Hmm . . . maybe things have changed. I'm guessing Kenny went there at least 30 years after I did. I'm sure the stuff they are teaching now is vastly different. In the 70s - though native yeasts were discussed - inoculated fermentations were the order of the day, as well as acid adjustment to lower pH. Pushing the ripeness envelope was a later phenomenon.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are the times a-changin'?
- Thread starter Brad Widelock
- Start date
Hmm . . . maybe things have changed. I'm guessing Kenny went there at least 30 years after I did. I'm sure the stuff they are teaching now is vastly different. In the 70s - though native yeasts were discussed - inoculated fermentations were the order of the day, as well as acid adjustment to lower pH. Pushing the ripeness envelope was a later phenomenon.
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Ric Forman (went to Davis, but in food studies, not enology)
In his interview with Levi Dalton he says "Food Science and Enology."
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by VLM:
The UC Davis influence are all the wines from the 70s and 80s that people like now (Clos du Val, Mayacamas, etc.).
I don't think so. All the great names in fact did NOT go to Davis -- the McCreas, Dick Graf, Paul Draper, Bob Sessions, Ric Forman (went to Davis, but in food studies, not enology), Joe Swan, Martin Ray, Bob Travers, etc., etc.
Replace all with many.
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.
Don't think so. Leo McCloskey was a prime mover behind the former (and folks like Helen Turley). UCD preached the gospel of specific pure yeast strains, certainly not ambient yeast.
Kenny's thesis at Davis was on ambient yeast fermentation compared to inoculated yeast. He's been interested in it from the beginning. Davis is a legit research university and I'm sure that the faculty there looks at all sorts of things. The anti-Davis mentality was from a failed fucking lawyer who con jobbed people with physiological maturity and "tasting the grapes". What an asshat.
Hmm . . . maybe things have changed. I'm guessing Kenny went there at least 30 years after I did. I'm sure the stuff they are teaching now is vastly different. In the 70s - though native yeasts were discussed - inoculated fermentations were the order of the day, as well as acid adjustment to lower pH. Pushing the ripeness envelope was a later phenomenon.
You can speak from experience, but the general idea I have when I think about the period was an excitement that there was actual science to follow that could allow wine makers to have a level of control that would take quality to higher and higher levels. What's been happening for the last 20+ years is figuring out how and when to back off of that control. Does that sound right to you?
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
I had been told that UC Davis was pushing the acidification fad in the 80s
Obviously don't know from personal experience
Obviously don't know from personal experience
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.
Don't think so. Leo McCloskey was a prime mover behind the former (and folks like Helen Turley). UCD preached the gospel of specific pure yeast strains, certainly not ambient yeast.
Kenny's thesis at Davis was on ambient yeast fermentation compared to inoculated yeast. He's been interested in it from the beginning. Davis is a legit research university and I'm sure that the faculty there looks at all sorts of things. The anti-Davis mentality was from a failed fucking lawyer who con jobbed people with physiological maturity and "tasting the grapes". What an asshat.
Hmm . . . maybe things have changed. I'm guessing Kenny went there at least 30 years after I did. I'm sure the stuff they are teaching now is vastly different. In the 70s - though native yeasts were discussed - inoculated fermentations were the order of the day, as well as acid adjustment to lower pH. Pushing the ripeness envelope was a later phenomenon.
You can speak from experience, but the general idea I have when I think about the period was an excitement that there was actual science to follow that could allow wine makers to have a level of control that would take quality to higher and higher levels. What's been happening for the last 20+ years is figuring out how and when to back off of that control. Does that sound right to you?
Yes, that sounds right, but I have no direct knowledge about what they have been teaching in recent decades. The deal then was defect-free wines, not quality as we might define it, which for me is transparency, sense of place and balance.
As others have said, the UCD watchword was "technically sound" wines, by which they meant wine without flaws (as defined by UCD). Acid levels had to be within a given range, so acidification was advocated as appropriate. Inoculated yeasts were used to avoid all the uncertainty of spontaneous fermentations. And cleanliness above all, including sterile filtration. Anyone with experience with Coturri's wines can understand the backdrop against which the Davis ethos should be viewed. The push to greater ripeness and extraction was a different theme, but it may have entered into the UCD playbook, either in response to or in anticipation of the changing winemaking practices in CA.
Mark Lipton
Mark Lipton
Greg Hirson
Greg Hirson
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.
Don't think so. Leo McCloskey was a prime mover behind the former (and folks like Helen Turley). UCD preached the gospel of specific pure yeast strains, certainly not ambient yeast.
Kenny's thesis at Davis was on ambient yeast fermentation compared to inoculated yeast. He's been interested in it from the beginning. Davis is a legit research university and I'm sure that the faculty there looks at all sorts of things. The anti-Davis mentality was from a failed fucking lawyer who con jobbed people with physiological maturity and "tasting the grapes". What an asshat.
