Am I wrong in thinking that in France they are not allowed to irrigate? i.e. they must take what the weather gives them that year.
If so, how then is it allowable to use RO?
btw I read that Quilceda uses RO.
Bingo…we have us a winner here!!! ![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}
Advances in technology don’t gain a foothold if they don’t work. And while we don’t use RO as a normal part of our process, it’s nice to have it as a tool to correct issues/mistakes. And yes, that means we’ve used it on occassion - with great success.
Exactly my feeling, Brian. It’s something to have in your bag of tricks from time to time. Just don’t let AliceF***ing find out.
Tom
There is a bill about to pass in the California Senate, that will make things like dealcing easier and legal to do at any Type-2 Licensed Winery.
http://www.compli-beverage.com/blog/?p=168" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes, it’s clear that RO’ing ‘works’ . . . but just because it ‘works’, should it be used? I understand the concept of ‘correction’, but what about those wineries that may use it to ‘concentrate’ their wines - and NOT because of water conditions, etc but because they want more ‘concentrated’ wines?
Just askin . . . and stirrin . . . ![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
![[swearing.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8a0d3f3461d40641d294442fc2be78039bf94d19.gif "[swearing.gif]"){kind=small}
Cheers!
Gasp…you mean, Larry…like…manipulate to make a more Parkerized wine??? I can’t belive you would make such a suggestion!!!
Not sure what you’re askin, Larry…but I think it’s clear that there are probably gonna be wineries/winemakers that do this, or follow the Enologix
instructions to the T, to make a wine that will garner higher points from the critics. Just sorta fact of life.
There are going to be winemakers who use RO (to de-alc or to concentrate) as a tweak because they think it will make a better wine. And there’ll
be winemakers who will routinely use RO because it’ll make a wine that’ll garner higher scores from the critics. And there’ll be winemakers who will
eschew use of RO just as a matter of principle. And all sorts of winemakers in between those extremes.
Tom
And there are going to be winemakers and critics and consumers that can’t taste the difference blind, and others that can.
Put me in the camp of I’ll believe it when there is a well controlled double blind study that shows this. Taking the same base wine in the RO’d concentrated form and tasting it against the un-altered wine should be something an experienced taster can do. But what happens when RO’d wines from a more dilute vintage are tasted with non-RO’d wines from a more concentrated vintage? This is a much tougher challenge, probably akin to putting Reignac against classified growths blind in GJE tastings.
Not that I’m condoning the technique. It’s just that people tend to overrate their abilities. You know, 99% of people think they are above average drivers. 49% of those people are wrong . . . .
For me the real issue with something like RO is the hypocrisy of those that use it, which usually are the producers of the most expensive wines because (a) they have more to lose with an off vintage and (b) they can afford all the most expensive tricks. The thing is, these producers in say Napa or Bordeaux love to tout the superiority and inviolability of their terroir. But if their terroir makes a superior wine every vintage, then why must some vintages require these adjustments?
The answer is certain regions do better than others depending on vintage. Pretty obvious. They may even have the best terroir. But not every vintage is going to be a classic. Instead they try to wipe out their terroir and vintage variations while invoking superior terroir to keep others from getting a real foothold. They can’t have it both ways, which is the real problem.
Exactly.
I have winemaker friends who have claimed that a wine was over acidulated when I KNOW it was not acidulated at all. I have had winemaker/experienced taster friends who have proclaimed a wine was manipulated in one way or another when I KNOW it was not. I have been to blind tastings with experienced tasters who were wildly off on wines with great typicity. Unless a wine was greatly overdone with RO, I doubt if many/any tasters could tell. Especially with larger production wines, most of the time what is in bottle is a blend of several lots, not all of which may have had some treatment done to it.
Interesting thought, Claude. Is there some sort of signature taste that suggests a wine has been RO’d, either for concentration, or for de-alcing?
Tom
Greg – I’ve done it with the same wine RO’d and none RO’d – what more is there to test?
I can only comment on concentration, Tom. It gives a slick texture and a candied quality to the fruit. It can be done with greater or lesser skill, but it still changes the wine.
But some critics, e.g., HM RMP, Jr., ridiculed John Morris for being able to distinguish the wines – because HM RMP, Jr. apparently can’t. Does that tell you something about John or about HM RMP, Jr.?
Greg,
I one time a few (well…maybe 6-8) yrs ago, DarrellCorti had a 6-pak of RO’d wines from FresnoState.
Below are the TN’s I wrote up for those wines.
