Sapporo, the Japanese brewery you may be familiar with if you frequent sushi bars in your area, has announced the release of their new "Space Barely," which uses barely that has been grown on the International Space Station... Yes, in Spaaaaaaaaaaace!
I was super excited to try this out when I heard about it, but it doesn't look like I, and most likely you, will be able to anytime soon. According to them, you must be one of the extremely lucky 250 winners who are drawn from a lottery. If you are selected, you get to pay $119 for a six-pack, limit one-per-lucky-winner... That's almost $20 for one beer... Sweet... So yeah, you have to win first, then you get a chance to buy some high-priced six-pack >.<
The barely was harvested from the ISS space station as part of a five-month space mission that experimented with growing crops in space.
Does this intergalactic barely have any affect on the beer? Maybe they used martian water and moon yeast to brew it? That will be something we have to wait to find out. If you are lucky enough to get one of these beers, please chime in and tell me how it is. (And feel free to send a sample.) Until then, I think I'm going to try to secure a few cases of Brooklyn Brewery's Black Chocolate Stout before they run out!
I wish I could go back in time to ask winemakers of past, "How do you think wine making will be affected by future technology?" They surely wouldn't know about our advances in computers.They might not mention the use of modern wine making trends like steel barrels, micro oxygenation, ultra-sound, computer chips in vineyards or extreme temperature control to make cheap wines palatable. However if I were to explained the new Biodynamic Wine trends sweeping the globe, they would think we have regressed back to medieval agricultural traditions!
For those not familiar with biodynamic agriculture, let me give it to you straight from the Wikipedia article: "Biodynamic agriculture, a method of organic farming that has its basis in a spiritual world-view , first propounded by Rudolf Steiner treats farms as unified and individual organisms emphasizing balancing the holistic development and interrelationship of the soil, plants, animals as a closed, self-nourishing system."
What this means is the vineyard is considered in it's entirety as a living thing and seen as an organism in it's own right, but one that is in consistent with lunar and cosmic patterns and rhythms and not merely a substrate for plant growth... Wheew...
Wine makers are taking weird, unconventional methods of viticulture and wine making and following a strict biodynamic calendar of harvesting, planting and etc. because they believe it will help their vines and ultimately their finished wines. These methods are broken up into several preparations that all seem a bit odd and skeptical. Such examples include Preparation 500 where cow manure is buried into the soil for a period of time, dug back up and spread over the fields. Other examples include fermenting yarrow flowers in a deer's bladder or oak bark in a skull of a domestic animal and applying them to compost or spraying the vines with horsetail tea, according to the biodynamic calendar. Weird stuff you thought you'd see on Taboo, huh?
But what definitely has the world in shock and awe is that no matter how medieval, superstitious or unreasonable these methods seem, the winemakers (all notable and renown in the wine making world) are producing outstanding wine with biodynamie. These producers include Domaine de la Romanee Conti, Zind Humbrecht, Huet, Beaux Freres , and Benziger among numerous others. (For a list of more producers check out http://www.wineanorak.com/biodynamic3.htm) I think what really has people going is because there is almost no way to prove this advantage scientifically... They just seem to be better. Here's an excerpt from wineanorak.com that sums up the whole thing:
Despite these problems, proper studies have been carried out, and generally they seem to suggest that biodynamics really does work. In 1993, Reganold and colleagues compared the performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand, a report published in leading scientific journal Science. They found that the biodynamic farms had significantly higher soil quality, with more organic matter content and microbial activity. In 1995 Reganold published a review of the different studies that have examined biodynamics and have met basic standards for scientific credibility. The conclusion was that biodynamic systems had better soil quality, lower crop yields and equal or greater net returns per hectare than their conventional counterparts. But what could the mechanism be? A tantalizing clue is offered by some experiments carried out by a graduate student of Reganold’s, Lynne Carpenter-Boggs, on the effects of biodynamic preparations on compost development. In an experimental setting, biodynamically treated composts showed higher temperatures, faster maturation and more nitrate than composts that had received a placebo inoculation. Reganold is clearly impressed: ‘Of all the farm systems that I’ve seen, biodynamics is probably the most holistic.’
