James Molesworth on Natural wine

WINE TALK
21

Fair points Bruce,
I agree that some faults that don’t strip fruit character can “contribute to complexity” as you say if it’s in balance with the wine. My point there is to draw attention to the double standard put forward by natural wine fans/drinkers/shows who for some reason have no problem with spoilage organisms but will draw the line at oak usage, whole bunch usage, sulfur usage, acid additions, etc… which also contribute to complexity when in balance with the other components of a wine, but in excess, also can obscure fruit/terroir characteristics.
What it has come down to, why that line is where it is, is because of an ingrained fear/distrust of manipulation in wine. Which I think is misinformed (and also not prevalent to this degree in other fermented foods and beverages for some reason). Winemaking by definition is intervention. Even choosing not to make a decision about a wine is still making a decision which will impact the wine in some way.

I can’t agree that the definition of wine faults are in any way arbitrary.
This might get into a whole other discussion about what is deemed desirable and undesirable in wine, which is subjective. But I have to ask the question here, how many winemakers are intentionally inoculating their wines with acetic acid bacteria? Or brett? Or VA?
VA in Italian Nebbiolo is a direct result of extended skin maceration, which is often necessary to soften the tannins. It is still a wine fault and that’s why there’s a legal limit to it.
Brett is a result of poor sanitation practices / not inoculating and mismanaging your sulfur regime.

If the shared goal of winemakers is to make delicious wines that to the most practical degree, reflect the place they are grown and show regional and varietal characters, then organisms which interrupt or subvert the conversion of glucose and fructose to ethanol and CO2 can absolutely be called faults, or at least charitably “happy accidents” to those who like the smell of fresh cow shit in their wines.
We have the tools and technology to understand more about the microbiological world than Pasteur could ever have dreamed of. I think it’s a bit rich in this day and age to neglect to do something to your wine and carry on as if it’s somehow more romantic or more reflective of place because it contains a spoilage organism.

22

really good discussion - and I hope I am not straying off topic - rather adding to - I think of this "natural wine’ within the context of the Bio-Dynamic Vignerons we met in Burgundy who explained to me how they work - with the cycles of nature and natural law. And how when I heard about that process - how it immediately struck me as absolutely a path to producing finer wines.
I think I can actually taste the outcome of those steps.
I will avoid mentioning winery names - (that has met with negative feedback in the past that I am promoting wineries we represent) however, the differences are so clear to me in the end result.
If I am remembering correctly, when the Tesseron family switched to Bio-Dynamic farming for the production of the Pontet Canet - the affect was immediate. A 5th growth estate - producing wines that score about the same as the 1st Growths. And are available much less $.
I had to wonder why the Domain’s in Burgundy who had been utilizing Bio-Dynamic - are far superior in quality and why do so many other Domain’s not immediately change?

I’ve listened to some amazing tales that you’d think come out of the Farmers Almanac, regarding the timing of when to make any intervention or next step in the entire cycle from Vineyard to the barrel and then to bottle.
Tis’ something that strikes me so beautiful about nature - tasting nature-

23

I think you are confusing things here as biodynamic and natural wines are two completely different things. You can have a biodynamic wine that is in no way considered a natural wine and you can have a natural wine that has seen no biodynamic processes whatsoever.

Of course you also have a lot of biodynamic producers making natural wines, but this doesn’t mean that these two things mean the same.

24

Vincent, I can’t comment on ‘age worthy’, as I haven’t had many aged examples. Absolutely though I do think that ‘natural’ wines can be complex and serious.

In fact I think one common feature of the natural wines I’ve tried thus far is that they typically offer greater complexity over a more ‘traditional’ wine from the same year.

25

I think you are confusing things here as biodynamic and natural wines are two completely different things. You can have a biodynamic wine that is in no way considered a natural wine and you can have a natural wine that has seen no biodynamic processes whatsoever.

Of course you also have a lot of biodynamic producers making natural wines, but this doesn’t mean that these two things mean the same.
[/quote]

That is one of the biggest issues with “natural” wine. There is no concrete definition.

Gareth,

I agree that wine chemistry should be more prevalent in wine education courses. The only time I really encountered wine chemistry during a course was during the WSET Diploma’s Unit 2 viticulture and vinification module where David Bird’s Understanding Wine Technology was required reading. I believe that this should be emphasized and featured in lower level courses.

26

there isn’t even a vague definition. it’s better (i.e., more useful) thought of as an aesthetic.

27

Gareth,

Thanks for the reply.

Much to consider in your response.
Here a few brief comments about some of the points you’ve made…

My point there is to draw attention to the double standard put forward by natural wine fans/drinkers/shows who for some reason have no problem with spoilage organisms but will draw the line at oak usage, whole bunch usage, sulfur usage, acid additions, etc… which also contribute to complexity when in balance with the other components of a wine, but in excess, also can obscure fruit/terroir characteristics.

