I guess smoke taint is a feature, not a bug

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

The only thing that would make that hard sell better would be a video of guys crushing grapes with cigarettes dangling from their mouths, saying this is your next wine!

Question: Does smoke taint happen quickly, or is it from prolonged exposure? I ask this, because I have done controlled burns on very large tracts of land, and after the initial burn, there are places that seem to smolder for days, and light smoke never stops wafting.

It appears to be a complicated model. But the freshness of the smoke makes a big difference. Current thinking is very much that closer the proximity of the fire the less time is needed for smoke taint/affect to occur. Paul Gordon posted a rule of thumb in the original smoke taint thread as well.

But even then, the research I saw indicated that it varies considerably, even in the same vineyard. It also does not seem to affect Chardonnay as readily as Pinot Noir. That’s based upon data from two different vineyards, and also corroborated from someone who has a lot of experiencewith smoke from 2008 and 2017.

[Justin_Neufeld]

I’m actually doing a zoom talk on smoke taint tonight with our wine club. Washington, in general I would say, has skirted by the smoke taint problems. Every year we do see some taint here and there, but usually somewhat isolated incidences. 2020 was interesting as most of the fires were in CA and OR, too far away to cause taint, at least thats what we thought. I saw taint in some fruit from Horse Heaven Hills for 2020 caused by those fires. The weather patterns were such that a lot of the smoke from CA and OR was pushed north and somewhat out over the pacific where, looking at radar, it looked like it hit a large northern colder air mass and was condensed. Then it was pushed east and funneled right thru the gorge and Horse Heaven Hills. Hopefully its an anomaly that doesnt happen again. For the most part, the 2020 vintage is looking awesome up here. From my experience Cab. Franc and Mourvedre seem to be especially susceptible to taint. Yes, it IS taint…but that’s just my opinion. I feel it smothers terroir in severe cases and I cant tell where the wine is from…or the fire for that matter. Guaiacol is guaiacol, no matter what angle you look at it. Cheers!

[GregP]

Can you explain to me why a winery that decided not to pick is the point you draw a radius from?

Every winery is staffed by people of varying degrees of being risk averse. With smoke taint it’s apparent, in Oregon, that there were a lot of decisions made without any real knowledge of the severity. Lab results were backed up, as you know, and people had to choose basically blind. And at least one winery chose so quickly that it was hard to conceive that they did so based upon the conditions at the time.

I understand Montelena has both history and reputation, so I get that choice. But I don’t know that I would just pick any random winery that opted out and give them the same benefit.

You actually got my point in reverse. Montelena calling it and the “smaller guys around it” not simply tells me the small(er) guys to avoid buying from. Thus, my “map the radius” point.

Also, many small(er) labels depend on consulting winemakers, and even when the label itself is not big, nor super famous, they do rely on a winemaker. Therefore, even when not a “Montelena famous” one should still pay attention to smaller guys and their decisions to pick, or not. Some of the very small and boutique Napa labels, and some on Sonoma side, are made by just a very small group of winemakers, so not sure why one would discount their decisions only because they are “small”.

All I can tell you, from personal experience, we share one vineyard with some hefty names who decided to pick. Now awaiting the wines made from grapes picked by the “famous names” and the spin on them. ETS results from a very early sample, a month prior to pick and before more smoke damage took place, was 0.7, by the time the pick was called it was much worse. We’re really bummed having no wine from v2020, but could not, and would not have made a different decision.

But, as one can see in this thread, and older one, the spin has already started and will only gain speed now. I’m just observing from the outside and taking notes on who does what and how consumers will react. I am privy to specific Sonoma side areas (and some Napa area) and smoke taint results, it will be fascinating to see who bottles the wines and then resultant professional reviews, should be even more entertaining than watching how consumers buy the spin (or not, hopefully). And I am sure plenty of ETS tests on bottled (and claimed clean) wines post reviews for easy validation of palates Should be an interesting 2 years of reviews (Napa Cabs released next year). Labs will be pretty busy, regardless.

