This winemaker

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

I'm no doubt naive, but isn't a key idea behind organic and biodynamic agriculture to increase nutrient presence in the vines' rhizosphere by promoting healthy communities of decomposing organisms and soil animals? Their activities are supposed to distribute nutrients (especially nitrogen) continuously at a fine spatial scale, where vines' roots can get at them easily. All else equal, vines' easy access to these soil-borne growth supplies, you'd suppose, would cause early, rapid annual growth, with maturation of stems and fruit sooner than in soils where nutrients are delivered only occasionally and from above. Intense decomposer activity would be consistent, at least, with Eric's observations of rapid pruned shoot decomposition.

Tangentially, supposing this simplified account to be ball-park accurate, it would tend to exclude nutrient scarcity from the category of vine-stressing conditions that notionally produce better wines.

 

[SFJoe]

If you want more nitrogen, you can buy it and put it on the vineyard as ammonium nitrate or manure or what have you. I imagine that Eric's soils would measure lower in nitrogen than many conventionally farmed neighbors.

Just my guess.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

And many growers (not much though) involved into permaculture style of growing have noticed the same.

Maybe the vines like company?

Maybe there is a value to having lots of agents, not just soldier-rows of vines, churning the air/water/soil each in its own way?

...didn't destem at all.

Does this mean you need bigger tanks to hold the same amount of fruit?

 

[Jay Miller]

Sorry for the delay in commenting but reading that blog post made me so stupid that I forgot how to use the internet.

I see that comments are being removed pretty quickly. I didn't get to see Eric's response but I saw Jim's this morning before it got trashed.

 

[SteveTimko]

I tasted a white Rhone at Stolpman last year and liked it, although it was a bit pricey for me. Sad to see a winemaker I like go over a cliff like this.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by Jay Miller:
Sorry for the delay in commenting but reading that blog post made me so stupid that I forgot how to use the internet.

I see that comments are being removed pretty quickly. I didn't get to see Eric's response but I saw Jim's this morning before it got trashed.

This is quite ironic, because yesterday I was going to post something stupid (I did not require the blog to get that way) about looking on the bright side, because at least we weren't living in a society in which we were administratively compelled to drink specific wines and to discuss wines in a certain way, because if we were then the author is just the kind of person who'd be appointed to a position to make those decisions for us.

 

[Lee Short]

Well I know one thing that really is true from that post: "God knows Americans are too stupid to understand."

Some of them, anyway.

This here's a zoo and the keeper ain't you.

 

[Kay Bixler]

It's almost as though trashing Texier has become some kind of Internet douche bag rite of passage.

Whatever happened to good old Parker bashing? Man, those were the days . . .

 

[Brézème]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:


Does this mean you need bigger tanks to hold the same amount of fruit?

After many years of investigation, helped by the best consulting firms, we decided, for the sake of our cashflow and the growth rate of our stocks, to keep the same vats and to put less grapes into them.

Around 10-15% less if crushed. 50% less if whole (carbonic maceration)

 

[Jeff Grossman]

All but one comment are gone.

Note that it's not enough slam only Eric. Did you catch this one, near the end?: I was relieved I was with winemakers rather than geeky Sommeliers as many of my past Sommelier mentors have tried to talk me in to liking white wines I think are over the hill.

Good to know that he is resistant to change firm in his stand.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Brézème:
Around 10-15% less if crushed. 50% less if whole (carbonic maceration)

Thanks. 50% sounds like quite a lot, though I suppose harvest varies quite a bit from vintage to vintage, too.

 

[Jim Hanlon]

originally posted by Jay Miller:
Sorry for the delay in commenting but reading that blog post made me so stupid that I forgot how to use the internet.

I see that comments are being removed pretty quickly. I didn't get to see Eric's response but I saw Jim's this morning before it got trashed.

Not surprised the comments were erased, but you'd think they'd at least have fixed "Chateau Neuf du Pape."

 

[Unknown]

why is it that I can still see all the comments ?

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by .sasha:
why is it that I can still see all the comments ?

Browser cache?

 

[Unknown]

must be some cache, since when I click on more... I get more.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by .sasha:
must be some cache, since when I click on more... I get more.

And now I do, too! That's interesting magick you have, Mr. Dot.

Perhaps it's a FaceBook issue?

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
And now I do, too! That's interesting magick you have, Mr. Dot.

My laptop is on CA timezone.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Brézème:

Hope this helps

It raises more questions than it answers, but the questions are really interesting ones.

Isn't that crazy?

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Kay Bixler:
It's almost as though trashing Texier has become some kind of Internet douche bag rite of passage.

Whatever happened to good old Parker bashing? Man, those were the days . . .

Wasn't abortion legal then? Jeeze, what were his folks thinking...

 

[SteveTimko]

I don't think he knew anything of Texier or his wines before making the comments. I don't think it's Texier bashing specifically. He's attacking a wine and Texier's name happens to be on the bottle.