Actually, almost never. None of the sans soufre wines I buy, nor any of the ones I know of that appeal to the “natural wine” crowd, say so on the label. The only time I have ever seen a No Sulfites indication on a label is on cheap organic plonk made from grapes like Thompson Seedless… not intended for wine folk.
As a shorthand, natural is just too broad to have any meaning.
It has meaning for the people who use it. There are a lot of specialized terms that sound vague to people who don’t know anything about the subject matter but are clearly understood by those who do.
It is a concept and not a defined set of rules by the wine industry
Eric Texier and Kevin Harvey’s definitions were about a clear as you can get.
The one thing to keep in mind- For many, natural wine is far beyond organic or biodynamically farmed- As equally important (or even more so) is what goes on / doesn’t go on once the fruit reaches the winery. I won’t bore you the micro-details of my take on it- But to most, it is native yeast, no additions, no racking until bottling, sulfur only at bottling- Again, this is subjective- but use of new oak, temp control, stirring, racking before bottling, filter, fine, etc. all play into people’s definitions.
Natural is a lame term for those who aren’t into it. From the outside it means nothing (like green and sustainable). Mostly when talking about “natural wine” people don’t just say “Great, it is natural!” They follow up with other questions that help shape wheter or not the wine works work with their thoughts on it.
If you take away natural vs non, the concept I like best is from Kevin Hamel at Pellegrini–This is about “Honest” wine vs “natural” wine. You say what you do and do what you say. “Have a well reasoned rationale for what you do and be prepared to talk about it.” Be clear in what you do (somewhat like Randall Grahm’s labels) , and let the consumer choose what they want, like, etc… I have my preferences, but still enjoy a lot of wine that I wouldn’t define “natural”-- though I try to steer clear of spoof (my definition of spoof).
In the end, I actively try to seek out the producers that put as few steps as possible between you and the the source.
I am glad to see that a New World prominent wine personality such as Brian Loring is in the terroir camp.
Since there is no legal definition or certification it has to be regarded as a marketing term, as was said earlier. Hate to sound cynical but it’s probably just to play off the popular “green” movement.
This shows that you have no idea of the “natural wines” movement origins.
It is mostly based on terroir expression consideration (as mentioned earlier, based on Jules Chauvet work about yeasts and SO2).
It took place in the Beaujolais, where aromatic yeasts such as 71B, thermovinification, addition of tannins, chaptalization and desacidification were systematically part of the winemaking practises in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
All these wines were tasting the same whatever the terroir was and mostly like banana/strawberries candies.
None of the original winemakers part of the “bande du beaujolais” were organic growers at that time.
They are still not certified and certainly not advocate for the “green movement”.
I have no problem with people experimenting with natural winemaking for whatever reason they choose. Where I get a bit cynical is when I hear claims that such wines “express the terroir better”. While it is true that manipulation of juice and wine can easily hide any effects of terroir, microbial spoilage is going to do that even quicker. I like winemakers who work to express their terroir of their grapes in the wine and I don’t believe that only organic, biodynamic or natural wines do that.
Using cultured yeasts is a good example of the myth of naturalness. Yes, you can buy yeasts that will make the wine taste juicy and simplistic, but you can also buy yeasts which retain acidity or produce a finer tannic structure - are they wrong?
When I worked at Neudorf Vineyards in NZ we did an analysis of the wild yeasts actually present in the wines at the end of ferment (we did not use any cultured yeasts). The results showed that while there were minor levels of various yeasts, 90% of it was E1118, which had been used in the winery several years previously. This shows that “wild” ferments take place using yeasts living in the winery, not from the vineyards.
I didn’t quite follow Eric’s last thread but it seemed to echo a feeling I have that the biggest proponents of movements such as biodynamics and natural wines are people who started out at the opposite end of the spectrum. For example Gerard Gauby says he converted to biodynamics after finding hundreds of dead birds in his vineyard. You have to ask what the hell he was spraying to kill birds.
Thompson Seedless, when used to make wine, should be referred to as “Sultana” (a la Fred Franzia and the Aussies)
I’m not sure when Randall Grahm became synonymous with transparency. I thought he was synonymous with schnazzy labels and tongue-in-cheekiness.
I’m of the opinion that sans souffre bottlings, unless sterile filtered, are pretty irresponsible. Of the two, I think sterile filtration damages the ‘natural’ integrity of the wine more. Sulfites are pretty natural things. Yeast produce it. I support and practice low sulfite additions, but the idea that wine should be made without is pretty misguided. Or, you could use Velcorin… which Randall did for many years.
