What did you know, and when did you know it?
I recently wrote about how much you needed to know to enjoy wine. Hint: not much. I am constantly writing to show how much I know about wine. Occasionally, my writing also reveals how much I don't know about wine. Wine can be an incredibly technical pursuit, and it is ever evolving.
Since we know that you don't need to know any more about wine than you are comfortable with, and I have admitted that there are many things I don't know about wine, the question begs: How much does the average winemaker know about wine?
To be fair, I need to ask a related question first. How much does a winemaker need to know?
When I am not enjoying wine for its own sake, I tend to think of it in a technical light. By far and away this is more because I am a techy person, than it is because wine requires a technical understanding. In fact, almost everything I know about wine was discovered in the last 100 years or so.
It wasn't long ago that pretty much everything that happened was attributed to supernatural intervention. This approach made correlating cause and effect quite difficult, and so "technology" evolved slowly, when it evolved at all.
By the Twentieth Century wine had broken the bounds of superstition and was well on its way to being understood as a natural process that could be shaped. This was a stark contrast to thousands of years of "doing everything you can and hoping for the best."
The result has not only been more consistent wines, but more profitable wineries.
Technology has now allowed the winemaker to take full control of the process, from designer yeast to micro-oxigynation and barrel alternatives.
But does the average winemaker really understand any more than their predecessors from earlier millennia? Has technology become the new magic for winemakers to blindly follow and believe in?
At a recent educational seminar for winemakers on the role of oxygen, many attendees were seemingly lost during the in depth sessions. Considering that much of the talk focused on recent research and cutting edge science, it is understandable that some would have a hard time following.
But was it just the hard core science that was causing rounds of narcolepsy? Wine Business reports that they "appreciated [the] last slide, on which were outlined the following three nuggets of winemaking wisdom:
(1) Oxygen is everywhere-we can't live without it.
(2) Oxygen's impact should be considered in all of our winemaking decisions.
(3) Oxidation and reduction systems are very complex in juice and wines, so be careful when extrapolating."
Am I out of my gourd here, or are these 3 "nuggets" so basic that I shudder to think there is anyone making wine who doesn't know this?
I have no problem with a winemaker not being able to follow a lecture on hard science, I live for that stuff and more than once I have been accused of snoring.
I have a huge problem with a winemaker not understand the basic role of wine in making oxygen.
And yet...
Winemakers have been making perfectly good wine for generations, by utilizing their practical experience and careful craftsmanship.
So if wine can be made without understanding the nuances of the process, is it possible to apply new technology to traditional techniques, and thereby transform the consistency and profitability of the winemaking?
Ay, there's the rub...
Only by deep understanding, and or meticulous experimentation can one hope to effect appropriate change. Too many winemakers will take up technologies without full appreciation for the damage, as well as good they may cause.
I see a world of mid priced wines, each tasting almost identically of oak with pronounced secondary aromas. Actually, this is pretty close to what we have now, only it will be increasingly easier to produce these wine at a profit.
There will always be the rogue winemaker who bothers to understand. Who yearns to experiment in order to get it just right. And chances are, I will be drinking their wines.
Chances also are that these wines will employ "appropriate technology" and will be the better for it.
My two favorite design axioms are: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And if it doesn't add, it takes away.
This is as incredibly true in winemaking as it is in cooking. Adding every spice in the cabinet doesn't make a better stew.
If you are a wine consumer you don't really need to know much about wine to enjoy it, but slightly more to buy it, unless of course you wish to excel.
If you are a winemaker you don't need to know much to make wine, but slightly more to be profitable at it, unless of course you wish to excel.
Since we know that you don't need to know any more about wine than you are comfortable with, and I have admitted that there are many things I don't know about wine, the question begs: How much does the average winemaker know about wine?
To be fair, I need to ask a related question first. How much does a winemaker need to know?
When I am not enjoying wine for its own sake, I tend to think of it in a technical light. By far and away this is more because I am a techy person, than it is because wine requires a technical understanding. In fact, almost everything I know about wine was discovered in the last 100 years or so.
It wasn't long ago that pretty much everything that happened was attributed to supernatural intervention. This approach made correlating cause and effect quite difficult, and so "technology" evolved slowly, when it evolved at all.
By the Twentieth Century wine had broken the bounds of superstition and was well on its way to being understood as a natural process that could be shaped. This was a stark contrast to thousands of years of "doing everything you can and hoping for the best."
The result has not only been more consistent wines, but more profitable wineries.
Technology has now allowed the winemaker to take full control of the process, from designer yeast to micro-oxigynation and barrel alternatives.
But does the average winemaker really understand any more than their predecessors from earlier millennia? Has technology become the new magic for winemakers to blindly follow and believe in?
At a recent educational seminar for winemakers on the role of oxygen, many attendees were seemingly lost during the in depth sessions. Considering that much of the talk focused on recent research and cutting edge science, it is understandable that some would have a hard time following.
But was it just the hard core science that was causing rounds of narcolepsy? Wine Business reports that they "appreciated [the] last slide, on which were outlined the following three nuggets of winemaking wisdom:
(1) Oxygen is everywhere-we can't live without it.
(2) Oxygen's impact should be considered in all of our winemaking decisions.
(3) Oxidation and reduction systems are very complex in juice and wines, so be careful when extrapolating."
Am I out of my gourd here, or are these 3 "nuggets" so basic that I shudder to think there is anyone making wine who doesn't know this?
I have no problem with a winemaker not being able to follow a lecture on hard science, I live for that stuff and more than once I have been accused of snoring.
I have a huge problem with a winemaker not understand the basic role of wine in making oxygen.
And yet...
Winemakers have been making perfectly good wine for generations, by utilizing their practical experience and careful craftsmanship.
So if wine can be made without understanding the nuances of the process, is it possible to apply new technology to traditional techniques, and thereby transform the consistency and profitability of the winemaking?
Ay, there's the rub...
Only by deep understanding, and or meticulous experimentation can one hope to effect appropriate change. Too many winemakers will take up technologies without full appreciation for the damage, as well as good they may cause.
I see a world of mid priced wines, each tasting almost identically of oak with pronounced secondary aromas. Actually, this is pretty close to what we have now, only it will be increasingly easier to produce these wine at a profit.
There will always be the rogue winemaker who bothers to understand. Who yearns to experiment in order to get it just right. And chances are, I will be drinking their wines.
Chances also are that these wines will employ "appropriate technology" and will be the better for it.
My two favorite design axioms are: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And if it doesn't add, it takes away.
This is as incredibly true in winemaking as it is in cooking. Adding every spice in the cabinet doesn't make a better stew.
If you are a wine consumer you don't really need to know much about wine to enjoy it, but slightly more to buy it, unless of course you wish to excel.
If you are a winemaker you don't need to know much to make wine, but slightly more to be profitable at it, unless of course you wish to excel.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home