part of the job, it's good for the soul.

Good luck!

-Jason
(Winemaker)
Rappahannock Cellars | March 17, 2008

---

This year saw several changes in the cellar at Rappahannock Cellars.  This was my first full year here, and I tended to my first Rappahannock Cellars wines, the 2006 vintage.  As you may recall, verasion (the ripening season) in 2006 was plagued by cool, wet weather.  However, with careful attention in vineyard and cellar we managed some exceptional wines whose awards include a double gold, 4 gold, and two best-of-category medals.

2006’s bumper crop brought about the need to upgrade the cellar.  So, this year we bought two new Ganimede red-fermentation tanks.  These are Italian designed stainless steel tanks that utilize the fermentation’s CO₂ production to mix the skins and juice.  A PLC allows us to program the tank to mix the skins every few hours on a continuing basis.  Traditional techniques involve “punching down” the cap by hand or pumping juice over the skins, both very labor-intensive procedures.  These new tanks provide more mixing and theoretically more extraction from the skins.  We are very happy with the results we’ve seen from 2007.  Wines made this year in these tanks include the Glenway vineyard Cabernet Franc. 

Another new addition this year was the purchase of a must pump.  Must is slurry of crushed grapes – skins, pulp, and seeds.  So this kind of pump must be able to move its contents without damaging it.  Specifically, we’re concerned about crushing the seeds and leaching harsh tannins.  So we bought the most gentle pump possible, a peristaltic pump.  Peristaltic movement is the same movement your esophagus makes when your stomach decides it doesn’t like what you’ve eaten.  These pumps are used in research laboratories and hospitals to move fluid around very gently.  Unlike other pumps, none of the must comes into contact with the moving parts.  It is this pump that we use to transport red must to the Ganimede tanks before fermentation.

The 2007 crop gave us a few scares as we saw it fall victim to an Easter freeze and an August hail storm.  Dormant vines are somewhat resistant to freeze events, but not so when the vine emerges from dormancy and pushes new growth.  Chardonnay vines awaken first and saw the most crop loss.  Ironically, Cabernet Sauvignon, a variety that is not cold hardy, suffered the least amount of loss due to the fact that it emerges from dormancy later than other grape varieties.  We suffered about a 50% loss of Chardonnay, compared to 2006.  In August, hail hit our Glenway vineyard.  Hail can break the skin of the berry and promote instant rot.  After a thorough inspection of the vineyard, we concluded that only about half of the Seyval blanc crop was affected.  This is because Seyval blanc ripens first and, as such, had the thinnest (most ripe) skin.  The following day marked the first day of harvest with that portion of Seyval blanc affected by the hail.  The remainder of the Seyval blanc harvest commenced about two weeks later.

After that, nature began cooperating and gave us as much warm, dry weather as we could have hoped for.  This allowed the grapes to remain on the vine until full maturity, a relatively rare event for east coast wineries.  We harvested grapes between 23 and 25 degrees Brix (% sugar) which is on par with the parameters used in California and other warm climate grape growing areas.

Highlights from this harvest include lots of ripe Viognier, a variety originating from southern France that needs plenty of heat and dry conditions to develop its unique floral character.  We also harvested some fantastic Petit Verdot from an off site vineyard in Madison County, a vineyard that we had been nurturing for some time now, and that we are happy to see coming into its own.  Cabernet Franc from our Glenway vineyard is also showing very well early on, with classic mineral and jam character.

Looking forward to 2008, we finally get to showcase the best of the 2006 reds with the blending of the Meritage, the Norton port, and a special blend of a “super Meritage” that we plan to keep in barrel until 2009.  Outside the cellar, we will embark on a multi-year project to expand our estate-vineyard production with the planting of more Seyval blanc vines.  

