Napa Growers Up in Arms

[Rebel Rose]

Napa grape growers are complaining that Napa wineries are picking later and later, sometimes at 30 Brix, and the raisined condition of the grapes causes financially debilitating losses to growers.

St. Helena Star article

Beckstoffer -- whose sole motivation, some say, is the loss of revenues that he says he has incurred due to the hang time issue -- insists that he's not looking to pick a fight with vintners and winemakers.

This isn't the most recent article on this controversy, but I think Alan Goldfarb's piece does the best job of explaining the issues involved, including some of the farming math.

However, it is interesting that Beckstoffer called for a summit at the same time that regulations governing the addition of water to fermenting grape must* may increase the amount of water allowed.

Recent articles in industry publications that covered this meeting are not available online, which is too bad, because apparently the meeting got a little hot. In essence, growers are accusing wineries of forcing them to harvest late in order to raisin the grapes, thereby reducing the weight of the crop and the payout to the growers. Growers claim that vintners then add water back to the must and use spinning cones to reduce the alcohol.

Additionally, Beckstoffer believes that longer hang time is sapping the strength and energy of his vines and making them susceptible to disease.

Now this little piece of non-logic has been solidly scoffed at by vintners and non-Napa growers alike. During the raisining stage the grape--and by extension the vine--is simply maturing its seed. Under this logic, all perennials that develop mature seed would wither and die of sexual excess.

Thoughts, anyone?

(* must = crushed grapes. Red winegrapes are slightly crushed, then inoculated with yeast and fermented with the skins and seeds.)

[Rebel Rose]

We had a lively discussion about this in the Dover Canyon tasting room this Memorial Weekend. Several local growers and a winemaker stopped in on Sunday, so the topic came up.

The consensus is that the whole idea is unscientific hogwash. The local growers were shaking their heads over the fact that Napa growers would even call a summit about it and talk to the press about their goofy idea.

First of all, it's ludicrous to claim that raisining compromises the health of the vines. After all, vineyards often throw second and even third crops--not separate cycles, just late-forming clusters that are smaller and ripen later. Second crops are sometimes sparse or the clusters so small that they're not worth the labor of harvesting, so they're left on the vine. They raisin and dry up and are pruned away with the canes in February. Vines also 'shut down' in the fall at the same time that other deciduous trees and plants do. Their leaves color and drop, the sap stops flowing, and the canes become brittle. Daylight hours are the primary factor, and the vines begin to go dormant on their own schedule, whether or not the fruit was picked. And if raisining is so unhealthy, then where do raisins come from?

The second argument, that vintners want high sugar, low weight grapes, is just, well, fruity! If you buy raisins for wine production, you end up with raisin wine. Period. You can add water and remove the alcohol, but you can't backtrack to the flavors and balance that a winegrape should have at its peak. You can flow the wine over copper to brighten it, you can fine it with bentonite or egg whites or dried sturgeon bladder, but you are still going to have raisin wine. Yuck.

Are Napa vintners and growers so alienated from each other that growers don't have any idea about how their grapes are processed and why quality benchmarks are so important?

In Paso Robles we have a Quality Alliance that sponsors regular blind tastings for vintners and growers. We focus on a single varietal at each tasting, and we're looking not only for examples of really good, benchmark wines, but wines with a distinctive Paso profile. Growers and vintners are encouraged to talk about their production--what worked, what didn't, what they might do differently next time. Some wineries have annual grower barbecues and the vintner takes his growers through the cellar to barrel sample from different vineyards and vintages, explaining the why's and wherefore's of what works and what doesn't. I know wineries in other areas also try to foster good communication and relationships with their growers. And actually, the responsibility for learning about wine quality falls on the grower. They should be as attentive to a winemaker's standards and needs as suppliers of corks, glass, and barrels are.

[Smithy]

Thanks for that report and the followup, Rebel Rose. It makes for interesting reading, although out here I don't anyone (other than other eG'ers) with whom I could converse about it. I think it's terrific that the growers and vintners in your area are getting together and communicating so well, thereby enhancing the community knowledge.

As a tangential comment, I'll note that I've been amazed over the last few years at the relative cost of consumables vs. durables. Somewhere around in these threads there are prices being bandied about of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars per ton of grapes. Did you know that a ton of iron ore, processed to make it acceptable to the older blast furnaces, runs around $30 per ton? A ton of pure iron, upgraded enough to be acceptable to the newer mini-mills that also recycle steel, runs more along the lines of $100/ton. I'm not sure what scrap steel is going for these days. A few years ago when I brought this up, it was because Selma raisins ran slightly higher than a ton of good steel. When I commented on that to friends and family, I got a big "so what?" I couldn't explain then, and still can't now, why that boggles me. I think, at heart, it has to do with the fact that something as ephemeral as food could cost so much more than something as sturdy as iron. (I leave the precious metals, and cost of turning iron into something else, and cost of turning the raw food into something, else, completely out of this equation. I'm talking about the cost of the raw materials produced, within an admittedly narrow scope of materials with which I'm familiar.)

OK, back to the main event...