Tom
Tasted last night (4/3/02) some reverse osmosis wines:
5. Fresno State Calif Syrah JohnDeinerVnyd (14.35%) 1999: Dark color; strong blackberry/
blueberry/Syrah slight coffee/mocha/toasty/pungent almost Tensley/SantaBarbara-like quite
attractive nose; fairly soft rich blueberry/blackberry/Syrah light smokey/roasted/mocha/
oak quite lush flavor; med.short soft quite lush/blueberry finish w/ light tannins; a
bit on the soft side & lacking structure to age but loads of blueberry Syrah fruit;
a bit pricey at $31 but amazing quality for a SanJoaquinVlly Syrah. $155.00 (CB)
- Fresno State Calif Syrah (13.35%) 1999: Nose definitely different; a bit supressed, a
bit metallic/tinny, a bit less effusive fruit. On the palate, much less balanced, a
bit tart&lean and less lush and less fruit in the wine. Easily the least of the 5 wines.
- Fresno State Calif Syrah (13.75%) 1999: Much better than 3., more lush effusive fruit on
the nose; softer/rounder more lush & full of fruit on the palate; a big step up over 3;
no noticible alcohol on nose or palate.
- Fresno State Calif Syrah (14.35%) 1999: A slight step up over 4.; very slightly more effusive/
lush Syrah nose; softer/rounder more balanced on the palate; my slight preference over
6., but they’re very close.
- Fresno State Calif Syrah (15.0%) 1999: A slight whiff of hot/alcohol on the nose; a bit
more of an overripe character and bit less lush fruit on the nose; a very slight bite of
alcohol on the palate and a bit less lush/round/soft fruit. On it’s own, a very attractive
Syrah, but the alcohol is starting to creep in when tasted aside 5.
- Fresno State Calif Syrah (18.0%) 1999: Slightly darker color; noticibly more alcohol/heat/
harshness on the nose; some noticible Turley-character on the nose; slight sweetness
on the palate but still essentially a dry wine; a slight hot/fumey/harsh/alcoholic
character on the palate but still loads of lush Syrah fruit; a slight bit of an overripe
character shows in the wine. On it’s own, a lovely Syrah that carries its alcohol well,
but the alcohol is noticible when tasted aside the others.
3.-7. Fresno State Calif Syrah (about 15%) 1999: Made by mixing wines 3. and 7. together:
This wine smelled & tasted very close to 6., except the alcohol seemed to not be as
well-integrated and it was a bit harsher/hotter on the palate and slightly more
alcoholic in the nose. But the blend and 6. were very very close in character.
And a very long&boring bloody pulpit:
- This was a 5-pack case that’s available from DarrellCorti in Sacramento. The wine was
made for this experiment by the students at FresnoStateUniv. When I tasted this wine,
I immediately thought “Holy $hit…students made this wine?? This is not your typical
kid’s science fair project”!! I’ve also had a Zin and a Barbera from Darrell, made at
FSU from SanJoaquin grapes, priced down around $8/btl, that have been remarkably good
and great values. Those folks down there know a bit about winemaking it seems.
- This was a FSU and industry cooperative project. The grapes were donated by John Diener
from his RedRockRanch in FivePoints, a small burg midway between Coalinga and Fresno,
right in the heart of the SanJoaquin Valley. Harvested at 31 Brix (the 0.55 multiplier
doesn’t account for the 18% alcohol) with a 2-day cold-soak, the fermentation ran for
17 days at 55-60 degreesF. Pressed at 1 Brix, the fermentation proceeded to 0.6% rs
afore sticking.
In January, the wine was sent to Vinovation for reverse osmosis to reduce the alcohol,
from the original 18.0% to 12.8%,and everything in between in 0.1% increments. The four
“sweet spots” at above alcohols were selected for aging 6 months in American oak. Each
lot completed alcoholic fermentation except the original 18.0%, stopping at <0.2% rs.
Three of the four reduced alcohol lots finished M-L fermentation. Then given a 5 micron
filteration and packaged in a slick redwood box.
- This was a classic LosAlamos tasting. When you get a room-full of LosAlamos scientific
types together, each of whom is an expert on whatever subject happens to be at hand,
the discussions become heated, tedious, and ongoing. Not unlike the lengthy discussion
we once had on syphons and whether they’d work on the moon or not. There was at least
20 minutes of discussion on RO afore we got down to the task at hand. And, like
any LosAlamos meeting, no consensus was attainable.
And, of course, we had a voting on the best and the worst wine. And since LosAlamos
types ALWAYS have an authoritative opinion (whether they know anything about the subject
or not), we even took a vote before we took the data… so I could gage what people’s
expectations were. The voting results:
Before After
Alcohol Best Worst Best Worst
13.35% 1 12 - 14
13.75% 4 - 3 -
14.35% 4 - 5 -
15.0% 5 - 8 1
18.0% 3 5 1 2
from a total of 17 tasters.
