So… my vineyard is surrounded by cannabis growers on all sides. These grows have been operating for over 10 years now. The odor in the fall is STRONG. I have never smelled or tasted even the slightest hint of cannabis related characters in my wine. I am a licensed cannabis grower as well. So you may take my opinion as biased but personally I would love to see these huge grows in Santa Barbara and elsewhere limited because they are flooding the market with cheap product and bringing down the price for the rest of us. I am also paying twice the taxes per square foot they are and am only allowed to use water that I collect off my roof, stored in tanks, dispite the fact that I live in a place that receives an annual average rainfall of 60 inches or more. Our regulations in Humboldt are 10 fold what they are in Santa Barbara so I’d love to see the playing field leveled. I’m just speaking from my own personal experience and from a science and chemistry background. I’d love it if we could here from other scientists here.
Gasses dont and land on,L grape skins. As far as I know that’s not physically possible. Even Eucalyptus, with it’s oil laden leaves only affects/taints wine if the leaves are fermented. It’s not from oils “blown in the wind”, which also makes no sense on s physical and scientific basis. I think if these vineyards are going to make claims they need to provide some scientifiic proof. Otherwise, it is just one farmer shutting down another farmer because they don’t like the smell. What if the neighbors of wineries wanted to shut them down because of the smell and amount of C02 we pump out every harvest period. I think wineries need to tread lightly here and proceeded with factual scientific evidence before they go making claims and trying to shut down other farmers.
Like I’ve said before, if they don’t like the smell of cannabis that’s one thing, I don’t like the smell of rotting brassicas in the fields around Santa Rita hills and Lompoc but no one is make claims that its going to tain the grapes.
Ok… getting off my soap box. Sorry for the rant.
I pay extra for terpenes in my beer 
Come on. It’s 2019.
Who needs science when you have belief? If there’s emotional resonance to your idea, then it’s a good one. And you’re entitled to hold it with all your strength. People who disagree are just trying to be hurtful.
This is convincing. Thanks.
Greg, I accept that John is sincere in his beliefs, and maybe even correct. But I’m a little surprised there hasn’t already been better research done on this.
John: You may very well be right in your statements, but should also note that compounds don’t have to be naturally gaseous to get into the air. Eucalyptus oil(s) aren’t naturally gaseous either, yet we know they can get onto nearby grapes (or at least there is a lot of anecdotal evidence and conventional wisdom that they do). If you ever get to the Blue Mountains outside of Sydney, you’ll be amazed at the aroma of eucalyptus that permeates the air from the massively extensive forests there, and the blue haze that covers the area for miles and miles.
John, I was involved in the Flavor and Fragrance industry for my entire career and I pretty much agree with your analysis. Volatile compounds, even ones that are extremely odorous have little tenacity in the open air. I have no proof in the case of cannabis odor spilling over to a vineyard but I doubt any contamination would occur. Very different than Smoke Taint where you actually have particulate matter.
Eucalyptus in wine as a descriptor, absolutely but I sincerely don’t think it has ever happened from “air contamination”. Put the “Heitz Eucalyptus” claims in with Ridge “Draper Perfume” and Napa Bench Cab “Rutherford Dust”. Romantic and intriguing but that’s about it.
Tom
That’s not fair. The reason there’s almost no scientific research is because cannabis (other than the specific strain that is industrial hemp) is still federally illegal. So is there scientific certainty about the claims made in this thread? No. Is there overwhelming anecdotal evidence from cultivators about this point? From my discussions with dozens of cultivators, yes. So to dismiss the claims on this board as frivolous belief, rather than bothering to ask why people are making these claims given the lack of formal research, is, well, .
To my knowledge they have not come up with anything scientific. More feeling than science.
I have been surprised that no one from Oregon has posted. Oregon was legally growing cannabis in wine country before California. There is a major study from Australia on the subject. Unfortunately, I am technically unable to include it here. I can barely do emails. The findings are that eucalyptus oils which are similar to cannabis can impact grapes because of eucalyptus leaves-MOG-with the grapes going into the crusher destemmer or the proximity of the trees next to the vineyard. Both of which makes sense. When I visited Martha’s Vineyard years ago the vineyard was surrounded by eucalyptus trees and their leaves were in the canopy and on the vineyard floor. The Santa Barbara Vintners Asso. is proposing banning cannabis is any AVA in the county.
Stephen,
I am surprised nothing has come out of OR as well - I would have thought Oregon State would be working with vineyards to look into this - and perhaps they are.
I think it’s important to set the stage in SB County though - not sure you’ve done so. As of now, as far as I know, SB County is the only one that has set zero limits on grow sizes and no cap on the number of acres that can be planted. And you’ve got hundreds of acres that are proposed for the Sta Rita Hills, directly adjacent to a number of vineyards.