We look forward to your thoughts, comments, and suggestions here on this blog.  Thank you and we wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

-Jason

Responses

Your comments about the quality of fruit from the '07 harvest prompts me to ask about the effect of a quality wine glass on taste. I have heard that expensive glasses can actually improve wine flavor. Is this true? And if so, how?
Ken Strickler | April 12, 2008

---

It seems that wine glass manufacturers have a different kind of stem for every different variety of wine. My hunch tells me that as long as the bowl is large enough to allow you to swirl and if the glass is tapered at the top you are going to extract all there is from a wine. I've been told (at an event sponsored by a famous manufacturer) that the different glass shapes direct the wine to different parts of your tongue. And we've all been told that different parts of your tongue react differently to different tastes - sweet, salty, bitter, and astringent (acidic). Everything else we detect on the palate is actually a function of your nose. However, it has been discovered that all parts of your tongue are more or less receptive to all 4 taste perceptions. So, bottom line is any wine will taste the same regardless of the nuance of the glass shape.

Beyond that, you can make a case for the presentation value of that expensive bottle of wine. For example, I'd pour Champagne into a sparkling wine glass because the bubbles are pretty fun to look at, but the wine won't taste any better than if I had poured it into my "claret" glass.

Jason


Rappahannock Cellars | April 14, 2008

---

As a result of this, wine has become a sort of barometer of cultures, illustrating that even though we have a common goal in creating a masterpiece of cuisine, there sometimes is little agreement on how to achieve it and what it should represent.

The most obvious example of this is the idea of "Old World" and "New World" winemaking.  As the name implies, "Old World" refers to the customs of viticulture and enology where it was first developed and nurtured to its prominence today - Europe.  Here, the defining character of its wines is place.  This is primarily due to such a long tradition of grape growing and winemaking in certain parts of Europe, where techniques and varieties evolved with the people and culture.  In time, these things became synonymous with its cultivators and geography.  Champagne, for example, is not just a sparkling wine, but a specific kind of wine that only comes from one place - you guessed it - the Champagne region of France.  This is distinguished from Spumante of Italy, or Cava of Spain, all sparkling wines.  In discussing place, many factors are taken into account to describe its wines - grape variety, terroir, defined vineyard and cellar practices.  Taken together, something unique is created, of which the grape variety is only one part of.  In fact you won't even see the grape variety indicated on the label.

"New World" winemaking, of which American wine is arguably the pioneer of, takes a different approach.  Winemaking is a relatively recent endeavor in the US.  On the one hand, we simply don't have a lengthy relationship with grapevines to have established an evolution of vineyard and cellar practices (in fact, for the most part we have adopted those of Europe).  However, we are also unencumbered by restrictive traditions that may otherwise dictate these practices.  Without this evolved relationship and the related idea of terroir, the only thing left to define American wines has been the grape variety.   And for good reason, without defined vineyard and cellar practices, and an intimate knowledge of place, there was no reason to suspect that differences in same varietal wines were due to place at all.  Somewhat ironically, it is now tradition that, for the most part, place is not used to define American wine.  As consumers, we may know that there is a difference between Napa Valley Merlot and Washington State Merlot, but for Americans the defining characteristic of that wine is MERLOT and not Napa or Washington State.

In the cellar, one of the biggest differences between Old and New World winemaking is the practice of blending.  In the USA, with the significance we place on varietal, one might think that any wine not proudly announcing a varietal name on the label is a generic wine or somehow diluted in regards to its primary varietal.  This can be true, when the label on the bottle is reluctant to indicate what's inside.  In other instances, it may represent homage to Old World practices.  In actuality, the vast majority of all wines, regardless of origin, are blended.  In the USA, the most restrictive labeling rules allow up to 25% of the contents of the bottle to be a varietal (or a combination) of something else other than what is indicated on the label.  This artistic license also applies (though to a lesser extent) to vintage date and place of origin.  The official rationale is that this allows producers to maximize quality and consistency.  With respect to fine wines, this is indeed true.  This freedom is a tool in the winemaker's toolbox, we use it on a case by case basis. Our Cabernet Franc may well indeed be more attractive at 94% varietal and 6% Petit Verdot than had it been 100% varietal (this is the case with the first bottling of our 2006 Cabernet Franc).  In other instances, a wine may not benefit at all when blended with another lot of wine (as is the case with our 2006 Glenway Vineyard Chardonnay). 