As I conclude I will state that biodynamie on vineyards does work... They seem to produce greater environments, grow superior grapes and make tastier wine. The hard thing to conclude is why does this all work? Ancient civilizations have planted, harvested and celebrated with the phases of the moon and the cosmos for centuries. Perhaps there is something there? Perhaps it is some sort of spiritual, holistic reason for this all to make sense. Or perhaps it's just with biodynamic procedures, wine makers are paying close attention. They are giving their land, their resources and their environment the attention it deserves; the close attention and observation that is needed to produce superior wine. That's something this world could never have too many of; devoted, passionate and dedicated wine makers who "listen" to their vineyards. For further research on Biodynamic wine I urge you to google up on the subject and be sure to check out http://www.wineanorak.com/biodynamic1.htm for a great resource on the subject.
I never really can justify a bottle of wine that cost more than $80 because, quite frankly, I can’t appreciate it yet. My palate, not to mention my wallet, does not have the “chops” it takes to distinguish these wines from my usual $15-$40 “school night” drinkers. But, while catching up on my WLTV episodes, Gary mentioned a wine that I thought maybe someday I could justify buying...
Gordon L. Holmes, a Wall Street publisher turned wine maker, and Lookout Ridge has gathered an amazing team of wine makers who are producing top-notch wines for a cause worth admiration: wheelchairs. That’s right, for every bottle of wine you buy from them, they donate the profits to Wine for Wheels, an organization that is dedicated to provide wheelchairs to people who can’t afford them.
Their dream-team cast of wine makers includes Andy Erickson, the wine maker at Screaming Eagle, Greg La Folette, from Tandem, Cathy Corison, Richard Arrowood, Aaron Pott, and so many more prestigious names.
The winery also delivers a personalized certificate with a photograph of the person your donation went to with the bottles of wine that you buy. Holmes realized the importance of having a wheelchair his wife developed a rare form of debilitating multiple sclerosis.
Here’s a bit from an article at Bloomberg.com that was written in Febuary that sums up the deal: By 2000, Holmes was planting vineyards and hired top winemaker Greg La Follette to help him make wine from purchased grapes. Four years later he met California real-estate developer and philanthropist Ken Behring, who started the Wheelchair Foundation. That chance encounter and his wife's situation inspired his Wine for Wheels effort.
``The first time we distributed wheelchairs, in Mexico, I saw how one could instantly change someone's life,'' he says. ``I picked up a little boy whose dad was wheeling him in a wheelbarrow and sat him in a wheelchair. The look on his face now that he could get around by himself -- wow.''
Holmes, a self-confessed Type A personality, manages his own investment portfolio and also publishes three online newsletters on precious metals and energy.
``My uranium stocks have gone up 1,000 percent since 2001,'' he says. He leverages his financial connections to promote Wine for Wheels. Next week, when he attends a mining conference in Toronto, he'll take wine. Not to make money, he says, but to get on the 25,000 attendees' charity lists.
The winemakers he approached for his project were quick to sign on. ``Within 20 minutes of talking to Gordon, I was in,'' Erickson tells me later. ``I've traveled in South America and Asia and seen people with no legs living in boxes, trying to get around on skateboards. My wife and I were looking for some way to give something back.''
That is the beauty of wine- it’s not hardcore capitalism, it’s not all about the finance and profits, numbers and figures. Wine is about passion, love and companionship. It’s good to see such a talented group of people not only give to their love of wine, but give back to the community. To these philanthropists, they aren’t just trying to make money; they are trying to give to people who deserve more. They are trying to give back dignity, independence and faith. To a winemaker, there could be no greater reward.
I know the packages are pricey, but take a look anyway: http://www.lookoutridge.com/lookoutridge/page/wine-for-wheels.jsp
As many winos may have heard in the news recently, an upcoming vote on the fate of Brunello di Montalcino drew to an end today, and I have the results, thanks to a subscription to vinowire... (You should get it, it's free!)If some readers don't know what I'm saying then let me give it to you in a nutshell:Brunello di Montalcino, a prestigous wine region in Italy, must be made of 100% sangiovese grapes. Around eight months ago, fake "Brunello" blends (read: not 100% sangiovese) were being sold as BdM- This was bad for Italy and bad for brunello. Some wine makers said they wanted to change strict, Italian DOC and DOCG wine laws to allow blends; this will help tailor the taste of BdM to foreign (read: majority American public) consumers who are not used to a power palate-boxer such as brunello.