[Rebel Rose]

In latest industry news, Napa growers, led by Andy Beckstoffer, hired the new Internet research firm Wine Opinions (www.wineopinions.com) to conduct a detailed national survey of 307 regular wine drinkers (those who drink wine on at least one occasion per week) and to analyze their responses and wine-purchasing behavior. The goal of the study is to see whether consumers actually prefer the kinds of flavors and ripeness achieved through longer hang time.

The results were presented May 12 at a "Hangtime II" seminar in St. Helena. Christian Miller of Wine Opinions says that while winemakers and others in the wine trade may conceive of wine tastes in a linear fashion--with austere, low alcohol wines at one end and full-flavored, tannic jammy wines at the other end of the spectrum--the survey is showing that the wine consumer doesn't look at their taste preferences that way.

(The survey has only 307 participants, which I think is rather low. Heck, our private wine club has xxx that number.)

For the rest of the details, they want $295.

[JohnL]

Gee wine made according to a survey!

I can't wait.

I had the pleasure of attending a tasting led by Olivier Humbrecht of Zind Humbrecht producer of some of the world's finest white wines.

The issue of "hang time" came up--ZH produces Riesling so picking times are critical.

(Mr Humbrecht has a degree in enology and a master of wine certification as well as a long family history).

He replied that the best time to harvest the grapes "was when the birds begin to eat them!"

[Rebel Rose]

The Napa hang time debate continues . . .

Harvest's over, let the grape 'hang time' debate begin

For those of you interested in the ABV controversy mentioned in other threads, this would be a good article to read and question.

For what it's worth, I'd like to point out that while higher ABV may be a problem in Napa and in many popular and/or cult wines, it is not necessarily, as we've discussed elsewhere, a universal trend. And I agree with Kenworthy that the wine fashion pendulum will likely swing in the other direction soon.

Jim Gilmore, executive director of the North Coast Grape Growers, estimates that growers may lose about 30 percent of their tonnage when grapes are picked at 27 brix, versus 24 brix.

Gilmore said the dehydration issue is just one of many obstacles that threaten growers financially. According to a University of California, Davis report he referred to, 16 percent of North Coast wineries did not break even last year. "Wineries need to understand the consequences of driving out scores of independent growers that are willing to do the kind of careful, hand-crafted viticultural and farming practices that it takes to produce the kind of fruit we produce here," Gilmore said.

I have a couple of reservations about these comments. First, harvesting at 27 brix means the raisined grapes will hydrate in the must to at least 28, resulting in an alcohol of 16-17%. Are there really that many wines out there at that level? Higher alcohols tend to "cook" wines meant for cellaring, resulting in caramelized flavors after just a few years of aging. (Our zins are usually 14-15.5%, and we tell customers not to cellar them past seven years from vintage. ) At the prices people spend for Napa wines, I would be surprised if there were really that many cabs successfully moving at that ABV. I could be very wrong, however!

Second, the fact that 16% of North Coast wineries did not break even does not necessarily have anything to do with forced hang time. Vineyard fruit may be turned away for low pH, or any number of other factors! And if it's so friggin' hard for Napa growers to sell their grapes, then why are 80% of the grapes sold in Paso Robles going to Napa and Sonoma?

[Vinfidel]

Higher alcohols tend to "cook" wines meant for cellaring, resulting in caramelized flavors after just a few years of aging.

most wines made and sold in the USA today are for immediate drinking so the cellaring issue is really a non issue

how many wines out there are really 16-17% ABV? certainly not the most popular ones

the problem being discussed has nothing to do with ABV or hang time but more about the silly policy of paying grower by the ton

[melkor]

I have a couple of reservations about these comments.  First, harvesting at 27 brix means the raisined grapes will hydrate in the must to at least 28, resulting in an alcohol of 16-17%.  Are there really that many wines out there at that level?  Higher alcohols tend to "cook" wines meant for cellaring, resulting in caramelized flavors after just a few years of aging.  (Our zins are usually 14-15.5%, and we tell customers not to cellar them past seven years from vintage. ) At the prices people spend for Napa wines, I would be surprised if there were really that many cabs successfully moving at that ABV.  I could be very wrong, however!

←

28 brix will net somewhere around 16 or 17% alcohol on its own (with the right yeast of course), but reverse-osmosis and the addition of 'jesus units' and other wine making tricks can bring that level down to the 14.5%-15.5% range that these wines are bottled at. Winemakers think that super ripe grapes will get them thee top scores from Parker and the Spectator so that's what they are doing. The general trend in California seems to be moving farther away from age worthy wines while focusing on instant gratification. There isn't anything wrong with that, especially with the more heavily allocated wines being sold mostly for on premise consumption rather than to wine shops where they are likely to be consumed less than a year after release.

I'd also argue that higher alcohol levels don't prevent a wine from being age worthy, look at the wines that are made in the Rhone during ripe vintages; Janasse, Pegau, Avril, Vieux Telegraphe, etc - all over 14% alcohol, all of their better cuvees need a decade or more of rest in the cellar before they reach their peak.