Keep in mind too that that even though a wine label may claim the fruit is 100% varietal, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the wine was made from fruit of the same vineyard.  This is important because, not being bound by specific vineyard practices, two vineyards of the same varietal fruit may yield something very different.  Add to that the freedom from dictated cellar practices and you can very easily make two very different styles of wine from the same varietal, even though the fruit was sourced from the same AVA (appellation) and in the same vintage.  Knowing this, seeking a 100% varietal wine with the hopes that it will be a more “true” representation of the varietal is a bit misguided.
 
Furthermore, what if we feel that we can produce something truly exceptional given complete artistic license?  It happens sometimes that none of the component varietals are present in amounts greater than 75%.  In fact it happens a lot, and some of America's highest quality (and most expensive) wines are just these blends.  There are no special label designations, just a proprietary name or a shared named like Meritage.  In these cases, the idea here is that the blend is greater than the sum of its parts.  The complementary characteristics of Bordeaux varieties (Cabernet Saugivnon, Merlot, Cabernet Franc, Malbec, and Petit Verdot) are so harmonious that Bordeaux producers always blend them.  Each producer has its own style of blending, e.g., some are more Merlot based than Cabernet Sauvignon based, but all agree that blending makes a superior wine.

The wine industry is famous (or infamous) for its resistance to change.  Wineries may tout their “progressive” attitude towards the environment, but old traditions die hard in the vineyard and cellar.  In time, American producers will realize what varieties work well in their specific geography, but the foreseeable future will still see varietal as the definitive characteristic of a wine.   Perhaps one day, a Napa Valley red wine will be recognized as a blend of primarily Cabernet Sauvignon, a Washington State red will be one dominated by Merlot, and a Virginia white wine will be principally made of Viognier.

-Jason

Responses

Good blog entry. The wine industry often is focused on existing methods of production. But maybe that's not so bad. For example, I understand that in France, by law, certain grapes can only be grown in certain regions. A friend of mine told me that is because the French have learned over the centuries where specific grapes produce the best wine. Do you think it makes sense for the United States to limit growing grape varieties to specific regions? It seems if Virginia produces great Viognier, why not limit its vineyards to the Old Dominion? Perhaps we could build our country's wine reputation better that way...Cab to Napa...Pinot Noir to OR...Merlot to WA....etc.
Tim Hathaway | April 1, 2008

---

Yes, perhaps in time it will be revealed that certain viticultural areas in the US are more suited for some varieties more than others. Then it might make sense to protect the good name of the area by restricting the viticultural methods (i.e. allowed grape varieties). Ideally.

But I suspect free enterprise will let this happen naturally (why go the pains of making mediocre Pinot Noir in Virginia if you can make great Viognier). Rules tend to be political in nature too. I'd hate to see Merlot (for example) be approved just because the largest grower in the state happens to have most of his land under Merlot!

-Jason

Rappahannock Cellars | April 2, 2008

---

A famous wine writer has written a fun article about what he considers to be some unfortunate consequences of modern winemaking.  I responded to him on his website with these words:

I essentially agree that modern winemaking techniques such as those discussed in your article tend to make wines more similar than dissimilar.  However, having utilized alcohol adjustment and micro-oxygenation in several different varietals and climates, I would suggest that these techniques are more subtle than you give them credit for.  Alcohol reduction was never meant to repair an egregiously alcoholic wine, only to fine-tune and hit a "sweet spot," as Clark says.  Similarly, micro-ox will not change the flavor of a wine, only the tannic structure, and subtly at that.  And you can't really blame some wineries for trying these techniques.  Central Valley wineries are making wines that compete more with Napa/Sonoma wines than ever before, precisely because of alcohol and tannin adjustment. 