So, here are the voting results:
Proposition 1- Are you in favor of changing the ampelographic (the study of identification and classification of grapevines) basis for Brunello di Montalcino? 662 voted NO, 30 voted YES
Proposition 2- Are you in favor of changing the ampelographic basis for Rosso di Montalcino? 540 voted NO, 162 voted YES
Proposition 3- Are you in favor of changing any other appellation rules? (yields, allowing the use of concentrated rectifiede must) 474 voted NO, 278 voted YES
Proposition 4- Are you in favor of grouping all appellations into a single "Montalcino" appellation? (Except for Sant' Antimo.) 684 voted NO, 6 voted YES
Proposition 5- Are you in favor of grouping all other appellations into a single "Montalcino" appellation? (Except for Brunello di Montalcino.) 572 voted NO, 118 voted YES
So as we may see in these results, it seems that wine makers stay proud and true to their traditions. Even though changing some of these DOC/DOCG laws may help business and harvest, the prestige of Bdm and all Montalcino's wine regions are more important than financial gain.
So next time some aristocratic, wannabe flaunts some expensive bottle at you, or you take a punch to the tongue from a truly bold and powerful brunello, thank the Italian wine makers; for keeping their class, sticking by their convictions and protecting traditions.
I just saw this news story on the NYT website and it sort of made me feel better about wine makers. So often do we forget that wine makers are grueling, working year round, night-and-day to deliver us such an awesome glass of wine. Credits always go to the critics or distributors or that LWS that finds the wine, but how often do you really think about how the wine maker feels? Please read on to discover a wine maker who was strongly disappointed when he found out how much his wine was being sold for! Make sure you read the last paragraph!
Cheers! -Tatum
A Winemaker Sees Red By Nick Fox
Not long after my recent column on Paso Robles zinfandels I got a phone call from Ehren Jordan, the winemaker for Turley Wine Cellars. A phone call from Ehren is always a pleasant prospect, as he is one of the more insightful and articulate winemakers around. But this time he was indignant.
The problem was not what I had said about his wine, which precedes the usual indignant winemaker communique. In fact, I had really liked the 2006 Turley Dusi Ranch zin, and had said so in print. No, the problem was the fact that we had said the bottle cost $115. As with all wine panel tastings, our coordinator, Bernard Kirsch, buys the bottles through retail sources, and $115 was the price of the wine at Morrell & Company, a high-end New York retailer in Rockefeller Center. Really high-end, in Ehren’s view.
You see, Turley wholesales the bottle for around $20 and the suggested retail is $40 or so. Now, Ehren is not naïve about how the wine market works. He understands that Turley zinfandels, especially the single vineyard wines, are in high demand. This means that retailers must often look beyond the distributors to obtain bottles, and the extra transactions along the way drive the price of the wine up. A lot of highly sought-after wines flow through this so-called gray market. Nonetheless, he didn’t like it.
“We pride ourselves on the fact that we try to sell wines reasonably,’’ Ehren said. “When I see it for $115, I think, that’s not what we intended. I don’t buy $115 bottles of wine. And the other side of it is, somebody just made a lot more money than we did, and we put all the time and energy into it.’’
I spoke with Nikos Antonakeas, the managing director at Morrell, to hear his explanation of the pricing. “It’s very simple,’’ he told me. “I bought it from a customer who is on the mailing list who sold it to me for $85. There was nothing else out there, and our customers demand it.’’
Typically, Nikos said, Morrell would get an allocation of two mixed cases — 24 bottles — of Turley’s single-vineyard zinfandels through Turley’s New York distributor, Michael Skurnik Wines. He said those bottles were sold at Morrell’s usual retail markup, which would mean about $45. Not surprisingly, those few bottles sell out very quickly.
“Unfortunately, we have 240 requests,’’ he said. “So I go to auctions, and private individuals. Some are on the mailing list and they just want to make a buck, and sometimes we say yes if we know the customer.’’ Demand drives the market, and for wines made in minute quantities the demand is overwhelming, and people for whom money is of little object are willing to pay a lot. It’s why a single bottle of 2005 Screaming Eagle can be found in a New York retail shop selling for $2,500, and why a bottle of Krug Clos d’Ambonnay is selling for $4,500. (By the way, if you think $4,500 is too much for a bottle of Champagne, you’ll be relieved to know I found it at another store for $1,000 less, which in fact was its suggested retail price.)
In that context maybe $115 is not too much to pay for a bottle of $40 zinfandel. On the other hand, maybe it is. After all, as Ehren pointed out, somebody’s making a lot of money, and it usually is not the producer.
“I know wineries that have raised their prices when they see stuff like that, and I wonder whether we should be making that money, but we just don’t want to go there,’’ Ehren said. “I think it also engenders the feeling that Turley is really expensive, and it’s really not true. Then they show up at the winery and it’s just a bunch of guys making wine, nothing fancy. That’s who we are.’’
