My understanding of “natural winemaking” (using this phrase as a term of art as used in wine boards/wine journalism) is winemaking that follows the wine making philosophy of Jules Chauvet as interpreted by Jacques Neauport: semi-carbonic/carbonic maceration and low/no sulfur.
“Natural winemaking” is more complicated that (not going into the farming aspect or other nuances), but those two things are big components of “natural winemaking.”
My understanding is that, traditionally, in Beaujolais (where Jules Chauvet practiced his winemaking), semi-carbonic maceration is the “traditional” way to make wine. Jacques Neauport later took Chauvet’s understanding of traditional winemaking in Beaujolais and introduced it to other regions, like the Loire and Rhone, where semi-carbonic was not very traditional.
So, in Beaujolais, even though Foillard and Lapierre would be considered “natural” under the Chauvet/Neauport model, they are still practicing “traditional” winemaking in the Beaujolais sense.
I could be wrong, but people who know more should chime in.
This I can both understand and agree with. I’m not the biggest fan of those bubblegum-y glou-glou wines without much sense of place. However, not all semi-carbonic wines are such. I’ve had a lot of wines that don’t have that kind of simple, candied character but are brimming with depth, character and sense of place.
However, this I don’t understand. Are you now confusing carbonic maceration with semi-carbonic? I really don’t see how it is more equipment and manipulation if you don’t destem your grapes but instead throw them into a fermentor as whole bunches and let the crushed grapes begin fermentation and fill the vat with CO2. Instead of having more equipment and manipulation, this one has step less - you skip destemming entirely and grape crush comes around only after fermentation has been going on for some time, not before fermentation.
Of course, i didnt mean to suggest that any carbonic is inherently bad, and I love a lot of wines that use it in some way. I recently had a bojo that was touted as being a lieu-dit top end cuvee for a producer, and it was so masked in bubblegum that I would only say it was marginally better than grocery store wine that advertises itself as carbonic. I also love foillard, lapierre, yann bertrand, pierre cotton, etc, so it really comes down to a case by case basis for me
Other than no funk, the characteristics you’re looking for have as much to do with vintage as producer. That said, Lapierre and JP Brun pull it off pretty often. Specifically, I’d recommend some 2021s: JP Brun Morgon, Desvignes Corcelette, and Desvignes Morgon Javernières Aux Pierres. That last is my wine of the '21 vintage by far at this point, and I’ve tried quite a few. Warmer/riper vintages can often get into more dark fruit and less elegance, not surprisingly. Most other recent vintages tend toward riper characteristics.
Is there a statute of limitations on being a natural winemaker?
To link the spectrum with winemaking practices:
techno/industrial: thermovinification
Burgundian/aspirational: destemming, punchdowns, new oak
traditional/artisanal: whole bunch but crushed, maturation in cement, foudre or used barrels, sulfites at crush, after malo, and before bottling
natty: true carbonic maceration (i.e. tank gassed with CO2 at cuvaison, bottom valve left open to drain off any liberated juice), zero sulfites with the exception of a gram or two at bottling
While the latter approach was a great way to get attention to a rather moribund region, and while working with low sulfites with Gamay does make a certain about of sense as sulfites really tend to dry the wine out with this variety vs others I have experienced in vilification and élevage, it cannot be said that the last string of extreme vintages we’ve had have really favored this approach, and I really have an increasingly hard time with the acetate and brett (Gamay has a lot of precursors for volatile phenols, unfortunately) that often comes with it, to say nothing of mouse.
The term “natural winemaking” is used in so many different ways with distinct meanings, it’s helpful getting this clarification from you.
Also, I do have a sense that “natural winemaking” has gotten pretty extreme in the past 15 years. I remember when Clos Roche Blanche and Marcel Lapierre (wines made when he was still alive) were called “natural” wines, and those wines just seem so different from the natural wines I encounter nowadays. Though, on reflection, that was probably because the natural wines I encountered back then were curated by Dressner and Lynch, and now the floodgates have opened in the US with all of these specialty natural wine importers.
While the latter approach was a great way to get attention to a rather moribund region, and while working with low sulfites with Gamay does make a certain about of sense as sulfites really tend to dry the wine out with this variety vs others I have experienced in vilification and élevage, it cannot be said that the last string of extreme vintages we’ve had have really favored this approach, and I really have an increasingly hard time with the acetate and brett (Gamay has a lot of precursors for volatile phenols, unfortunately) that often comes with it, to say nothing of mouse.
Do you have any theories as to why sulfites tend to dry out Gamay more than other varieties? I remember reading from posts from other wine boards that Chauvet wrote that using sulfur affects yeast population development, which impacts aroma – is that part of it?
I also read that using no sulfur for Gamay and Beaujolais made sense because of the lower pH. By extreme vintages, I’m guessing you mean that the heat and excessive ripeness is causing pH to be higher, making no-sulfur vinification less workable, or are there other factors at work besides that?
I agree, and I wrote a rather polemical piece about this in Noble Rot a few years ago, getting into how the meaning of the term has changed over time, the various key actors and their intentions, and so forth. Like any aesthetic movement, I think it makes much more sense defining it historically, by looking at what people who call themselves natural winemakers have been doing over the years and who they were, and what sort of milieu they were operating in, rather than trying to come up with a “definition” based on sulfites or whatever; indeed, such attempts seem to me much like trying to define pointillism by dots per square inch or Cubism with the aid of a protractor. The assumption that natural winemakers are farming “naturally”, whatever that would mean, also betrays how naïve some observers are about what at least some of these producers are actually doing.
You don’t need Chauvet to tell you that sulfur affects yeast population development: that’s sort of the whole point of using it! But I’m talking about the effect of sulfites added during élevage and before bottling on how wines’ tannins are perceived on the palate. So, at least hopefully, this is after the phase were active yeast populations are present in the wine.
I honestly don’t have a theory, it’s just an empirical observation having made a bit of Gamay in the last couple of vintages. But it is one that quite a few winemakers have confirmed.
I realize I only answered the first part of your question. Why do extreme vintages make it harder to make viable “natural wines”?
higher sugars = harder for yeasts to ferment to dryness
stressed vines produce musts deficient in nitrogen and other nutrients necessary for healthy complete fermentation
higher fruit temperatures at pick make fermentations harder to manage and increase the risk of early spoilage
higher must and wine pHs reduce the efficacy of sulfites and exercise less of an inhibiting effect on undesirable microflora
extreme temperatures in the vineyards modify the grape skin microbiome, favoring less desirable yeast and bacteria strains (at least based on what we have seen on recent vintages - I don’t know if this has been studied)
Combined with a desire not to use sulfites or to only use them at the end (when it’s too late) on the one hand, and an unwillingness to protect the wine microbiologically by inoculation, the results can be disastrous. In 2021, for my own amusement, I successfully (for now!) made a barrel of Moulin-à-Vent with only 20 ppm total sulfites, bottled after 18 months in neutral wood. In 2022, that simply wouldn’t have been possible.