[GregP]

But even then, the research I saw indicated that it varies considerably, even in the same vineyard. It also does not seem to affect Chardonnay as readily as Pinot Noir.

Skin contact. Way more limited when crushing whites, when Pinot requires skin contact for color extraction. Everything else being equal.

And I am not yet sure I buy into “block by block” idea. I am a good number of miles away from a fire today, ~500 acres, and all I can smell and breath is smoke, all day long.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Can you explain to me why a winery that decided not to pick is the point you draw a radius from?

Every winery is staffed by people of varying degrees of being risk averse. With smoke taint it’s apparent, in Oregon, that there were a lot of decisions made without any real knowledge of the severity. Lab results were backed up, as you know, and people had to choose basically blind. And at least one winery chose so quickly that it was hard to conceive that they did so based upon the conditions at the time.

I understand Montelena has both history and reputation, so I get that choice. But I don’t know that I would just pick any random winery that opted out and give them the same benefit.

You actually got my point in reverse. Montelena calling it and the “smaller guys around it” not simply tells me the small(er) guys to avoid buying from. Thus, my “map the radius” point.

Also, many small(er) labels depend on consulting winemakers, and even when the label itself is not big, nor super famous, they do rely on a winemaker. Therefore, even when not a “Montelena famous” one should still pay attention to smaller guys and their decisions to pick, or not. Some of the very small and boutique Napa labels, and some on Sonoma side, are made by just a very small group of winemakers, so not sure why one would discount their decisions only because they are “small”.

All I can tell you, from personal experience, we share one vineyard with some hefty names who decided to pick. Now awaiting the wines made from grapes picked by the “famous names” and the spin on them. ETS results from a very early sample, a month prior to pick and before more smoke damage took place, was 0.7, by the time the pick was called it was much worse. We’re really bummed having no wine from v2020, but could not, and would not have made a different decision.

But, as one can see in this thread, and older one, the spin has already started and will only gain speed now. I’m just observing from the outside and taking notes on who does what and how consumers will react. I am privy to specific Sonoma side areas (and some Napa area) and smoke taint results, it will be fascinating to see who bottles the wines and then resultant professional reviews, should be even more entertaining than watching how consumers buy the spin (or not, hopefully). And I am sure plenty of ETS tests on bottled (and claimed clean) wines post reviews for easy validation of palates Should be an interesting 2 years of reviews (Napa Cabs released next year). Labs will be pretty busy, regardless.

I think you are the one who reversed what I was asking.

When I said that I get why you would use Montelena’s choice not to pick and draw a radius from there, my assumption was that you meant that other producers within the radius should be questioned as to why they chose to pick(or not).

Nor was I suggesting that smaller wineries choices to pick or not should be discounted. That seemed to be what you were saying by using a central non-picking winery and then using a radius to judge other wineries integrity. Which is why I asked where the logic behind a decision not to pick should allow anyone to pass judgement on other wineries comes from? As I posted above, smoke models are complex(outside of areas that were absolutely hammered). So without real knowledge of why a winery made a decision not to pick, “drawing a radius” and judging everyone in it by the central wineries choice seems unfair to the wineries inside the radius.

Also, spin works both ways and it’s hard to read your post and not get a holier-than-thou gleeful feel to it. I know nothing about Sonoma or Napa, and California isn’t my business but it’s easy enough to suggest that consumers should taste everything from 20 before buying, rather than suggesting that everyone but you is a bunch of liars(again).

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

But even then, the research I saw indicated that it varies considerably, even in the same vineyard. It also does not seem to affect Chardonnay as readily as Pinot Noir.

Skin contact. Way more limited when crushing whites, when Pinot requires skin contact for color extraction. Everything else being equal.

And I am not yet sure I buy into “block by block” idea. I am a good number of miles away from a fire today, ~500 acres, and all I can smell and breath is smoke, all day long.