- Reverse Osmosis and Spinning Cone technology: I’ve not yet read a really good article,
written for wine-geek types, on this technology. One should be written. Maybe I’ll do it.
The technology is widely used in Bordeaux (where high alcohols are seldom a problem),
where they are called concentrators, to remove water from the must afore fermentation,
and increase the intensity and concentration in their wines in order to garner high
scores from certain Monktown attourneys, insuring high prices for their wines. Certain
Monktown attourneys do not seem to be decrying the practice with the same fervor with
which they attack filteration of wines. The use of RO&SC seems to also be spreading to
Burgundy and even Piemonte.
In Calif, the RO&SC technology seems mostly used for reducing the alcohol levels in
their wines. They can harvest the grapes at high sugar levels, increasing those ultra-ripe
flavors that garner high scores from certain Monktown attourneys, but then knock the
alcohol level down to a more reasonable level. As I understand, they send a sample off to
the company, and it’s returned as several samples at different alcohol levels. The winemaker
then tastes the samples to determine his preferred “sweet spot” (which I gather is the
alcohol level at which the wine tastes the most harmonious) that he would like in the finished
wine. Then the requisite fraction is sent off to the lab, the wine is totally de-alcoholized
(more economic to monkey with only a fraction of the wine), returned to the winemaker,
and then the entire lot is blended down to the desired alcohol level. My understanding is
that the practice is becoming rather widely used in Calif, but that winemakers are
pretty loathe to acknowledge their use of the practice. Maybe the mailperson up in
Sebastopol should start making a list of who’s being sent bills by Vinovation. He could
sell it for a fancy price on these boards I would venture a guess!!
- As I understand RO&SC, the wine is put thru this machine that entirely deconstructs the
wine; removing the alcohol and the water, and leaving a sort of sludge (where the flavors
and smells are retained). The alcohol is then evaporated from the water and the wine then
is reconstructed. I’m certain this is a rather simplified understanding, but it strikes me
as a rather brutal process to inflict upon a wine.
Consequently, I was very carefully looking for, as I tasted thru these wines, evidence
that this wine had been subjected to such a brutalization. Surely, SHIRLEY, any wine that
had been beaten up this badly would show such evidence of mistreatment. Alas, I could find
NONE!!! There was nothing in smelling or tasting these wines that stood out as a common
characteristic of a wine being subjected to RO/SC. That’s not good news at all for certain
Monktown attourneys if they can’t identify such treatments in wine!! Maybe that evidence
will surface down the road as the wines age in the bottle, but it’s not at all apparent
in this set of young wines.
Bottom line: We, as wine geeks, have often been decrying the use of RO/SC technology
as somehow wrong or manipulative or unethical or unnatural, simply because we just KNOW
it to be so (sort of like the breathing in wines). Maybe, just MAYBE, we are all wrong!!!
Maybe, just MAYBE, we don’t know what we’re all talking about!!! Just a thought from a very
limited sampling of data.
- One of the beauties of this tasting experiment was examing our sensitivity to alcohol in
wines. I routinely taste wines that are 15%-16%-17% alcohol. Many people rant&rave about
how such wines taste hot/fumey/burning/alcoholic such wines taste. I seldom find that
in those wines I taste. Maybe my palate has been seared from to many yrs of high-octane
Zins (I have, of course, followed them from the very start!!).
When I tasted the barn-burning 18% by itself, I must admit that it didn’t smell or
tasted particularly hot & alcoholic; the wine carried its alcohol rather well I thought.
But when I smelled & tasted thru the wines from the bottom to the top, I finally
started the see the alcohol character in the wine at the 15.0% level. So it was, if
nothing else, a good training experiment for my alcohol sensitivity.
But I was noticing that other tasters were showing higher sensitivity to the alcohol
than I was, some noticing the alcohol becoming obtrusive or noticible at the 14.35%
level. Different strokes for different folks.
- This was a wonderfull tasting experiment to perform, especially for a LosAlamos type.
I would encourage others (even Monktown attourneys), with more perspecacious palates,
to do this tasting experiment as well. I’d like to be proven wrong. Bottom line: maybe
we’re getting all hot&bothered over something we shouldn’t be???
- This tasting was NOT performed blind by most of us. Two of my tasters wanted to do them
blind, so they were accomodated. Their choice of the optimal alcohol level was very
consistent with what the rest of us found, and they were able to pick out the two
extreme ones as well.
- The wine: This was a Syrah that fermented out to 18.0% alcohol naturally, made from
SanJoaquinValley grapes. The wines were damn good wines, I must admit. I was struck by
two things: Wow… that San Joaquin grapes can produce a Syrah that’s this good; and,
for a 18.0% alcohol base wine, I was totally unable to pick up any raisened or overripe
or pruney character in the wines that would normally be found in wines from grapes of this
high a sugar level… no real identifiable LateHarvesty character in the wines.
