Home /
-->
And Now, it’s Procyanidins!
So, we’ve just gotten past the resveratrol craze and realized we’d have to drink enough wine to kill us to get the benefit 
(although now they say it might also help to prevent strokes–stay tuned). And now it’s procyanidins, which apparently are condensed tannins found in red wine that are thought to be beneficial to blood vessels and arteries. So, it’s back to the old polyphenol story, which is also the resveratrol story, which is also the French Paradox story. It seems it’s all about anti-oxidants.
Yippee! We can add this very positive piece of news to the growing heap of data about the potential benefits of drinking a little red wine every day. Even if a bunch of studies come out to contest the efficasy of procyanidins next week, it’s great publicity.
Now, this stuff, I just love: “Wines richest in these tannins had the greatest protective effect on the cells and were from regions – Sardinia and southwest France – that use Old World winemaking techniques.” This, according to a story in WebMD (and everywhere!) regarding a study done at the William Harvey Research Institute at the Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry in England.
I’m not questioning the results of the research, which found these wines to have significantly higher levels of procyanidins than the other wines they tested. It’s just that these generalizations kind of annoy me. The thing is, with global communication, you can find old-world and high-tech winemaking happening side-by-side in virtually any wine-producing region in the world these days.
Another article on the subject said that there’s an unusually high percentage of centenarians in Madiran, a wine-producing region in southwestern France. Perhaps that explains the old-world approach to winemaking? Presumably their longevity is a testament to drinking lots of dark, tannic Madiran wine.
So, now the poor retailers have to scramble to track down and stock the formerly somewhat obscure wines of Madiran and reds from Sardinia, just as health-food stores are struggling to keep resveratrol supplements on the shelves.
Anyway, I suspect this has more to do with the grape varieties used, and less with the winemaking techniques. There was a reference to 21-day skin contact times in Madiran winemaking. Well, that’s not unusual for a good Napa Valley Cab, though it may be lower in procyanidins even so. I don’t know.
Then, finally, they mention that the red grape variety of choice in Madiran is Tannat, a variety almost unique to southwest France. According to Jancis Robinson, “Young Tannat can be so deeply coloured and tannic that it recalls Nebbiolo.” Hmmm. I wonder if they did any tests on Barolo?
Whatever… Of course, we all like to hear good news about the benefits of drinking red wine. As the article said: “Several studies have shown that moderate drinkers of red wine have less heart disease than non-drinkers” and, if true, it’s good for for all of us, producers and consumers. As much as has been written about polyphenols, you begin to think there might be something to it. Even if reports on what’s good or bad for us change as often the weather.
Me, I drink wine, whatever its color, because I like it. But the message is clear: whatever else you consume, be sure and drink a glass or two of red wine a day. It could be good for our health, and we KNOW it enhances our lives and, of course, our sense of well-being! Bottoms up!
“Great Wine” by the Numbers?
I was thinking about an interview I did with my friend Jeff Booth, of Pepi-Booth Consulting (they consult for Goosecross and have clients as far away as China!). It was for an upcoming episode on our podcast, Napa Valley Wine Radio, and one of the questions I asked him was if he thought the day would ever come when great wine could be made in a lab. He didn’t exactly answer my question; he just replied with “That would be a drag” and went on to talk about the joys of working with nature and how formulaic winemaking would take all the fun and surprise out of it.
I suspect he was probably sidestepping the issue because he didn’t want to get into talking about things like the techniques used by a company called Enologix – that’s fodder for a whole episode of its own! I read about them awhile back, and it’s pretty interesting stuff. They use software developed in-house to measure things far beyond the usual sugar, acid, pH and alcohol in a quest to match the profile of wines that get 100 point scores from Parker or the Wine Spectator. And tasting? How quaint. Why bother? It appears to be all about the numbers. The owner of Enologix, Leo McCloskey, says he’s identified about 100 chemical compounds that can affect our perception and uses them to compute a “quality index” for the wine. It kind of boils down to analyzing wines that have received the high scores for their chemical breakdown and then advising winemakers regarding when to pick, when to press, etc, based upon his analysis in order to create a wine of similar structure. He claims that winemakers can improve their scores by 5-6 points in one year by using his system. Evidently, he can even take a vineyard that’s naturally disposed to produce a restrained style and can time the pressing and blend in order to produce that unctuous, 99-point style that’s currently in vogue. His market is mainly high-end Cabs.
Who wouldn’t want 99 points? You can’t blame a businessman for trying to make a product that sells. As long as there’s been commercial winemaking there’s been that push and pull between the drive to bottle a unique artistic expression and keeping food on the table. But you’ve got to have a killer vineyard to even begin approaching these scores (I don’t think they’ve figured out a way to fake the fruit yet – stay tuned). It may be an antiquated concept, but would that vineyard make more interesting wine if the winemaker simply attuned himself to it by walking it frequently and making harvest decisions by tasting as well as testing? And used the same approach to winemaking? One of McCloskey’s clients referred to “babysitting the fermentation tank”. Well, conscientious winemakers should be doing that anyway.