[JohnL]

I have a couple of reservations about these comments.  First, harvesting at 27 brix means the raisined grapes will hydrate in the must to at least 28, resulting in an alcohol of 16-17%.  Are there really that many wines out there at that level?  Higher alcohols tend to "cook" wines meant for cellaring, resulting in caramelized flavors after just a few years of aging.  (Our zins are usually 14-15.5%, and we tell customers not to cellar them past seven years from vintage. ) At the prices people spend for Napa wines, I would be surprised if there were really that many cabs successfully moving at that ABV.  I could be very wrong, however!

←

28 brix will net somewhere around 16 or 17% alcohol on its own (with the right yeast of course), but reverse-osmosis and the addition of 'jesus units' and other wine making tricks can bring that level down to the 14.5%-15.5% range that these wines are bottled at. Winemakers think that super ripe grapes will get them thee top scores from Parker and the Spectator so that's what they are doing. The general trend in California seems to be moving farther away from age worthy wines while focusing on instant gratification. There isn't anything wrong with that, especially with the more heavily allocated wines being sold mostly for on premise consumption rather than to wine shops where they are likely to be consumed less than a year after release.

I'd also argue that higher alcohol levels don't prevent a wine from being age worthy, look at the wines that are made in the Rhone during ripe vintages; Janasse, Pegau, Avril, Vieux Telegraphe, etc - all over 14% alcohol, all of their better cuvees need a decade or more of rest in the cellar before they reach their peak.

←

Dave,

good points re: Rhone wines alcohol and age worthiness.

I believe the jury is out on this issue as it relates to California wines. I have always believed that most fine California Cabs etc are best at an earlier age before they start to lose fruit. That fruit is just so damn good--and the secondary aromas via age etc have never --at least to me--delivered what Bordeaux can in that area.

what I would be interested to know is who those winemakers are, specifically, who believe that hang time is all--ripe fruit is one thing but over ripe is another.

I have tasted a lot of "cult" wines (big scores etc) and generally, have never found them to be overly alcoholic or over ripe on the palate.

(Colgin, Screaming Eagle, Harlan, Shaffer Hillside etc) throw in Mondavi and Beringer PR's and Pride as well.

These all have ripe fruit and are distinctive but I wouldn't call em over ripe or too big or alcoholic.

Of course, a wine can have high alcohol levels but a lot of other componants can mask that (or balance it).

I do believe that some Zinfandels and Pinot Noirs are considered "cult" wines do often have loads of alcohol and super ripeness. (some Turley and Martinelli efforts for eg).

[melkor]

I've had several California wines from the 70s and 80s in the past year that have been very good, I'm not saying they can't age - more that they generally aren't aged. There are a lot of good wines made in California, I'd bet that a fair number of these cult wines are picked around 28 brix and the must is dealt with accordingly to prevent the wine from ending up at 17% ABV while producing that bright fruit that makes people buy Napa cabs.

[Rebel Rose]

True, other factors will affect or support longevity in a wine.

Here's a discussion we had previously (my private rant, mainly):

pHat Wines, EnupH is enupH!

on pH and acidity and how they can detract or support longevity of fruit.

This post explains in some detail what one can expect from different pH levels.

[melkor]

Good wine needs to be in balance, acidity is a critical component but hardly the entire story. There are delicious age worthy reds with low acidity and high acidity, the same is true of whites. A crisp acidic vinho verde, or NZ sauv blanc won't age at all yet a lush white burgundy will age for decades. Beaujolais nouveau is plenty acidic, more so than most vintage ports yet 6 months after release the nouveau will be awful and the port will have another 30 years before it hits its stride. Acidic whites are in general better able to age, german riesling, and the sweet wines of the loire are prime examples of that. Reds on the other hand, I think tannin does the lions share of the work. That isn't to say any tannic red will age gracefully, but a high acid red with little tannin will end up thin and sloppy in old age.

[Rebel Rose]

Gilmore said the dehydration issue is just one of many obstacles that threaten growers financially. According to a University of California, Davis report he referred to, 16 percent of North Coast wineries did not break even last year.

It seems Mr. Gilmore was unhappy with the Napa Valley Register quoting him incorrectly, and he sets the issue straight in a letter to Wine Business Monthly (which provided a link to the original article):

I did not tell the reporter who interviewed me that “growers may lose about 30 percent of their tonnage . . . at 27 Brix versus 24 Brix”.  What I said was that some growers have asserted that they lose as much as 30 percent, but that we have no science to support losses of that magnitude. 

I was later quoted as saying that a University of California, Davis report stated that 16 percent of North Coast wineries did not break even last year.  What I actually told the interviewer was that if vineyard operating costs set forth by a 2004 UC Davis study are accurate, as much as 16 percent of the total 2004 tonnage for major varieties (more than 100 tons sold) in Napa County may not have sold for enough to earn the cost of farming the grapes, and that the percentage was much worse in the rest of the North Coast. As far as I can tell, wineries may have their troubles but all in all they are doing a lot better than growers.

So, once again, growers are claiming that it's all the wineries' fault they can't sell their grapes, but they don't have any science to support the "forced dehydration" issue. I spoke with another winemaker just last night who affirmed that while the media is talking up a "great" vintage this year, there were a lot of vineyards out there this year with pH levels so low they couldn't even give the fruit away.