My experience with native fermentations that do not have a prophylactic sulfite addition (even of 25 ppm) is that they tend to develop weird nasties that impede terroir expression. Again, pick your poison. The damper the climate, the more weird nasties that seem to come in on the grapes.
Biodynamics and the like are more necessary in Europe, where land has been farmed for millenia, than on the west coast of the US, where many vineyards have seen less than a century of agriculture and, in many cases, the natural systems are still fairly intact. However, even young conventionally farmed grapes tend to make wines that lack a certain liveliness. Also true with sterile filtered wines.
If you’re using conventionally farmed grapes, of course the native ferments are going to be endemic to the winery.
I tend to like many wines that might fall under the “natural” moniker, but I specifically avoid ‘sans soufre’ because I have zero confidence that the wines have been shipped and stored properly from winery to importer to distributor/wholesaler to retailer.
Do you really have the feeling that winemaking history began with you and cultivated yeasts???
Have you ever tasted Cornas Allemand sans souffre or Paolo Bea’s Sagrantino?
Or if you can’t afford them, Angiolino Maule’s Sassia?
I envy you to be that sure about everything about vinegrowing/winemaking.
I learned from very well-knowned, incredibly talented winemakers who kept remind me each day, that all they have learned after all these years was that they still weren’t sure of anything.
I hope I’ll keep this in mind as long as I make wine.
Nothing to do with natural winemaking but with my wine education “The more I know, the less I know.” That should be the attitude of everybody if I was king.
Pacalet makes some nice wines, but anyone who proclaims Pacalet their favorite Burgundy producer is definitely letting their dogma dictate their preferences.
Hey, Eric, that’s been my experience, and I’ve done a fair bit of this and a fair bit of that. If I see something different, and I like to experiment, I’ll change my opinion. I absolutely don’t think I know everything about vinegrowing, winemaking, or life or love. I know what’s in front of me, and what I’ve seen and heard, and work off of that. I’ll keep an eye out for the Allemand or the Paolo Bea. Perhaps they’ll change my mind on some things. I’ve worked a bit without sulfur, and seen it done, and I was not comfortable selling the results. That was it.
But hey, thanks for the sloganeering. You’re really fired up about this, and that’s great. Thank you for reminding me to keep an open mind. That’s often one of the most difficult things to do.
I’ve got some slogans I’ve figured out along the way, and one I really like is this: “Don’t let your dogma get in the way of your winemaking.” I think of this as a pursuit of the most beautiful in your aesthetic, not adhering to particular rules of right and wrong. I’ve figured out that neither spoofilated nor sans souffre are part of my aesthetic, and I’m rolling with that. What you think is important is your business, and I’m glad to hear your opinions. It richens my experience.
That’s quite the definition.
By this reckoning there are… what?.. maybe 15 or 20 domaines in the world making natural wine?
Seems a bit hard on people who are trying to be “natural” but believe they can do that while using a modicum of copper in the vineyard or sulfur in the cellar.
It also completely rules out the possibility of making natural wine in New World, which strikes me as a rather severe penalty.
I do not spend my life on the Internet. There was not much to add and I’m not interested in posting just to post. I’ve enjoyed learning about the topic. I have a few questions for Eric Texier which I’ll post tomorrow or Monday after rereading his answers. I find the topic interesting. It was not a term I was familiar with until recently.
I’m a bit surprised the term does not have a fixed set of attributes, such as bio dynamic. Based on what I’ve read in this thread, bio dynamic might not be that important. If it was, for example would Chapoutier be considered a natural wine? That is not my impression from this thread.
Pontet Canet also strives to be very driven by nature. However, I do not think PC would be considered natural either. Yet, why not?
I find it odd that producers that spray are considered natural, yet other houses that practice bio dynamic techniques are not thought of as natural. Shouldn’t natural be chemical free?
Degree of alcohol seems odd to me as well. Why does it matter? Some grapes do not fully ripen without reaching high alcohol levels such as Grenache, Syrah and Merlot. The concept seems flexible and without a clear cut set of rules that make a product a natural wine.
Can you use chaptalisation or irrigate? Why are some chemicals allowed? Why is some oak considered OK? At what point does oak stop a wine from being natural and who deiced on that threshold? Why isn’t the oak issue cut and dried? Either it’s in, or it’s out. These types of inconsistence do not make sense to me. The lack of consistency makes the natural wine concept appear to be more of what some wine makers/consumers think good wine should be, as opposed to defining natural wine.
It’s an interesting topic. I’d like to learn a bit more before concluding what I think of it.
Does anyone have a list of what the better “natural” wines are?
Velcorin is one reason why people go further and speak of “natural” vs organic- Velcorin is not yet on the prohibited list for “organic wine” in the US.