Terry Theise and yeasts

O

Oswaldo Costa

Oswaldo Costa
Am reading Terry Theise's reading between the wines. Starts very well, he certainly has the gift of rhetoric, but I just ran into a section defending cultured yeasts (pp. 41-2). He calls yeasts a minor issue and there is no mention of sulfites used to kill the natives, an issue that seems to me inseparable.
 
maybe because his is a view centered in Germany?
I'll admit that some significant wines have been produced there with the assistance of cultured yeasts.
Hey, riesling can take all sorts of abuse.
 
He's also not a big fan of the back-and-forth about "the only right way to make wine." While a staunch proponent of wines that speak to their origin, he is open to the varied ways that can be accomplished.
 
Indeed, and I find myself agreeing with just about everything he is saying, so I was all the more surprised at that one big difference of opinion. It is not so much that, from the comfort of my armchair, I don't like the idea of innoculation (though I don't); my main objection is to the SO2 used to kill the native yeasts in order to clear the way for an effective, interference-free innoculation. The two issues seem inseparable, yet he defends cultured yeasts as if the issue existed in a vacuum, and any claim of terroir could survive under such conditions.
 
I'm not going to try to defend an element of a discussion that is not part of the book (let's face it - the volume is quite short, and not nearly encyclopedic on any subject), but I guess I would have to wonder if when I trucked my grapes from Norheim to Oberhausen (a very short drive), which yeasts would dominate a "native" fermentation. My guess is all the stuff around the winery in Oberhausen would overwhelm everything else, but that's a pure guess (note that Donnhoff is mostly - if not exclusively - "native" yeasts IIRC).

This could be a very enjoyable (if potentially circular) conversation over a few glasses of Riesling.
 
it's a very good point, but of course it does not address Oswaldo's main complaint.

.sasha (who remembers the shock of first encounter with JF Coche's "Puligny"... sure this is not another Meursault?....you gotta taste it...oh, yeah, doesn't taste like Meursault, but sure smells like one)
 
Since I'm in full agreement with Theise (and, I guess to his dismay, Texier) on the "there's not just the one way to make great wine" argument, I don't view the defense of yeasting negatively at all. Further, there are very good and sensible arguments about how much "native" yeast is actually not just your neighbor's inoculation being replicated in your house. Not settled arguments, but arguments. Like Theise, I've had way too much brilliant and yeasted wine to be doctrinaire on this issue. What I've come to think is that I like the pressure -- the "movement," if you will -- to not inoculate, as I like anything that forces people to examine their choices and the reasons they're making them. And if no one did, maybe in a few decades we'd actually see what true native ferments would do.

I think the eagerness to rush forward into an inoculation is representative of an overall philosophy of control, which I think manifests itself in ways other than inoculation and will mark the wine in fshions more significant than the yeast will. I think, though, that the German yeasting is more just rote than it is a philosophical stand. And -- I think I've blogged about this -- we're now talking about the difference between "traditional" wine as it is usually held in positive comparison to "modern" wine, and "natural" wine, which is a whole new beastie.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Indeed, and I find myself agreeing with just about everything he is saying, so I was all the more surprised at that one big difference of opinion. It is not so much that, from the comfort of my armchair, I don't like the idea of innoculation (though I don't); my main objection is to the SO2 used to kill the native yeasts in order to clear the way for an effective, interference-free innoculation. The two issues seem inseparable, yet he defends cultured yeasts as if the issue existed in a vacuum, and any claim of terroir could survive under such conditions.
Click to expand...

What is your problem with SO2? Also, are you saying terroir can't be expressed without native yeast?
 
Christian, my problem with SO2 (at fermentation, not bottling) is that it is used to kill ambient yeasts to clear the field for innoculants. But if the innoculants were to be all native, my argument against them would weaken. And that is already answering your second question: terroir as I see it cannot be expressed without native yeasts. It is part of a chain that includes an agricultural regimen that fosters them. In practice, there might be descendants of innoculants hanging around (if they were ever used) but at least the winemaker is trying to be reflective of the place to the best of his ability, and not out for some pre-conceived result.

I remember Luca Roagna showing me the field next to his house (I think it was Paj) and saying that he cultivates the yeasts there and innoculates them into his Paj in years when it's necessary. Hard to argue that this would negate anyone's concept of terroir, though it might violate some purist's idea of reflecting the vintage.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Christian, my problem with SO2 (at fermentation, not bottling) is that it is used to kill ambient yeasts to clear the field for innoculants.
Click to expand...

What if not all ambient creatures are positive in their contributions.?

Note: I am not pro either side, as I like wines from both native and innoculated yeasts.
 
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Christian, my problem with SO2 (at fermentation, not bottling) is that it is used to kill ambient yeasts to clear the field for innoculants.
Click to expand...