Look at the big picture and understand that advances in winemaking have, in general, greatly improved the vast majority of low to mid level wines.  The industry has just been slow to modernize and the changes are more noticeable compared to other food sciences.  No one is complaining that pasteurizing milk is destroying the flavor, right?  I'd much rather live Listeria (a disease-causing bacteria) free.  With time, alcohol and tannin adjustment will be protocol at large wineries and no one will think twice about it.

The real problem is the fad in CA, and other warm-climate grape growing areas, to leave grapes on the vine much longer than they need to be, in the name of "hang time."  This one technique does more to homogenize wine than anything else.  A late-harvest Zinfandel from Sonoma is essentially identical to a late-harvest Zin from Lodi, Sierra foothills, or Italy.

Your comments on the wines from Renaissance Vineyard and Winery are a little misplaced.  Their (and any other winery's) spectacular wines have much more to do with small production than the absence of any "winemaking jive." Small producers (of which I work for) have much more control over vineyard management and production techniques that allow for spectacular results.  Small producers will always make wine traditionally, partly because their budgets don't allow for the rather expensive tools of modern winemaking, and not because of a conscious decision to not use alcohol and tannin adjustment.  Small producers also tend to be located in ideal grape-growing and winemaking areas where these techniques are not needed to begin with. 

By the way, at the 8,000 case winery I work for, I can easily cherry pick different lots of wine and make a 100 case lot of something spectacular.  It comes at the expense of other blends, but this is something small producers can get away with much more easily than large producers.  It has nothing to do with my tendency to employ or not "winemaking jive" that I and any (every) other winemaker routinely use on a case by case basis.

The agenda to romanticize traditional winemaking is usually driven by wine writers and not winemakers.  Ask any winemaker 100 years ago and he would wholeheartedly prefer to make wine with modern sanitation, temperature control, stabilization, and vineyard management techniques than those available at the time.  Do you know what winemakers used to do with all but the very finest wine?  Have you ever tried retsina???

-Jason

Responses

Jason,

Discussing modern winemaking can be an endless source of enjoyment...and confusion. But, an equally frustrating subject is the shipment of wines out of the state of Virginia. The Q&A section of your website responds to some customers questions concerning where Rappahannock Cellars can ship its wines. I love your wines and provide them as gifts to friends and relatives. But, to make things simple, can you tell me exactly which states do you currently direct ship to consumers?
Diane LeBarge | March 19, 2008

---

With the enormous volitility in the direct shipping landscape, we have sat patiently on the sidelines to "allow the dust to settle". At the moment we ship only to Virignia and DC. Every other state available to us (roughly 25 states) all require permits, and more troubling excessive reporting and tax payments. In the next few months we will be using a new on-line tool that will allow us to easily assess each state; and decide if it makes sense for us to "jump through those hoops" to ship there. Please be patient and hang in there as we navigate this mine field.
Rappahannock Cellars | March 20, 2008

---

Enjoy your blog...learn something new every time I log on. Your topic of modern winemaking prompted me to ask, do winemakers actually add flavors to wine? I love the descriptions in your tasting notes but how does apple, pineapple, citrus, cherry, vanilla, pear, melon, etc. get into the wine? Do you add flavorings? I am not too good picking up all these tastes but do they happen naturally? If not, when do you add them?
Billy Thompson | March 27, 2008

---

Dear Billy,
Thanks for your comments. "Wine", as defined by the U.S. government is wine made only from 100% grapes. In general, no flavorings are allowed to be added to the wine. The exceptions are things you probably don't think of as flavorings such as oak barrels. Other things that are allowed to be added are those that are derived from things commonly and traditionally used in the winemaking process. For example, wine leaches oak tannin from barrels so powdered oak tannin is a legal addition.

As to how all those flavors get in there, the answer is that they were always there in the grape in the first place! It's the exact same chemical found in other fruits, only in lower concentrations. Some exceptions are isoamyl acetate (banana) that is yeast-derived, and vanilla and coconut that comes from toasted oak.

