How one of the icons of “natural wine” uses technology.
Really interesting, thanks!
New information, to me!
Thank you!
The main bacteria they’re talking about are the three species of lactic acid bacteria. Here’s a good overview: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/wine/lactic-acid-bacteria-and-wine-spoilage
Are they using any knowledge that has been written down? Or are they just using what has been handed down as an oral tradition? If the first, they’re using technology.
And are they selling their wine overseas?
There’s technology in the building of boats, the use of a sexton, and the realization that the world is round.
So whatever “natural” is, if it isn’t something delivered by the Martians, technology is OK.
The cynical way to put it would be they’re using a microscope to monitor bacterial population for when they need to intervene with a small dose of SO2 instead of just added that small dose as a preventative. 
There are a few points of worry, which are known, and red flags you can watch for, when something isn’t going quite right. Funny that they take near complete juice and finish in barrel. That’s a fairly vulnerable point in an environment likely to introduce a lot of new bacteria. But, I’m sure that’s fine most of the time since the yeast just got a turbo boost of sugar and oxygen to kick up a gear and out-compete. Some winemakers would never do that, though. Adding 20 ppm SO2 should make that fairly safe.
This part strikes me as a little too natural…
From the article:
“and the resulting juice goes back into the fat for an alcoholic fermentation”
I was wondering why a couple glasses of wine is beginning to feel like more than a couple as I get older.
-af
How did I know you’ld like this?
Cool article, that was fun and well done.
The idea here is to reduce the risk of bacterial spoilage without use of additional sulfur where possible, and to minimize the amount of sulfur added when lowering the temperature doesn’t do the trick. That would appear consistent with the tenets of the “natural” wine movement, and a step in the right direction from simply refusing to add sulfur and hope for the best. I don’t know if this use of technology would be considered disqualifying by the (self-designated?) arbiters of the term. There don’t appear to be well-defined objective criteria for what qualifies.
Reminds me of Ali G talking to the panel of experts about technology.
Ali G: There is a bloke from round my hood, Staines, called Rainbow Jeremy, who reject everything to do with science.
He just chill at home, he smoke his own home-grown, and check this - he don’t have a telly.
I ain’t shi**ing you.
He don’t have a telly.
Expert: He lives in a house, though.
That house is a product of technology.
Ali G: Nah, he’s got no technology. Seriously, you can check his website.
I find the whole category “Natural” wines confusing. As far as I know, there is no formal definition so I have no clue what “Natural” wine is. Is it anything but a marketing term to attract Millennials to wine? From the reading I have done, there is a wide disparity in the dos and donts of making a wine that is claimed to be “Natural.” Put me in the skeptical category on this one.
As I’ve said too many times here, I think the whole “natural wine” thing is pretty silly. That said, the use of technology here seems totally fitting with the whole approach. It’s being used to try to avoid doing or adding things to the wine.
I agree about a step in the right direction. As for the movement rejecting Lapierre for doing something like this, I doubt it will happen. I don’t say that because I expect “natural” advocates to be rational, but rather because Lapierre is one of the most notable producers they can point to who generally makes very good, sound wines.
Marcel Lapierre was very pragmatic in his practice, which clearly has had an influence on Matthieu. The new generation has tools their predecessors didn’t. The idea of disqualifying is kind of funny though. What is he disqualified from? When it comes to Lapierre’s wines qualifiers/categories are non essential. Either you like the style or you don’t. All the other adjectives are useless. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for the article Eric.
That was sort of/part of my point Gregg, perhaps not clearly expressed: what would he be disqualified from? The definition of natural wine is squishy and less important than the quality of what’s in the bottle.
No legal definition. The consensus between quality producers/importers/retailers/on-premise accounts is a bare minimum of organically farmed grapes, native yeast ferments, limited so2 additions. Jules Chauvet “the father of French Natural winemaking” died in 1989. Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial so I don’t think “natural” wine was born as a marketing term to attract younger drinkers.
Chamber Street Wine has a good write-up about Chauvet here.
https://www.chambersstwines.com/Articles/1304/introduction-by-philippe-pacalet-to-jules-chauvet-etudes-scientifiques
That might be the idea…or not. But, he’s allowing potential bacterial activity, then limiting the impact by intervening with SO2. It’s more like he’s containing the level of bacterial spoilage within parameters that gives the wines a bit of “wild” character, as a stylistic attribute.
So, not sure what percentage of the wines he ends up “having to” intervene with a little SO2 (or if he adds some at bottling, and so forth), but if he’s always adding some that way, it really is the same amount he could be adding as a preventative. Is a wine more natural if it seems more nature due to controlled spoilage?
Another point: many yeast strains produce SO2 in order to help compete. With a wild fermentation there might be a little more risk of not enough of that happening to stave off LAB (or maybe not). But, the amount of SO2 he’d need to add in a healthy ferm would be in the range of what could be there naturally. So would adding the same amount as a preventative. Of course, if you take a light handed approach, you’ll learn some grapes are always problematic, requiring an intervention or preventative measure, and some are fine left alone.
Appreciate the real world perspective as always, Wes.
The term “natty” or “natural wine” is not one that I have seen used to describe wine in the 35 years I have been collecting. As I understand it, the natural wine movement began back in the '60s in the Beaujolais region with Marcel Lapierre, Jean Foillard, Charly Thevenet and Guy Breton. Over the decades I have enjoyed my share of organic, biodynamic, and what are also called “natural” wines, most of them from the old world. Maybe I have overlooked the term because it means little or nothing specific to me.
Having a millennial of my own, I can say that both terms mean something to millennials (at least all of my daughter’s friends) that it does not mean to me. We are probably splitting hairs. At least since the 60s, there have been winemakers working to reduce intervention and return to the old ways of making wine. However marketing wines using the terms “natty” and “natural” seems to be a much more recent evolution in marketing. My experience with my millennial and her friends is that the term “natty” or “natural” when applied to wine is used primarily for marketing purposes and that millennials are the generation most focused on the terms. But most of them do not understand the degree of difference in intervention from producer to producer that market using the “natty” and/or “natural” terms as wine descriptors. To many millennials the terms “natty” and “natural” are synonymous with quality which of course is the marketing objective of the terms. Having tasted many of these wines at my daughter’s insistence, I can safely say caveat emptor. That said, I can guide my daughter to wines that meet the criteria but don’t rely on the terms to market them.
Do you find this marketing push coming from producers? or perhaps retailers/restaurants/bars ? I would love to pinpoint the start of the marketing craze for natural wines. Was it a producer looking for market share? A geeky retailer? Maybe a sommelier looking for fresher wines to compliment his menu.
i wonder who made the first ironic label? i would say the majority of natural wines that should be immediately poured down the sink usually have some terribly ill conceived label. octavin is a great example.