Hmm . . . maybe things have changed. I'm guessing Kenny went there at least 30 years after I did. I'm sure the stuff they are teaching now is vastly different. In the 70s - though native yeasts were discussed - inoculated fermentations were the order of the day, as well as acid adjustment to lower pH. Pushing the ripeness envelope was a later phenomenon.
You can speak from experience, but the general idea I have when I think about the period was an excitement that there was actual science to follow that could allow wine makers to have a level of control that would take quality to higher and higher levels. What's been happening for the last 20+ years is figuring out how and when to back off of that control. Does that sound right to you?
Yes, that sounds right, but I have no direct knowledge about what they have been teaching in recent decades. The deal then was defect-free wines, not quality as we might define it, which for me is transparency, sense of place and balance.
What they teach at Davis is a framework for understanding what is going on in the winery and vineyard - how to make sense of what you see, smell, and taste. How fermentation works, how to control fermentation, how to measure wine chemistry and how to interpret the values. There are no prescribed or proscribed practices - at least not in the last few years. That, and sanitation.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Ric Forman (went to Davis, but in food studies, not enology)
In his interview with Levi Dalton he says "Food Science and Enology."
All I can say is that's not what he told me when I interviewed him in the 1980s -- he made a point that it was not enology.
Corey Miller
Corey Miller
On the issue of Ric Forman's background, here's what Forman said in an earlier interview:
Then, of course, I went to college. I actually started off at San Jose State [University]. I'm not quite sure why. I guess a lot of my friends lived there, and I thought, Well, that sounds good. I was there for a year in the chem department, and one of the professors, a guy named Wilkinson, said, "You know, Ric, you do really like chemistry. I can see that. You do well in it." And he said, "What do you want to do with it?" He kind of said, "Are you interested in straight chemistry as a research chemist, or what would you like? How about wine? Are you interested in wine?" "How about wine?" he said. I said, "What does that have to do with chemistry?" He said, "There's a great deal to do with chemistry. There's a whole department at [University of California at] Davis that's involved in it." I instantly knew that that's what I wanted to do, so I applied to transfer and fortunately had the grades to transfer, and so I transferred to Davis and got right into their Department of Food Science, with the idea that eventually I would get into the enology program. But they didn't have a fermentation science course curriculum to graduate in then. It was food science. So I did all the food science classes in undergraduate school, and then went to graduate school.
link: http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId...81&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e760&brand=calisphere
Then, of course, I went to college. I actually started off at San Jose State [University]. I'm not quite sure why. I guess a lot of my friends lived there, and I thought, Well, that sounds good. I was there for a year in the chem department, and one of the professors, a guy named Wilkinson, said, "You know, Ric, you do really like chemistry. I can see that. You do well in it." And he said, "What do you want to do with it?" He kind of said, "Are you interested in straight chemistry as a research chemist, or what would you like? How about wine? Are you interested in wine?" "How about wine?" he said. I said, "What does that have to do with chemistry?" He said, "There's a great deal to do with chemistry. There's a whole department at [University of California at] Davis that's involved in it." I instantly knew that that's what I wanted to do, so I applied to transfer and fortunately had the grades to transfer, and so I transferred to Davis and got right into their Department of Food Science, with the idea that eventually I would get into the enology program. But they didn't have a fermentation science course curriculum to graduate in then. It was food science. So I did all the food science classes in undergraduate school, and then went to graduate school.
link: http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId...81&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e760&brand=calisphere
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
The "physiological maturity" thing? Not at all UC Davis-related. That was a the intersection of the taste of influential high end winemakers or owners and critical ratings, both involving a hatred of anything remotely green or herbaceous and an obsession with a certain style of tannin. Topped with the generic American tendency towards more is always better, i.e. ripeness and body good, therefore more ripeness and body better. All of it pushed along by wine geeks and gatekeepers who automatically associated lower yields and longer hangtime with better wine.
If anything, I would guess UC Davis influence would cause one to be leery of high-pH, late harvested grapes.
This sounds exactly right to me. As mark e can attest, suppression of fault was the UCD gig in the old days, and low pH (however achieved) was a key part of that.
We should get Mike Dashe to chime in if he has a moment.
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
When I started visiting French vineyards in the mid-1980s, French vignerons talked to me about physiological maturity and how they tasted grapes before picking; at that time, CA producers went almost entirely by the numbers (Davis influence, I'm pretty sure) in deciding when to pick, except for a few outliers like Ric Forman, most of whom who had worked in France, and who also tasted before picking. "Physiological ripeness" was then hijacked by CA, supposedly following the French principles, but in fact perverting it to something very different.