He said the idea that people are buying his wine as an investment pained him. “Investment? We make the wine to drink,’’ he said. “It’s zinfandel, just drink it!’’
Here's something I read from a NYT article I thought was interesting. Enjoy! August 5, 2008 A trick using a copper penny can work for all sorts of sulfur-related ills. (Photo: David Zalubowski/Associated Press)
Sulfur By Eric Asimov My column in Wednesday’s newspaper is on some mouthwatering white wines from Greece, and in the course of our wine panel tasting I ran into a vexing problem that has taken me deeply and perplexingly into the realm of wine and sulfur chemistry. It began simply enough. As often happens, particularly when tasting a large number of white wines, especially those that are fermented and aged in steel tanks, I detected in several of the wines the aroma of burned matches. If I could offer a hyperlink to this aroma you would recognize it right away – that flinty smell after you strike a match and blow it out immediately. Often, but erroneously, that aroma is attributed to an excess of sulfur dioxide in the wine. Sulfur dioxide has for eons played an important role in both preventing the effects of oxidation and inhibiting microbial growth in wine. Judging by the scientific treatises I’ve buried myself in, that’s probably a gross oversimplification of the role of sulfur dioxide. Suffice it to say that, while a few great wines are made without the addition of sulfur dioxide, the chemical is almost universally used throughout the wine world. But, while the matchstick smell is related to sulfur, sulfur dioxide is not the guilty party. The issue came up because one of the wines we rejected due to the matchstick smell turned out to be the one Greek white that I have regularly enjoyed at home. In fact, I’ve mentioned it twice in posts, once in the spring, and once last summer. It’s the Thalassitis from Gaia, a white made from assyrtiko grapes grown on the island of Santorini. I’ve really enjoyed this wine. It’s got a floral and mineral character, with the faintest suggestion of honey, and it’s not only refreshing but interesting. I wondered why in the blind tasting I was turned off by it. One difference was significant – my two posts were about the 2006 Thalassitis, while the bottle in our tasting was the 2007. I knew I had a bottle of the 2007 at home, so one night shortly after the tasting I opened it. Again, the smell of struck matches. At the panel tasting, the smell had not dissipated after an hour of swirling and sniffing, so I decided to decant the wine. Often the smell disappears with exposure to air. But even after decanting and leaving the wine for 10 or 15 minutes, it was still there. Now, let’s be clear – the aroma is certainly not harmful. It’s simply off-putting. To understand why it occurs I checked in with Prof. Roger B. Boulton at the School of Viticulture and Enology at the University of California at Davis. Dr. Boulton explained that matchstick aromas are caused by thiols, sulfur compounds that can result from the yeast fermentation. When these aromas develop, he said, many winemakers try to solve it by aerating the wine after fermentation is complete. Instead, the aeration converts the thiols into disulfides, compounds that are heavier than thiols and more difficult to eliminate. In effect, the aeration simply buries the aroma in the wine. “You’ve converted something that was very volatile into something not so volatile,’’ Dr. Boulton told me. “You think you’ve gotten rid of it, but you haven’t gotten rid of it at all.’’ Strangely, the aroma thereafter surfaces periodically but unpredictably. Exposing the wine to air — by decanting, for example – can suppress the aroma enough to make the wine enjoyable, but it doesn’t eliminate it. Even with the aroma, the wine is palatable — some people aren’t bothered by it at all. “Once it’s in the disulfide form, you can’t treat it,’’ Dr. Boulton said. “The irony is that if a wine is aerated to get rid of it, it just makes it more difficult to get rid of.’’ While winemakers do not want the thiols to convert into disulfides, also known as mercaptans, it’s beyond this post to explore what can be done about it. Dr. Boulton suggests that winemakers treat the wine immediately with copper sulfate. Of course, that’s after the fact. A fermentation that does not produce thiols is the best solution – but apparently that’s easier said than done. For a more in-depth look at the chemistry issues, Jamie Goode, whose excellent wineanorak.com contains a wealth of information of all kinds, has written this essay. So what can the consumer do? Dr. Boulton says copper or silver can both help to eliminate the off aromas. The copper penny trick works for all sorts of sulfur-related ills, from the matchstick aroma to the rotten egg aroma, which is a completely different problem. You simply find a clean copper penny, which is not so easy anymore. Since 1982 (according to wikipedia.com) the American penny is 97.5 percent zinc, with a thin copper plating. Previously, the penny had been 95 percent copper. Simply swirl the penny, even the newer penny, in the wine and the sulfur effect should dissipate. Alternatively, you could carry a silver spoon around and use it to stir the offending wine. “If somebody sees you they might think you’re weird,’’ Dr. Boulton said, “but it will clear it up.’’ Read More!