I also disagree that the Vintners is looking to ban cannabis in all AVAs - that is not their stance. The stance is that there should be limits - and the Board of Directors of SB County is going to have to backtrack. The big issue is odors adjacent to tasting rooms - this is not an issue in places like Santa Maria Valley but is in other others.
Also, I do believe that there are a few wineries that are conducting trials / tests right now to assess whether cannabis terpenes or any other compounds are making it onto leaves/skin and into finished wines. I will update when I get more information.
Great conversation - thanks, John for your information (and your info on my Facebook post asking about the same issues). Vintner’s is one of the loudest advocates of re-assessing the County’s poor drafting of their cannabis policies - we’ll see what happens from here.
And I continue to be amazed that cannabis is not allowed at all in Napa County - someone up there want to comment? And what types of limits are there on its growing in Sonoma County?
Cheers.
In studies done in Australia, they’ve found that it is the Eucalyptus leaves that make it IN the fermentors that causes the flavor/aroma impact, not the aroma present in the air. On top of that there’s the fact that cannabis has NO oils at all on the leaves or stems. The resinous trichomes are solids. Theres no scientific proof than an “aroma” can either “stick” to a grape skin, or bind with glucose and fructose molecules in the juice the way particulates in smoke can, in the case of 4 methyl guiacol.
I personally have more experience in this particular area than probably anyone, so I feel confident making this claim. The beauty of science is that a theory can always be disproven, but until then we go with the evidence we have.
Kinda like suing someone, without a shred of scientific proof or evidence? It’s not just my brief Greg. Like i said, I’ve studied this with my own vineyard for 10 years. I also have a pretty good grasp on wine chemistry. The good thing about this country is that one is innocent until proven guilty and in this case there is no evidence, both physical and scientific that cannabis can taint wine grapes.
Hi Larry. The position of the Vintners Asso. is to ban cannabis in all Santa Barbara County AVAs. I was at a meeting on Friday at Melville and Alison, the Vintners Ex. Dir., said that was the Vintners’ position. There were several Vintner Board members present and no one contradicted her. She in the past advocated to ban all hoop houses which would have put the berry farmers out of business. She then advocated for banning hoop houses within one mile of Hwys 246 and 154 and the Santa Rosa Road. That would have put Tutti Frutti Heirloom Tomatoes out of business and reduced Finely Farms crops.
Hi All, its been a long long time since I’ve posted (back in my Donelan days). So long in fact I had to open a new account. A friend passed along the thread and asked if I would contribute.
To John Cabot’s point - it is noteworthy that he has been surrounded by cannabis grows and hasn’t seen impact in his wines. That’s encouraging. But as Larry noted, the proposed grows in SBC are unprecedented in their size. Of several proposed permits on three sides of one of our vineyards, 2 would instantly become the largest grows in the world. One by two times, the other by nearly 5 times.
To John’s point about Eucalyptol, I think its an example of taking a kernel of truth and applying it in a broader way that isn’t what the study’s author concluded or intended and doesn’t share all the info. The peer reviewed study that demonstrated that eucalyptol in wine was from nearby trees DID show that the largest contributor of eucalyptol in wine was from eucalyptus leaves getting in the canopy and picking bins. Therefore scientist concluded the best way to mitigate the aroma in your wine was to eliminate the leaves since this would have the largest impact on concnetration. A fair conclusion given their evidence and the desire to mitigate (not eliminate) the aroma. This fact has often been repeated - as John said - “Eucalyptus, with it’s oil laden leaves ONLY affects/taints wine IF the leaves are fermented. It’s not from oils “blown in the wind”, which also makes no sense on a physical and scientific basis.” (Emphasis mine). I have heard this repeated this way about this study more than once. However, it is not quite what the study was saying. In fact the study did demonstrate, quite clearly, that eucalyptol DID drift in the wind and was found on the grapevine tissue at harvest and up to 150 meters away independent of eucalyptus leaves. In fact, they also set up “traps” - special plastic screens in the vineyard - to separate grapevine tissue and eucalyptus leaves from what was just drifting in the air and it also showed terpene transmission. So, while it is leaves that can have the largest contribution, the PRINCIPLE that drift is possible was also clearly demonstrated. Scientifically, in a peer reviewed journal. Furthermore, Australians have conducted what are know as “consumer rejection thresholds” on eucalyptus taint in wine. Currently literature suggest the threshold to be 27-28 ppb (parts per billion).
What is not well quantified in the study cited is the source amount. The study notes a “group of trees”. That, certainly, is different that a 145 acre grove of trees. No?
Any reasonable scientist would look at this study, the ample anecdotal evidence of eucalyptus in wine, the similarity of 1,8 cineole (eucalyptol) to other major monoterpenes in cannabis (in fact, eucalyptol is also found in cannabis), and expect cannabis terpenes to be able to drift onto grape surfaces. That doesn’t necessarily mean taint, but the possibility is real. I actually tested this earlier this summer in an undisclosed SBC vineyard (not ours). We tested for 3 terpenes known to be unique to cannabis and not found in grapevines at levels between 200 and 550 ppb on grape tissue (and yes, we had controls that had zero). Note, the midpoint of that range is nearly 10 times the consumer rejection threshold for cannabis. The size of the nearby cannabis grow was not known but I’d estimate <10 acres.