Very impressive on both counts.
- Vinovation: Winemakers are very reluctant to acknowledge the use of this RO/SC
technology because they know that they would be attacked and critized by consumers and
certain Monktown attourneys for their lack of ethics and manipulative winemaking practices.
I think it would be to both their and Vinovation’s (and the other companies that offer up the
the technology) advantage to make more of experiments such as this available to
consumers to make their point that maybe this technology is not as abhorrent as we first
believed. Maybe such a seminar at ZAP or HdR would be worth doing, or at any of the
many wine festivals around the country. Of course, most winemakers want to be known for
their use of “natural and honest” winemaking techniques, and thus may be reluctant to
participate in such a seminar.
- Further experiments: I would love to see FSU repeat this experiment, using Zin grapes
from a better growing area, like Paso or Sonoma. I plan to buy another 5-pack from
Darrell and repeat the experiment 4-5 yrs down the road, just to see the effect of aging
and if it makes the RO treatment more obvious; not that these wines will benefit from
much aging. I’d also like to see the same wine totally deconstructed by RO and the
reconstructed up to its original alcohol level, and then taste them side by side against
the un-RO’s one. And do the experiment again as the wines age in the btl. That should show
if the RO is brutalizing the wine as much as we expect.
Finally, the assumption behind the use of RO/SC technology is that the grapes at riper/
higher sugar levels give superioor smells and flavors. I would like to see the grapes
harvested to give, say, 14%; and then ripen them to give, say, 16%. Then RO/SC the alcohol
wine down to the 14% level and taste those two side-by-side. That would be a good taste
of that assumption.
My guess is that many of these experiments have already been done at Vinovation and
elsewhere. But we consumers, certain Monktown attourneys notwithstanding, would certainly
find such experiments useful for our own peace of mind over the technology.
- My big fear in this experiment was that one of the wines would be corked. But we lucked
out, none were.
- Bottom line: My “sweet spot” for these wines was at the 14.35% level. Others preferred
the 15.0% version. I liked it, too, but recognizing the presence of the alcohol (which
I wouldn’t have by itself) detracted a bit for me. But none of us were able to either
smell or taste anything that we could identify as a wine that had been brutalized by RO/SC.
TomHill (at his geeky best today)
Never. Because it’s contrary to those critics’ positions that filtering of any kind strips a wine of its soul 
Sine Qua Non is one such producer that fits this profile.
Depends on the base fruit, how much was done, etc. Blanket statements, as with anything, miss the point as there are many variables.
That’s not surprising, and I’d expect that. A difference in 10% of alcohol or concentration (subtracting water) should be noticeable. On average I tend to think 13.5% ABV vs. 15% ABV is a difference, not necessarily in heat, but certainly in body/texture.
But I don’t think that’s the real figure of merit, so to speak. Put a bunch of wines with different vintage characters RO’d and not RO’d next to each other. That’s how people drink wine, mostly. They have the finished wines, and maybe have a couple of bottles from different vintages open next to each other.
So the import measure for me is does it change the wine for the end user in a real world environment. It’s interesting to compare in vacuum what a certain producer used to be pre-RO or whether a vintage character is obliterated by RO. But really the proof is in the pudding. If Chateau X wants me to pay $100 for a wine because it has great terroir but opted to alter its terroir expression, I will move on to some other producer. If Producer Y says we make wine that drinks well, do what we need to in the cellar and sell it for a fair price, then maybe I will buy their wine.
Do you reserve this to techniques in the cellar? What is Chateau X does more shoot thinning, or leaf pulling, or crop thinning? Are those alterations of terroir expression?
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
You bet. As far as I’m concerned, Adam, if a producer even plants vines in rows, instead of letting them grow naturally wherever the birds happen to poop out the seeds, that’s too much intervention for me ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
Alan,
While I appreciate the sarcastic tone of your reply - a tone I far-too often utilize (and it gets me in trouble, ask Dianna), let’s not get off track in a entirely natural vs. entirely non-natural debate.
This thread is dealing with concentration – and any issues surrounding concentrating wine. Wine is at least a step or two removed from the direct expression of terroir, the grapes themselves. Wouldn’t it make more sense to examine what is done to concentrate the direct expression of terroir? Is this a good or bad thing? Could a winemaker argue that he/she prefers to let the terroir express itself by giving a higher yield – and then concentrating it later as wine – and that is, in fact, a more natural expression of terroir than concentrating it thru crop reduction?
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Concentration- turning terroir up to 11. ![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}