-Jason
Rappahannock Cellars | March 28, 2008

---

Responses

I am in agrement. Screw caps would be fine for most wines, especially those which wil soon be sonsumed. I spoke with some Vinters in NM, and they said it was too costly to change over.
I suspect screw caps will be more in evidence.
wgs
William Stead | June 15, 2007

---

Call me a "hopeless romantic", but I'm all for the total experience -- keep the corks coming!
Christine | June 26, 2007

---

interesting thoughts however I'd like to correct one thing: Chlorine has not been used to process corks in almost 20 years. The industry now uses hydrogen perixide and has also changed all the old processes to clean and sanitize. Since 2000, ETS labs in Napa said corks tested have gone from an average of 6-10 ppt to >.05 ppt. That is a huge difference.
Chris | September 3, 2007

---

Thanks for you comments Chris. Unfortunately, chlorine contamination in cork processing remains a big issue. Whether it comes from an intentional application to sanitize finished corks before leaving the factory or from initial harvesting by the grower, chlorine is being introduced at some point in the process. It has to, TCA isn't TCA without chlorine!
Rappahannock Cellars | September 4, 2007

---

Hi Jason,

I am the author of the "pro cork" argument that you refer to above. I enjoyed your article and found it extremely interesting and informative. I am all in favour of increasing knowledge on wines - congratulations on a superb site.

Unfortunately no one knows how wines will age under screw cap - fine wines in particular and as As I said in my blog the real acid test of cork versus the screw cap will happen in 10 years time as Chateau Margaux have laid down two cases of Le Pavillon Rouge (their second wine) under screw cap as an experiment to reveal the truth once and for all.

For the time being, vive la difference!

Cheers

Nick

Nick Stephens | March 13, 2008

---

Dear Mr. Stephens,

Thanks for the reply; I love talking and writing about wine and debating the issues.

Here at Rappahannock Cellars, we use cork for all of our wines because of tradition and consumer acceptance issues. I also personally like peeling away real tin capsules and hearing the "pop" of cork. The process builds anticipation of taking that first sip and it's hard to put a price on that!

I'm also a man of science and I wince at the failure rate of cork (TCA issues). I understand that natural cork will probably be the closure of choice for fine red wines for the foreseeable future for a number of reasons. I suspect that for whites, roses, and possibly most red wines meant to be drunk young, the attributes of screw cap outweigh the drawbacks. I also suspect that long-term tests with fine red wine under screw cap will yield mixed results (and will require more data points than two cases of wine!).

Regardless, this is the fun of making wine in an era where some of the most important parameters are still not well understood - debate, research and discovery. Thanks again for your post and I hope to hear from you again.

-Jason
Rappahannock Cellars | March 17, 2008

---

Responses

I am an ABC guy, anything but Chardonnay. If i must drink chardonnay i prefer a stainless steel variety, no oak nor ML. The stainless steel keeps what i view as the unpleasant favor of the grape in check.

perhaps i am not the best person to respond to a question on chardonnay as a result
Ron Kastner | May 9, 2007

---

I prefer a nicely oaked Chardonnay; one with a clear smell vanillian and one with a subtle, but noticeable toasted oak taste. Perfection for me!

Though a fresh unoaked Chardonnay is nice, there are so many other wines that are better without oak and not good with oak (Riesling, Pinot Gris, etc.), I more more prefer buying those rather than an unoaked Chardonnay.
Roy Wagner | December 12, 2007

---

I am a big fan of the Chablis style of Chardonnay. Crisp, citrusy, green appley! A great drink just to enjoy the wine. However, there are certain foods that I prefer to drink with an oaked Chard done in nice French oak with it's vanilla characteristic, and, preferably with ML. Salmon, of course, defintiely if it's smoked.
Barbara | December 12, 2007

---

I will not drink chardonnay done in oak of any kind. Stainless steel gives it a nice crisp flavor.
Susan | December 13, 2007

---

I consider myself a chardonnay snob, :). I like mine in oak...the oakier the better. I also prefer french oak to american.
angela hill | December 14, 2007

---