To Pepe’s points about the Vintners, I serve on the Board and our CEO is expressing one possibility that has been suggested regarding AVAs. I, for one, am simply looking to work with the County and cannabis growers on determining proper grow sizes and set backs given the concerning evidence that cannabis flavors could impact our grapes. Whether you like the flavors or not is irrelevant. We have a right to farm our crop in a manner that provides us reasonable control of the outcome of our existing business and product. Broccoli stink is a fair point, and if our neighbor wanted to plant broccoli and I could do something about it I would. thankfully, I don’t think I have to worry about that because any new farmer buying land at a newly assessed tax value isn’t going to be choosing to plant broccoli because they wouldn’t be able to afford the tax on the land. Nor are broccoli farmers throwing around the kind of cash cannabis growers are to lease land. Broccoli in this county is going by they of the buggy whip. And, the county classified cannabis differently than broccoli which changes its nuisance protections under the right to farm. I am not interested in Ag limiting other Ag, we just want a solution that works a little more for all and is consistent with the state’s ethos of protecting small growers at least until 2023 (which the allowance of license stacking and therefore large outdoor grows clearly does not do).
Cannabis has some value for our county, but the ordinance and regulations are so far out of bounds of what every other county has done, that we should take that as a signal and ask ourselves: what are we missing that everyone else is seeing? If we don’t do that, we’re just being arrogant or willfully ignorant, or both. John - the cannabis folks down here are happy to have the wheels so well greased that they’ll be able to drive you out of your cannabis business. You’ll be left with grapes, which hopefully smell like wine. 
Tyler
In addition to possibly tainting wine, another concern is whether someone who drank the wine would fail a drug test. I don’t know enough about the chemistry of cannabis or drug testing to know whether this is a realistic concern.
-Al
Thanks to Tyler for popping on here. And his small research project certainly is interesting - and the first of these types of studies of any kind that I have seen.
Another big issue to point out is that the state mandated that cannabis must be free of pesticides and fungicides and it is mandatory to test for these things. This would not usually be a problem, but when cannabis grows are established next to existing farms/vineyards, issues may arise.
Here is an article detailing some of these, including a big problem that Kathy Joseph of Fiddlehead is having with one of the largest grows right next to hear vineyard. I know, I know - why should wineries or anyone else continue to use such ‘nasty’ things as fungicides or herbicides? Well . . . not all of them are nasty, and they are quite effective.
And this is not only affecting vineyards - I understand that the avocado harvest in parts of Carpinteria will be way down because growers there have had to find alternative sprays to use and they have not been as effective.
This is becoming a big issue here in SB County and I’m glad that folks outside of our area are now starting to here about it - and about how ‘different’ the Board of Supervisors has treated cannabis here compared to every other county in CA. I didn’t realize until reading this article that more than 50% of counties, including Napa, have still not allowed legal grows in their counties.
I do believe that the two industries can co-exist here, but modifications of current policies will need to be made in order for that to happen . . .
I’m in Oregon and I think efforts to restrict cannabis in AVAs are absurd. People seem to want proof there is no issue with contamination. I’d love proof there is an issue. John lays out information that makes sense to me. Aromas don’t mean contamination. The dairy farms near some of my vineyards smell like crazy and who’s concerned about contamination?
You know what we should ban? 2, 4-D.
But why should they have to coexist? There must be good growing land well away from any wine AVAs. I honestly don’t understand the logic of using expensive vineyard land to grow pot. I guess John, out in the middle of nowhere, can do it, but he’s not on expensive vineyard property.
Vincent,
Did you read what Tyler said above? There have not been any studies to truly look at this - as far as I or anyone can point to - and Tyler’s brief study seems to point in the direction that ‘contamination’ may be an issue to look further into.
The other big issue we are dealing with down here - many of these grows are quite close not only to vineyards but to tasting rooms - and that ‘dank’ is quite off putting to the majority of folks out there. This can and will have an impact on tourism in our area - and that should not be the case.
Cheers.
Have to? Well, that’s more of a ‘legal’ question - in SB County, there were no restrictions up until a few weeks back about the types of properties that can be used for commercial grows, and even these new restrictions do not limit the potential size of these grows,
I’m sure that even in Napa County, where land prices are high, there are ‘less desirable’ pieces of land where cannabis could be grown. In the Sta Rita Hills, there are areas down near the Santa Ynez River that are not as desirable for wine grapes and larger grows are taking place there. But even in more ‘desirable’ areas, the acre price of land is not discouraging these folks at all.
Cheers