No, not skin contact.

First: My first samples were grape samples, so no maceration differences.

Second: smoke taint is bound in glycosides before harvest. It passes through the skin and becomes bound prior to harvest. So again-no maceration differences.

Third: while Rosé of Pinot Noir may have lower levels than fully macerated wines, it’s still higher than the Chardonnay.

[anakeller]

We’re located in the Petaluma Gap, closer to the San Pablo Bay. The wind blowing in from the coast (the same one that gives us great acid and structure) brought the smoke from the coast where smoke was accumulating. So, far from the fires, but smoked in for days. We couldn’t imagine leaving the fruit on the vines, so we picked everything and through micro-ferments and testing we made decisions lot by lot. Smoke taint builds up on the skins. So we decide our best best was to: 1) handle the Chardonnay very carefully , safely, with a priority on as little skin contact as we could. All the PN and Syrah eventually was made into Rose, even the early lots had traces. For us, there was no option to produce it. Syrah tends to “cover” smoke better, but not pinot. The Rose, seems to be taint free. Bottom line, our Chardonnay, is actually beautiful, acid driven, tight, maybe e little too clean, but we didn’t want to spin stories.

[brigcampbell]

Ana, as I was reading your post regarding chardonnay I was thinking to myself “this sounds good”.

What oak treatment did you decide on? Did the lean style change what you’ve done in the past?

Agree syrah can handle smoke better than PN. Probably because of expectations and food pairing.

[GregP]

But even then, the research I saw indicated that it varies considerably, even in the same vineyard. It also does not seem to affect Chardonnay as readily as Pinot Noir.

Skin contact. Way more limited when crushing whites, when Pinot requires skin contact for color extraction. Everything else being equal.

And I am not yet sure I buy into “block by block” idea. I am a good number of miles away from a fire today, ~500 acres, and all I can smell and breath is smoke, all day long.

No, not skin contact.

First: My first samples were grape samples, so no maceration differences.

Second: smoke taint is bound in glycosides before harvest. It passes through the skin and becomes bound prior to harvest. So again-no maceration differences.

Third: while Rosé of Pinot Noir may have lower levels than fully macerated wines, it’s still higher than the Chardonnay.

Because of longer skin contact.

[Justin_Neufeld]

The only thing that would make that hard sell better would be a video of guys crushing grapes with cigarettes dangling from their mouths, saying this is your next wine!

Question: Does smoke taint happen quickly, or is it from prolonged exposure? I ask this, because I have done controlled burns on very large tracts of land, and after the initial burn, there are places that seem to smolder for days, and light smoke never stops wafting.

You should be a marketer for wineries, thats a great image. From what I’ve seen taint in winegrapes is a product of proximity, duration and intensity of the smoke, as well as the grape variety. We have seen brush fires come within 50 feet of a vineyard about 2 weeks after bloom that caused taint in the finished wine. It was really close and pretty intense smoke, but only lasted a few hours at most. Last year the fires were hundreds of miles away, but the smoke was around for weeks. Its all over the board. I can say though that if you did a controlled burn next to my vineyard and the wind was blowing in the wrong direction I’d be upset, to say the least.

[H_Wallace_Jr]

Any reason why no one drew a, say, 2 mile radius on a map to see which wineries decided to pick?

It was a lot cheaper and easier for some wineries to not pick last year, especially if inventory was high due to loss of restaurant sales. Everyone had a reason to pick or not - smoke was only one of the factors.

[GregP]

Any reason why no one drew a, say, 2 mile radius on a map to see which wineries decided to pick?

It was a lot cheaper and easier for some wineries to not pick last year, especially if inventory was high due to loss of restaurant sales. Everyone had a reason to pick or not - smoke was only one of the factors.