And how does that producer feel if he’s made a wine of distinction that languishes on the shelf because it got an 87 from the Wine Spectator? Wine as art/wine as business. What a dilemma!
Critics of McCloskey and proponents of terroir say his methods erase the sense of place and the charming quirkiness that has been inherent to wine. The objection is that they offer us only one style: the highly extracted, so-called fruit-bombs and that we may as well make a box of Cheerios if we’re going to go by the numbers. I think McCloskey would probably say that he’s giving his clients and their customers what they want.
I just keep wondering if the industry and we, as consumers, are going through a phase. Last night I had a glass of Dolcetto with my pasta and it was 14% alcohol (no, it wasn’t a 2003). That can’t be the historic norm for Dolcetto. Sure, I enjoyed it, and it still had that nice little zing of acid you expect, but it’s kind of too bad when a producer in Piemonte feels he has to mimic the California style in order to survive. I’m waiting for the backlash when we all get tired of the huge reds just the way we got tired of fat, over-oaked, overwrought Chardonnays.
If we do, operations like McCloskey’s can simply adjust their parameters. Science marches on. And science has done a whole lot to improve wine over the years. But I think I agree with my buddy, Jeff. If I want a glass of white Burgundy, I want that unmistakable minerality, bright acidity and hint of soy you don’t find in most Napa Valley Chardonnays. If I’m in the mood for a glass of Napa Valley Cab, I want the ripe, luscious black fruit that isn’t (or wasn’t) so evident in a typical Bordeaux equivalent. It would truly be a drag if science and globalization blur the lines beyond recognition.
To read about a great man who was diametrically opposed to Enologix in his approach to winemaking, and still managed to make rich, satisfying wine that also reflects the local terroir, read about Henri Jayer, may he rest in peace.
Another Year, Another Harvest…
The feeling is anything but that. No matter how many harvests I witness, there’s nothing like the feeling when that first box of jewel-like grape clusters arrives at the winery. It still makes my heart race and tears spring to my eyes. Don’t know why. But I’d venture to guess that most true, hands-on winemakers feel the same way (actually, maybe they’re crying in anticipation of all the weeks of 24/7 work ahead rather than out of sentiment!). The vintage doesn’t start with the crush. A whole lot of their time and effort over most of the past year has been toward the goal of producing a great next vintage. Of course, they’ve got to take care of the wines they made last crush, but the next vintage starts calling pretty soon after the last one was put to bed in barrels.
At least for a small producer like Goosecross, the Winemaker is also the Vineyard Manager, and he gets really up-close and personal with the crop. He’s been walking the vine rows repeatedly, starting last winter with pruning, and then on to cultivating, shoot thinning, cluster thinning, checking for nutrient deficiencies and pest problems, more thinning, and he’s still walking now, checking the sugar and acid, tasting. He has a relationship with those vines.
And harvest is his one chance the whole year to get it right. You know if you make beer, or almost anything else, you can order the ingredients and get into production when it’s convenient. Not wine. When the grapes are ready, you’d better be in the mood! He needs to make the right decisions every step of the way from fresh grapes to wine and it all happens rather quickly. Once the wine is made, its basic character is pretty much formed and the goal is to sculpt and hone – not to do damage control.
We’ve started with a bang this year! 71/2 tons of Sauvignon Blanc Tuesday the 12th, 8 tons more on Wednesday, Chenin Blanc on Thursday and Cabernet from Howell Mountain on Friday! Literally, tons of work! We’ve got a play-by-play of the Goosecross crush if you check our Harvest Calendar, which is updated regularly. I think you’ll be surprised to see how quickly grape juice converts to wine, which is why it’s 24/7, and leads to the key phrase for surviving the crush: “Stock up. It takes a whole lot of beer to make good wine!”
Zinfandel is not our state historic wine??!!
Well, I’d just put the finishing touches on our Winemaker Notes for our State Lane Zinfandel and was crowing about Zinfandel being named our state historic wine and the governator pulled the plug! Seems he didn’t want to show favoritism toward any one variety.
I think he missed the point. We’re talkin’ history, here. In the first wine-boom in California’s history in the 1880s, Cabernet and Chardonnay weren’t it. They were planted here, but Zinfandel was by far, BY FAR the most widely planted grape variety in the state and also here in Napa Valley. Aside from Zin, you probably wouldn’t recognize a lot of the most popular grapes of that day like Mission or Palomino. But Zin is the one that came roaring back after repeal of prohibition while those other formerly popular varieties faded into obscurity. It’s one of the most widely planted varieties in the state. I think it has something to do with the combination of being adaptable and yummy (they used to eat Zin like table grapes).
No, I’m not a spokesperson for ZAP! I know a lot of people think that this was all a publicity ploy on their part, and maybe so. But they’re certainly right that Zin has played a key part in California’s wine history. Whether or not we need official state recognition is another question, but I don’t see why it was necessary to veto such an affectionate little bill. As state Senator Carole Migden said, “Here was at least one thing that Democrats and Republicans came together over – wine!” Bully to that!
