Trying to enlighten folks to the sustainability, scientific background, and ‘innovativeness’ of the closure . . . hmmmm . . .
http://www.decanter.com/news/294697.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cheers!
Horse bolted?
Shut the gate!
Although, to be fair, I think cork is great stuff for floor tiles.
cheers,
Graeme
A large group of wine merchants and winemakers were talking about wine closure… and I didn’t really weigh in on the same old debate, but I mentioned that I used cork. And somebody looked at me and said, “but consider your affect on the environment” or something to that affect. And I looked at him to gauge if it was a joke or not. Dead serious. So I said, “well cork is renewable.” And then nobody said anything for a while. It was awkward.
Do people have an unstated assumption that screwtops are somehow better for the environment than cork? How much of the 20 million euro goes to addressing that kind of misconception?
Ryan,
Thanks for the reply . . . The cork industry has already initiated a campaign re: renewable ‘advantage’ of corks vs other closures AND the fact that should corks not continue, thousands of trees will probably be chopped down and other uses for the area will follow . . .
IMHO, I have nothing against the ‘renewable’ argument whatsoever - it just is not enough to make me say that wineries should stop using alternative closures in favor of cork . . .
It’ll be interesting to see what follows . . .
Cheers!
Roger Boulton has a theory:
“Sulfur dioxide (SO2) can cleave disulfides, separating them back into mercaptans which release H2S. SO2 levels remain higher longer under > screw caps > because of the better seal. The SO2 is then more likely to cleave the disulfides, leaving the stink. > Corks > precipitate a more rapid drop of SO2 by introducing more oxygen. It’s similar to ‘blowing off’ H2S during a racking.”
Achieving Balance in Reductive Winemaking by Lance Cutler
http://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=getArticle&dataId=44982" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Edit: additional info –
The incidence of cork taint was the same and has remained constant: of the bottles with faults, > cork taint stayed at an average of 29 percent of the faulty bottles. It was interesting to see that reduction carried the same percentage.
Chatonnet claims that cork taint is now at 3 percent or a bit less and that > there is very little evidence of winery taint.
…Chatonnet states that reduction due to screw caps now represents close to 3 percent incidence in 2008, the same as cork taint.
…“If you don’t use copper, you need to work in the vineyard–during fermentation, aging, and be concerned about evolution in the bottle along with your choice of closure,” said Chatonnet.
“Your best tools really are your choice of closure and the oxygen transfer rate,” he concluded.
Influence of Closures and Winemaking Reduction in Wine Post-Bottling by Lisa Hall
Influence of Closures and Winemaking Reduction in Wine Post-Bottling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See also two articles by Alan Limmer (Kiwi winemaker/chemist):
If wines could be made guaranteed
free of complex sulfides, and the bottle
development was not expected, or
required to follow the same pathway
as the cork experience, then a totally
anoxic closure may be the best solu-
tion. But this pathway puts severe
demands upon the winemaking
process. This is evidenced by the
repeated occurrence of these [sulfur-like odors] SLOs,
even when the winemakers seem mys-
tified by their occurrence, having rig-
orously copper-fined the wine.
corkfacts.com - This website is for sale! - Wine Resources and Information." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;