Unless you have specific names and decision making based on inventory you, and I, can only GUESS, at best. Yes, I read same reports you did, heard from vineyard managers almost daily as fires raged, did my own micro ferments, but in the end, and as much as I hate to say it, seems big boys declining fruit turned out to be the right call in the end. You may be overlooking one key factor: While small producers rely on ETS and like to provide testing and results, and we know the clusterfark it turned last year, all big boys have good size labs on premises and can do all testing, and as often, as they want. So, their decision making, as much as one can claim otherwise, could actually be based on parameters available to them long before those same parameters were available to us.

And I am not sure what your point even is in a thread discussing smoke taint in PICKED FRUIT. Feel free to open another thread on no smoke taint in declined fruit, could be interesting, one never knows.

[Wes_Barton]

How 'bout some euphemisms from the Oregon Wine Board?

2. Be cautious about the words you choose.
   Please avoid using phrases with negative connotations like “smoke taint” or “ashtray.” A good alternative is “localized smoke impact.”

I guess I’ll follow their lead and say that’s “interesting” advice.

Translation: Say the same thing, but make sure you sound like a douche when doing so.

[Wes_Barton]

With climate change, we will need to acclimate to ashtray notes in our wines.

In terms of audacity, I dare that person to visit my noodle shop, to see if a bugs (and other things) should be an acceptable dining feature.

“Our featured free range visitors.”

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Any reason why no one drew a, say, 2 mile radius on a map to see which wineries decided to pick?

It was a lot cheaper and easier for some wineries to not pick last year, especially if inventory was high due to loss of restaurant sales. Everyone had a reason to pick or not - smoke was only one of the factors.

Unless you have specific names and decision making based on inventory you, and I, can only GUESS, at best. Yes, I read same reports you did, heard from vineyard managers almost daily as fires raged, did my own micro ferments, but in the end, and as much as I hate to say it, seems big boys declining fruit turned out to be the right call in the end. You may be overlooking one key factor: While small producers rely on ETS and like to provide testing and results, and we know the clusterfark it turned last year, all big boys have good size labs on premises and can do all testing, and as often, as they want. So, their decision making, as much as one can claim otherwise, could actually be based on parameters available to them long before those same parameters were available to us.

And I am not sure what your point even is in a thread discussing smoke taint in PICKED FRUIT. Feel free to open another thread on no smoke taint in declined fruit, could be interesting, one never knows.

You and I can only guess at best…

Why don’t we agree to let the wines be the wines. And consumers should taste everything before buying, which is smart and informative in a real way.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Skin contact. Way more limited when crushing whites, when Pinot requires skin contact for color extraction. Everything else being equal.

And I am not yet sure I buy into “block by block” idea. I am a good number of miles away from a fire today, ~500 acres, and all I can smell and breath is smoke, all day long.

No, not skin contact.

First: My first samples were grape samples, so no maceration differences.

Second: smoke taint is bound in glycosides before harvest. It passes through the skin and becomes bound prior to harvest. So again-no maceration differences.

Third: while Rosé of Pinot Noir may have lower levels than fully macerated wines, it’s still higher than the Chardonnay.

Because of longer skin contact.

Direct press? Really…

And see point 1 btw…

[Jim_Stewart]

With climate change, we will need to acclimate to ashtray notes in our wines.

In terms of audacity, I dare that person to visit my noodle shop, to see if a bugs (and other things) should be an acceptable dining feature.

Victor, indulge me to drift a little and give you a suggested response to your concerned diners. . .

Several years ago we dined at L’Entrecote in Toulouse, France which is a modest restaurant with that single item on the menu served with a salad. Seconds of both are available gratis. As I neared the bottom of my bowl of salad, I spotted a caterpillar like insect crawling around. Alarmed, I managed to get myself in a huff, called over one of the wait staff, and pointed it out with disgust. Her response was Mais, monsieur, c’est natural and she simply took away the little creature.
BTW, I had seconds of the entrecote, but not the salad. Cheers!

[Victor_Hong]

With climate change, we will need to acclimate to ashtray notes in our wines.

