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