Natural Wine & Whole-Cluster Ferments??

I like what whole-cluster ferments adds to Syrah. Especially as used by Bedrock/Boheme/Carlisle/Harrington and others.
It seems to give the wine a Rhonish/bit pungent/roasted character that I find quite interesting.
However, I’ve not seen many advocates/practioners of “natural” wine (nothing added/nothing taken away) that use
w-c ferments.
Is the use of w-c ferments a violation in some sense of the “natural” wine movement?? Adding something to the wine that
is not given strictly from the grapes? Or are the practioners of “natural” wines worried that the use of w-c will perturb the
mousey/hantavirus/barnyardy/unclean/funky character they seek in those wines?? [stirthepothal.gif]
Maybe SweetAlice can weigh in on the subject here?
Tom

i would say many natural wine makers do not destem. metras is definitely whole cluster.

A pot stirring so weak that it is not worthy of the Tom Hill name.

The whole natural wine movement is one big cluster-fuck Tom.

deleted by HW

I didn’t see what you originally posted but that’s probably the best idea. We are as likely to have a measured discussion on this topic as the Politics forum is when discussing…anything.

This is an erroneous and not well researched hot take

Not sure where you’re coming from on this, Tom. I know of quite a few producers of natural wine who do whole-cluster ferments on some or all of their reds. Some places I’ve visited don’t even own a destemmer.

My thoughts exactly.

Well, Ken…perhaps in my eagerness to bait David (you’ll notice above that I succeeded splendidly), I didn’t make my question clear.
The thought came to me whilst I was writing up TN’s on Bedrock/Carlisle Syrahs, which have a distinct Rhonish character to them from
the w-c ferments.

In the making of Syrah, the use of w-c ferments adds a distinct character to the wine. As well as in Pinot…to a lesser degree.
EricTexier, as a well-known “natural” winemaker, uses w-c ferments, though the Rhonish character may be comming from that
“terroir” thing and not the w-c ferment.
But use of w-c ferment is a winemaking technique that adds this special character to Syrah…just like the use of oak or mega-purple adds
something to some Syrahs.
So…is the use of w-c ferments to add this Rhonish character to Syrah consistent w/ the “natural” winemaking credo for “natural”
wines of “add nothing/take away nothing”?? “Natural” winemakers generally eschew the use of winemaking tricks & gimmicks.
Or, to reverse this question, is the removal of the stems w/ a destemmer, consistent with the “natural” winemaking credo??
That make my question a bit clearer?
Tom

Tom,

You certainly are stirring up things, aren’t you?

There is so much that ‘we’ do to ‘manipulate’ wines and it starts with the vineyard itself - where is it planted, to what clone, what rootstock is used, is the soil ‘treated’ before planting, etc etc etc.

As far as once that grapes arrive at the winery, the same could be said - is it ‘manipulating’ to sort your fruit? Is it ‘manipulating’ to destem versus going whole cluster?

Yep, whole cluster definitely ‘adds’ something to each and every wine, and it’s something different each year since the stems will ‘vary’ based on vintage - just like the grapes will.

I love these discussions - and it’s ‘fun’ to question what is considered a ‘trick’ and what is considered just plain ole ‘winemaker choice’ . . .

Cheers.

Moi?? [stirthepothal.gif] ?? I’ve never been accused of that before, Larry. [snort.gif]
It just has been sort of a puzzle to me, when I read some of these manifestos by “natural” winemakers and their
wine-writing adherents, on why some practices are permitted to make a “natural” wine and others are prohibited and there often
seems to be no consistency. I guess that’s why some winemakers make “natural Lite” wines and others make “hard-core natural”
wines. It’s probably why “natural” winemaking recieves so much scorn & ridicule…because there are no real set/codified standards.
Which, in my mind, is perfectly OK.
Which is one of the reasons I like to try “natural” wines. Some are just undrinkable (like the 3 above I reviewed). And some,
like EricTexier’s and Donkey&Goat, are danged good. And some/many just leave me scratching my head.

But [stirthepothal.gif] ?? Perish the thought. But I do enjoy poking the bear in his cage with a stick at times.
Tom

I see it less as a trick, and more of a choice/decision.

Good way to put it, my friend. That pretty much ‘sums up’ winemaking, right? Everything we do is a choice/decision. One of the ‘challenges’ is ‘categorizing’ those choices/decisions into a way that people to understand.

And I guess one thing Tom is perhaps ‘grappling with’ is that the ‘cause/effect’ of these decisions/choices is so variable that it’s difficult to categorize or ‘label’, and yet many folks are insistent on doing so.

Cheers.

That does hit on the crux of the old debates (wasn’t this all sort of resolved…?) When people spell out rules for what a natural wine is, they are hypocritical and arbitrary. They allow a practice necessary for one’s own circumstance, while heaping scorn on equal or less intrusive measures that are necessary for others, but not themselves. Or, really, that’s through the lens of writers based on who they’ve talked to. The “resolved” was, when it came down to it, the actual winemakers were open-minded to these things, and it was the self-important self-promoting proponents who were stirring up all the unnecessary controversy.

But, if you recall, intrinsic to Sweet Alice’s view of natural is the wine seeming natural. That seems in line with Frenchy philosophy. Very impressionistic. It’s not just that a wine conforms to some checklist. It’s how the wine feels. That’s why late picking isn’t natural to her (for dry wines). Wines that need time to show well don’t seem natural.

So, if stem character is in the mix of an approachable wine, it’s a natural component. If it dominates and diminishes the ready expression of a wine, it isn’t.

Good points, Wes. But, I’m sure, what SweetAlice feels is “natural” is probably not what you & I feels is “natural”.
In addition to the 100-pt scale for “quality” in a wine, maybe we should develop a 100-pt scale for “naturalness” in wine as well. [snort.gif]
Tom

I’d always assumed it was because some folks weren’t getting laid enough, leading to a virulent combination of frustration, heightened irritability and too much free time on one’s hands.

FWIW, a lot of natural winemakers ferment their reds w/WC.
I don’t know of any formal surveys that have been done, but from what I’ve seen over several decades I’d assume that WC is more common among “natural” winemakers than it is among the general population of red wine makers worldwide.
Why that should be is a matter of conjecture. I think that it’s probably easier to make glou-glou wine this way (with a lower level of extraction), and easy drinkability is a goal of many n-word winemakers. Some may find this way of winemaking more ‘natural’/non-interventionist, since this tipping of bins of grapes directly ino a vat avoids one more step in the winemaking process.
Still others probably just like the characters that arise from WC ferments.

On the other hand (and as you suggest), some n-word winemakers avoid using WC to a measurable extent because they feel that the aromas/flavors/structure of typical WC ferments are cellar-derived, technique-driven characters, inconsistent with their own particular visions of what natural wine should be.