In terms of audacity, I dare that person to visit my noodle shop, to see if a bugs (and other things) should be an acceptable dining feature.

Victor, indulge me to drift a little and give you a suggested response to your concerned diners. . .

Several years ago we dined at L’Entrecote in Toulouse, France which is a modest restaurant with that single item on the menu served with a salad. Seconds of both are available gratis. As I neared the bottom of my bowl of salad, I spotted a caterpillar like insect crawling around. Alarmed, I managed to get myself in a huff, called over one of the wait staff, and pointed it out with disgust. Her response was Mais, monsieur, c’est natural and she simply took away the little creature.
BTW, I had seconds of the entrecote, but not the salad. Cheers!

The same happened to me in Paris. My view is that the snail evidenced a nutritious salad. It was funny but not horrifying in the least.

[DougS]

How 'bout some euphemisms from the Oregon Wine Board?

2. Be cautious about the words you choose.
   Please avoid using phrases with negative connotations like “smoke taint” or “ashtray.” A good alternative is “localized smoke impact.”

I guess I’ll follow their lead and say that’s “interesting” advice.

It is interesting advice. As someone living here and producing wines, impacts are expremely varied. We finally got some lab results, and things range considerably, from unaffected to considerable impact.

Wines are in progress, so I am still not going to make predictions.

But individual wineries do not exist in a vaccuum and it is very important that wineries, in Oregon, choose their words well right now. This is a remarkably collegial place, and the division of ranks between those who picked and those who did not is a big divide, with wineries on either side having considerable investment in the choices they made.

Avoiding grand pronouncements, and sticking to what we actually know, versus what we think, is going to be very important.

It’s taken me 20 years to build the my wineries reputation, I am not tossing it out over one vintage. But I am also waiting to see results before I choose my words.

I agree with Greg calling out the OWB over spin control so early on. Being disingenuous is a worse fault than the smoke. And if it tastes like ashtray, it tastes like ashtray. But there was a LOT of adrenaline running in the bloodstreams up here last fall(mine included) and calming everyone in the industry down was also necessary. People were hyperanalyzing wines with no lab results and making huge decisions blindfolded. The pain and angst here was intense and very real, similar to CA(although we are drop in the bucket production-wise). Things are more normalized now, and there is a range of realities regarding smoke, so “localized smoke impacts” is a smart choice.

I have two blocks in the same vineyard with drastically different numbers, where my best guess is that the aspect of one block faced away from the oncoming smoke and suffered little exposure while the other faced roughly into the smoke and paid the price. So very, very localized.

Thanks, I appreciate your perspective on this. I was a little flippant about the advice on language because it seems like it might invite being disingenuous, but I also realize how stressful this must be for every grower and producer out there. I do think it’s especially important to point out that smoke taint is very unpredictable, especially in that one can’t know how a certain site was affected just by looking at a map and knowing what decisions neighbors have made.

[H_Wallace_Jr]

Any reason why no one drew a, say, 2 mile radius on a map to see which wineries decided to pick?

It was a lot cheaper and easier for some wineries to not pick last year, especially if inventory was high due to loss of restaurant sales. Everyone had a reason to pick or not - smoke was only one of the factors.

Unless you have specific names and decision making based on inventory you, and I, can only GUESS, at best. Yes, I read same reports you did, heard from vineyard managers almost daily as fires raged, did my own micro ferments, but in the end, and as much as I hate to say it, seems big boys declining fruit turned out to be the right call in the end. You may be overlooking one key factor: While small producers rely on ETS and like to provide testing and results, and we know the clusterfark it turned last year, all big boys have good size labs on premises and can do all testing, and as often, as they want. So, their decision making, as much as one can claim otherwise, could actually be based on parameters available to them long before those same parameters were available to us.

And I am not sure what your point even is in a thread discussing smoke taint in PICKED FRUIT. Feel free to open another thread on no smoke taint in declined fruit, could be interesting, one never knows.