This was all Peynaud in the beginning, no? And you could say the guy had a point, back in the day. Harvesting early and green (because your big yield wasn't ripe) before the rain, chaptalizing up to get the alcohol, this was the recipe. He urged real ripeness from yields the vines could support (lower than historical norms), and so on. It was a pretty good idea in its day, it was just a question of how far to take it in which circumstances. And people on both sides of the atlantic (not to speak of the Antipodes) went nuts.
originally posted by Greg Hirson:
What they teach at Davis is a framework for understanding what is going on in the winery and vineyard - how to make sense of what you see, smell, and taste. How fermentation works, how to control fermentation, how to measure wine chemistry and how to interpret the values. There are no prescribed or proscribed practices - at least not in the last few years. That, and sanitation.
I think the old timers are refighting some old battles about the old days.
originally posted by MLipton:
As others have said, the UCD watchword was "technically sound" wines, by which they meant wine without flaws (as defined by UCD). Acid levels had to be within a given range, so acidification was advocated as appropriate. Inoculated yeasts were used to avoid all the uncertainty of spontaneous fermentations. And cleanliness above all, including sterile filtration. Anyone with experience with Coturri's wines can understand the backdrop against which the Davis ethos should be viewed. The push to greater ripeness and extraction was a different theme, but it may have entered into the UCD playbook, either in response to or in anticipation of the changing winemaking practices in CA.
Mark Lipton
I imagine (mark or Greg please to correct) that the point of the acidity was microbiological control.
Which really doesn't fit the pH 3.95 merlot that is really the acme of French genius per the modern international world. These guys walk a lot farther out on the microbiological edge than the biblical sages would have advocated.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Peynaud got the Bordelais to harvest riper, but we're talking 1960s and early 1970s here, and certainly not anywhere near the ripeness levels of today -- but it's not just in wine that we see people who don't understand that you just can't extend the line out to infinity and expect the same increases in returns.originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
When I started visiting French vineyards in the mid-1980s, French vignerons talked to me about physiological maturity and how they tasted grapes before picking; at that time, CA producers went almost entirely by the numbers (Davis influence, I'm pretty sure) in deciding when to pick, except for a few outliers like Ric Forman, most of whom who had worked in France, and who also tasted before picking. "Physiological ripeness" was then hijacked by CA, supposedly following the French principles, but in fact perverting it to something very different.
This was all Peynaud in the beginning, no? And you could say the guy had a point, back in the day. Harvesting early and green (because your big yield wasn't ripe) before the rain, chaptalizing up to get the alcohol, this was the recipe. He urged real ripeness from yields the vines could support (lower than historical norms), and so on. It was a pretty good idea in its day, it was just a question of how far to take it in which circumstances. And people on both sides of the atlantic (not to speak of the Antipodes) went nuts.
What also is interesting is that in an interview with Michel Bettane in the 1980s or the early 1990s in La Revue du vin de France, Peynaud said that the reason he did this is because he had spent some time in Calvet's Beaune operation and went back to Bordeaux wanting to make wines like they made in Burgundy. So all the legendary clarets of 1945, 1947, 1949, etc. didn't impress him, I guess, and he wanted to make something different.
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Greg Hirson:
What they teach at Davis is a framework for understanding what is going on in the winery and vineyard - how to make sense of what you see, smell, and taste. How fermentation works, how to control fermentation, how to measure wine chemistry and how to interpret the values. There are no prescribed or proscribed practices - at least not in the last few years. That, and sanitation.
I think the old timers are refighting some old battles about the old days.
Easy there, bub. Old timers and simians. Not simian old timers. Not yet.
Jeff Connell
Jeff Connell
Peynaud, no doubt, merits the snark. But this statement may be a bit off the mark.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
So all the legendary clarets of 1945, 1947, 1949, etc. didn't impress him, I guess, and he wanted to make something different.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
originally posted by Jeff Connell:
Peynaud, no doubt, merits the snark. But this statement may be a bit off the mark.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
So all the legendary clarets of 1945, 1947, 1949, etc. didn't impress him, I guess, and he wanted to make something different.
Can you explain? He knew those wines when he said he wanted to make something different.
kirk wallace
kirk wallace
Did Peynaud say in that interview that he didn't like what he'd tasted from '45, '47 and '49? If not, is it possible that wanting to make something different could (and I mean could because I have not read the interview) be taken, especially in the context of the Bordeaux wines of the '60's (except '61), as not really including the '45s, 47s and '49s? Could those massively ripe wines be part of of the "something different" he wanted to make?
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. I take the man at his word -- he wanted to make Bordeaux like the Burgundies he experienced when he worked at Calvet in Beaune, not like they were. (1945s were thought by many at one time to have been a failure, BTW, because they were so tannic when young.)originally posted by kirk wallace:
Did Peynaud say in that interview that he didn't like what he'd tasted from '45, '47 and '49? If not, is it possible that wanting to make something different could (and I mean could because I have not read the interview) be taken, especially in the context of the Bordeaux wines of the '60's (except '61), as not really including the '45s, 47s and '49s? Could those massively ripe wines be part of of the "something different" he wanted to make?