To me, and probably most all of you out there as well, owning a vineyard is the biggest step you can take to becoming an oenophile, also known as a "wine enthusiast." Being the owner of a vineyard and making your own grapes not only requires massives amounts of cash, but also your life. You need to have time to moniter the vineyard, market it, make the wine, maintain the land. Basically, you can't get "a little" into owning a vinyard, it's all or nothing.
This brings me to a NY Times article on this very subject: people who have cash and passion for wine can now own their vineyard and have other people deal with the complexities of it. Basically, the London-Based firm called AIM Vineyards offers a service to give wealthy people a hassle-free way to get into wine and own their own plot of grape-growing land. I wish I could say I will ever be able to remotely afford something like this, so I am out of the picture, but I just want to know what something like this will do to the public perspective of wine making? Will we just have a whole bunch of rich people be able to "make" their own wine, and not know a thing about it?
As I have said many times, this summer I am venturing into the wine making process. Although I will not be buying out a vinyard and growing grapes, my main focus for this wine making is appreciation. I feel that if I get a hands on of making wine, I can learn more about the dedication and knowledge wine makers need to get a nice bottle of wine on our tables.
But I get discouraged when I see filthy rich people be able to just put down cash for all the gains. This could eliminate the passion, the strive for knowledge and the rite-of-passage from wine making itself. Wouldn't it be more satisfying to be able to say that you made your wine, not that you paid for your wine to be made? Isn't it more appealing to be able to explain why you initially fermented the wine three weeks instead of two? Why you used steel barrels instead of oak? All of the ins-and-outs that made wine making so romantic and so intriguing is now lost, because a wealthy chum can afford people to make his wine for him.
I guess what bothers me is the fact that if you do have money, you can do what you want. I can sit here and rant about how passionate about wine I am, how much I'm trying to learn, how much I gain from knowledge, but at the end of the day it doesn't seem to matter that much, because if I just had $20 million dollars, I can own a vinyard and get people to do that for me.
On the other hand, that is what determines me to make it through. My professional career is still a few years away, but wine is now. Hopefully I can work at a wine store and gain knowledge, and a deeper passion and appreciation for the wine I drink. I hope that my deep passion and enthusiasm of wine will help me to stride forth into the trade of wine, and show everyone that sometimes passion, knowledge and dedication is more than cash, investments and salary. Cheers!
Should the drinking age be lowered to 18? Europeans do it, why can't we?
These arguments are heard throughout the country all the time by people my age; the controversy of what the drinking age should be. Is 21 too old to wait? Some people might think it's unfair to ask for alcoholic abstinence for two decades of life. Kids my age argue all the time that "if Europeans can do it, we can too. What's wrong with letting us drink wine with our meals? If we can send someone off to war at 18, why can't we drink." Right? We can be just like the Europeans... Or can we? Can us Americans, with our overly moralistic view of society, introduce wine at the dinner table to our children?
Eric Asimov, a New York Times writer, sure thinks this is possible. He writes that if parents introduce wine to children as something to be passionate about, and not just merely alcohol, we will see that drinking becomes part of life and culture. He states that kids will drink because it is part of a meal and of celebration, not to get inebriated in college.
Due to my bias on the issue, I won't comment anything, but I just wanted to share with everyone this very interesting, yet controversial, article that was published only five days ago in the New York Times.
The link is here, and it is titled "Can Sips at Home Prevent Binges?" Enjoy, and tell me what you think! Cheers!
Since a decanter opens up wine, my DeRanter is a place where I will try to "decant" my thoughts, words and interest and let it open up to the world.
Through this medium, I will share my opinions, knowledge and convictions about the wine world and the world of information technology, Web. 2.0 and how it affects our wine culture. I will also be dedicated to local wine events in my area, and hopefully can provide insight into Maryland and Virginia's dedication and passion to wine.
I hope you find something interesting, whether it is my experience and opinion or some wine-related news, and keep coming back for more.
Cheers to you! -Tatum
DeRant It My Way!
Please tell me what you think! Email complaints, comments, concerns or questions to:
