The June 2011 issue of "The Drinks Business" featured an article written by Lucy Shaw which had the title Dr. Richard Smart Slams Organics. Lucy Shaw's article is a very short summary of statements that Dr. Smart made at a Conference in Barcelona, the topic was Wineries for Climate Protection. I'm not sure if Lucy Shaw meant to have an eye catching title to lure the reader and the first line certainly did not stop me from plunging into the entire article head first.
The article quotes Dr. Smart as saying: “When people buy food they don’t mind choosing products that have been grown on land treated with chemicals, so why should they care about how a wine has been treated?” Smart spoke passionately about the need for winemakers to wake up to the fact that CO2 is a pollutant. “Oenologists are environmental vandals of the worst type. CO2 is the greatest pollutant and winemakers are releasing it back into the atmosphere, undoing all the good work in the vineyard."
I've been reading Dr. Smart's articles in Practical Winery & Vineyard and somehow, what he was quoted as saying just didn't add up. I wondered if he was trying to be intentionally provocative. The current (Summer 2011) PW&V has an article written by Dr. Smart entitled "In Defense of Conventional Viticulture". I wondered if conventional viticulture does need defending. As a wine drinker, I am first concerned with wine flavor, I understand that in order to grow grapes much care must be taken in the vineyard to get a crop, whether by conventional or alternative farming methods. But, as a grape grower, I will try my best to grow grapes without resorting to herbicides and pesticides because I know that they are harmful to the environment and the long term sustainability of the land.
Dr Smart is known for his provocative statements. More often these are aimed at making us THINK - challenging the accepted practice.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the CO2 released during fermentation is cyclical - that is it does not add to atmospheric CO2 as to create the sugars, photosynthesis extracted the identical volume from the air. It is an example of the Law of the conservation of Energy. In other words, carbon zero 101.
I have experienced several organically run vineyards and many more conventionally run, in my 40 odd years of viticulture. In almost (almost), every case there was a decrease in yield of up to 40% (in one case from 5.5 tons an acre to 2.8 tons - being uneconomic) and rarely is the value recovered in the grape price.
The labour inputs are also greater - though possibly balanced to a degree by the cheaper sprays (which we know of course, aren't "chemicals") and the fewer trims etc. Most often I have found that the concept of organics as practiced by growers, is an excuse to do even less work.
Over all, I share Dr Smart's cynicism - for like him, I can rarely taste any differences in the finished wines. On those occasions that I can, it is more often an increased dry extract factor - probably in line with the reduced tonnages. One day I may get to compare low tonnage conventional with a similar tonnage organic. For growers, it is hard enough making a vineyard pay at current prices without taking a significant (and rarely rewarded comparably), yield penalty.