This presumes that all ambient creatures are positive in their contributions.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily; many "natural" winemakers accept that taking the bad with the good is built into their choice. Sorry, caught you before you made the edit.

There are delicious wines made with innoculated yeasts, no doubt. But if one's grail is delicious AND fully reflective of place (which is interjecting an ideological layer), then I think the yeasts should be ambient, or, at most, the innoculants of local origin, without intent to mask/change, etc.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
terroir as I see it cannot be expressed without native yeasts.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. Most people agree that German Rieslings are among those wines that are the most expressive of terroir. But for a very long time, the vast, vast majority of German wines have been made with inoculated yeasts, and it is only recently that there has been a movement back to spontaneous yeasts (still only embraced by a minority). Does this mean that you deny that most German wines that we all (well, some of us, anyway) know and love have been expressive of terroir? If so, what were they expressing?

Also, some producers today will start with native yeasts, but if they don't go far enough (the world of high sugars is not easy for yeasts to deal with), will add yeasts to allow achievement of the desired result. Do these wines express terroir? Oh, and what about wines were fermentation is stopped before the yeasts have finished their task?
 
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Christian, my problem with SO2 (at fermentation, not bottling) is that it is used to kill ambient yeasts to clear the field for innoculants.
Click to expand...

What if not all ambient creatures are positive in their contributions.?
Click to expand...

a thought, not necessarily an argument: the two estates that in my experience have the most consistent record for capturing the purest essence of clean, unadulaterated riesling fruit in their wines (reinhold haardt and donnhoff) both prefer to use native yeasts. over a very long period, haardt in particular has consistently made cleaner, purer wines than anyone else i can think of. if inoculation was all about striving for cleanliness and consistency, and avoiding any negative ambient critters, why do the inoculators* wines tend to be either bland, or inconsistent, or else sulphuric shitbombs in their youth (i say, "either," but i'm sure there is stuff out there that manages the trifecta)?

fb.

* by which i mean -- since both haardt and donnhoff inoculate when musts need -- those people who preach inoculation.
 
In a custom crush facility with over 18 different clients, I have seen a "house" yeast develop that is so strong that, even if cold soaks are treated with 20 ppm SO2 and kept in a cold room, the must will start fermenting after several days.
This year, I saw a tank in cold soak that was laced with dry-ice twice daily and the glycol jacket set at 50 degrees go off on the third day. (One assumes that the jacket had effect only so far into the tank.)

David's point about winery yeasts is not to be taken lightly.
Sometimes, fermenting native is not anything even remotely native.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by fatboy:


a thought, not necessarily an argument: the two estates that in my experience have the most consistent record for capturing the purest essence of clean, unadulaterated riesling fruit in their wines (reinhold haardt and donnhoff) both prefer to use native yeasts. over a very long period, haardt in particular has consistently made cleaner, purer wines than anyone else i can think of. if innoculation was all about striving for cleanliness and consistency, and avoiding any negative ambient critters, why do the innoculators wines tend to be either bland, or inconsistent, or else sulphuric shitbombs in their youth (i say, "either," but i'm sure there is stuff out there that manages the trifecta)?

fb.
Click to expand...
So can you distinguish the wines from Haart (no "d") and Dnnhoff that were made with inoculated yeasts from those that weren't? If, not, doesn't that disprove your thought?
 
Agreed on Haart and Donnhoff.

Not a lot of estates willing to advertise their use of controlled yeasts these days, so any list of such would invariably be innacurate. Not all Selbach wines are native yeast (or at least recently all were not), and they have been turning out fantastic collections (as opposed to isolated wines) for several years now.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by fatboy:


a thought, not necessarily an argument: the two estates that in my experience have the most consistent record for capturing the purest essence of clean, unadulaterated riesling fruit in their wines (reinhold haardt and donnhoff) both prefer to use native yeasts. over a very long period, haardt in particular has consistently made cleaner, purer wines than anyone else i can think of. if innoculation was all about striving for cleanliness and consistency, and avoiding any negative ambient critters, why do the innoculators wines tend to be either bland, or inconsistent, or else sulphuric shitbombs in their youth (i say, "either," but i'm sure there is stuff out there that manages the trifecta)?

fb.
Click to expand...
So can you distinguish the wines from Haart (no "d") and Dnnhoff that were made with inoculated yeasts from those that weren't? If, not, doesn't that disprove your thought?
Click to expand...

if the thought was that only native fermentations = good, then yes.

but it wasn't. i was simply musing on this: the cleanest, purest guys are the ones who prefer "the dirtier" techniques.

so no, actually. not at all.

fb.
 
I'm trying to find a recent article from Science or Nature on what yeasts were present in a NZ fermentation. Did we not discuss here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top