If you consider the objections of the naturalistas to be philosophical then there is no double standard involved… flavors/aromas/structural elements arising from additions are not good, while those resulting from natural processes are not ‘not good’.
I understand your larger point, and agree… wines that taste “too natural”–excessively oxidized, overly volatile, too high in whole cluster character–seem to me to be as manipulated and devoid of terroir as overly manipulated wines.



What it has come down to, why that line is where it is, is because of an ingrained fear/distrust of manipulation in wine. Which I think is misinformed (and also not prevalent to this degree in other fermented foods and beverages for some reason).

Unwarranted fear/distrust is not good.
A healthy skepticism is, on the other hand, completely appropriate. Anyone who hasn’t noticed that we as a species have turned in an inconsistent performance when it comes to harnessing science and technology to support our various activities is simply not paying attention.
And, FWIW, a mistrust of manipulation in the production of food and beverage pre-dates the Bible. The German Beer Purity laws are over 500 years old and still going…



I can’t agree that the definition of wine faults are in any way arbitrary.
This might get into a whole other discussion about what is deemed desirable and undesirable in wine, which is subjective. But I have to ask the question here, how many winemakers are intentionally inoculating their wines with acetic acid bacteria? Or brett? Or VA

Some have.
It’s not too common (and completely unnecessary if you want VA, given the ease with which wines go volatile under certain conditions).
But the lack of these practices doesn’t argue against the idea that the designation of a character as a fault is in many ways arbitrary.



If the shared goal of winemakers is to make delicious wines that to the most practical degree, reflect the place they are grown and show regional and varietal characters, then organisms which interrupt or subvert the conversion of glucose and fructose to ethanol and CO2 can absolutely be called faults, or at least charitably “happy accidents” to those who like the smell of fresh cow shit in their wines.

You have every right to call them faults, but the issue is more complicated than that which you portray here.



We have the tools and technology to understand more about the microbiological world than Pasteur could ever have dreamed of. I think it’s a bit rich in this day and age to neglect to do something to your wine and carry on as if it’s somehow more romantic or more reflective of place because it contains a spoilage organism.

You’ve definitely put your thumb on the scale here with this last bit of editorializing.
Hopefully you understand there is far more to minimal intervention winegrowing than just neglecting to do things.
Re: romanticism… you don’t find it in this matter. Fair enough. I must confess to finding the pursuit of quality wine through a minimalist approach pretty romantic. True, sometimes that romanticism seems more in a tragicomic Don Quixote vein. But still…
In the end I don’t see that the point matters too much. You acknowledge that the presence of “faults” in wine don’t ncessarily mean the wine is bad. You agree that these “faults” can actually make for better wine.
That seems like enough common ground for me.

Cheers,

28

Bruce,
Great to have this discussion on good faith terms, you’re right there’s lots of common ground and good points raised.

Yeah that was a little emotional of me.

Of course. I was making a generalisation, but my point remains that these wine faults are most commonly caused by points of failure in winemaking best practice, be it sanitation or otherwise. Not saying that all natural wine is faulty, not saying that making minimal intervention wine is simply neglecting to do things.

The former (within reason), not the latter.

I have to come back to my original point on the chemical properties of wine. Wines exhibiting these characters I call “faults” to excess, do so to the detriment of the expression of fruit and place in the wine. I don’t detect any disagreement there.
What I’m saying is that (hypothetical scenario) natural wine A from France and natural wine B from Chile with the same concentration of 4-EP will have very, very similar sensory properties. Which is no coincidence given the chemical effects of brett that I previously mentioned.
The Natural Wine movement is huge on this idea of minimal intervention, in order to create the most transparent expression of place and variety possible (which is to be applauded).
Given that the most common cause of 4-EP brettanomyces spoilage is poor sanitation practices, the producers of natural wine A and B would do well to question the absolutism of their minimal intervention approach, if they actually want to communicate something about place and variety coherently.

29

For some of us, a little shit is better than none, but too much is bad.
Like lawn fertilizer vs. dog poop (a point lost on Anton’s avatar’s dog).

30

Unless one is making wine off grapes grown from wild vines, in the wild… it ain’t natural wine. If you have any temperature control during fermentation, it ain’t natural wine. Sulfer add? Not natural wine. Used a pump for pumpovers? Not natural wine. Use egg whites to fine? Not natural wine.

Once this is realized, it then more rationally comes down to, in my opinion… “What is the proper level of intervention?” “How can one best make wine that reflects something beyond just the winemaker’s whims?” And let’s not forget… “What can I make that people actually will spend money on rather than me battling windmills and then go out of business?”

31

Well stated as usual, my friend.

Cheers.

32

Gareth,

Thanks for the follow-up reply.
Again, I think we’re in agreement on most everything.
But, to clarify… in your example of wines A and B, the sensory properties would be very, very similar only if the brettiness in the two wines was of sufficiently high intensity.
There’s no doubt that exessively flawed natural wines lose their terroir or see it buried under an avalanche of unpleasant aromas and/or flavors. I’m talking about instances where these “flaws” are far less pronounced, even as low as just above detection threshold.

Which is the way natural wine has been headed.
Even from within there is considerable push-back against bottling and selling something overly dirty.