'Natural' wines

Winemaking Talk - Winemaking Forum

Help Support Winemaking Talk - Winemaking Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

REDRUM

Vinthropologist
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Messages
266
Reaction score
133
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Not sure if this should go here or 'general chit-chat', please move if necessary!

---
Lately there has been a lot of talk about the so-called natural wine movement, which is, basically, a philosophy that suggests that wine should be made with as little 'manipulation' as possible by the winemaker.

This is in response to criticism of modern scientific winemaking practices as simply concocting a beverage to a recipe - trying to reverse-engineer a wine to bring it up to a certain standard rather than working in concert with what the grapes provide.

The premise is that if you have good grapes all the ingredients to make a good wine are already there (sugars, yeasts, tannins, acid) and that by adding stuff you are actually detracting from the 'natural' expression of the fruit and the terroir.

There's a lot of criticism about the use of the term 'natural', because obviously there is still a lot of human intervention that is needed ... from grape growing to harvest to ensuring clean fermentation conditions to deciding on timing of various stages. And people that call themselves 'natural winemakers' don't always agree as to the boundaries of natural wine. Some hardliners will not add sulphur at all as a preservative, others use 'minimal sulphur', but generally nothing else is added. Often the wines ferment for a long time (sometimes using techniques like carbonic maceration), and although they are racked they might be bottled without filtering and fining. Some will mature the wine in casks, others regard oaking as another unnatural addition and prefer to do everything in completely inert vessels.

The guy that is usually regarded as the father of modern natural wines was a Beaujolais chemist and winemaker, Jules Chauvert, whose general position was that sulphur could be added but ONLY if absolutely necessary... and likewise if there was a very problematic vintage the grapes might be corrected with acid or sugar, but only as a last resort.

I have had some absolutely incredible 'natural wines' with some very complex flavours (I have been told that by killing native yeasts with sulphur and re-inoculating with an isolated strand, you can lose a lot of the microbiotic complexity that adds interesting flavours and aromas to the wines), but I have also had some pretty ordinary ones (and oxidised ones, and ones which are just too funky for my tastes). Obviously it depends on a lot of things, first and foremost you need good quality grapes.

Generally I think that this sort of winemaking opens the door to a much broader spectrum of wine and encourages working with the wine rather than trying to make it fit a particular profile... but I also know that it requires closer attention because things can quite easily go wrong.

Interested in hearing peoples' views as to this sort of winemaking? Are there people here who strive to make wines like this? Personally I like the fact that this is the sort of winemaking that suits amateurs and small producers, because it is just not feasible to do on a large commercial scale, and you can get some really interesting and unique stuff.

EDIT: I've also read some fascinating stuff about the importance of microbial diversity in the 'ecosystems' of artisan cheeses produced using unpasteurised milk, etc .. don't know much about cheesemaking but the general ideas are the same as those applied to natural wines, it's the complexity of the microflora and fauna that lead to complexity of flavours and aromas in the wine/cheese. Same goes with those traditional Belgian wild-ferment ales.
 
but I also know that it requires closer attention because things can quite easily go wrong.

Ahh, but here's the rub: Let's say you are paying close attention, and discover you have a problem, say, Brett. What are you going to do about it without "unnatural" remedies?

I am in the camp of using all means available to make a better food/wine product. If that means leaving it alone, I'll leave it alone. If it means hosing it with a chemical or a culture, I'll do that.

The guy that is usually regarded as the father of modern natural wines was a Beaujolais chemist and winemaker, Jules Chauvert, whose general position was that sulphur could be added but ONLY if absolutely necessary... and likewise if there was a very problematic vintage the grapes might be corrected with acid or sugar, but only as a last resort.

So his principles are malleable?
 
You bring up some interesting points, but I am still in the camp of using all available tools to ensure that the grapes that I use will make a great wine. That being said, when you get some good grapes a lot can be said about not messing with them until you ruin them.
 
Ahh, but here's the rub: Let's say you are paying close attention, and discover you have a problem, say, Brett. What are you going to do about it without "unnatural" remedies?
Guess that depends on how big the apparent problem is ... there is a line of argument that says that brett (for example) is not necessarily a fault at all and is noticeably present in some wines that are considered to be very good! This is an interesting article about it: http://www.wineanorak.com/brettanomyces.htm

I am in the camp of using all means available to make a better food/wine product. If that means leaving it alone, I'll leave it alone. If it means hosing it with a chemical or a culture, I'll do that.
Yep, to me (as a beginner) it seems like that is the real skill in winemaking: to know where that line is, when to intervene and when to leave it the hell alone. In principle, I would like to be brave enough to really experiment with letting the wine run wild and see where it takes me, but in practice I tend towards the risk-averse. This vintage I am making a batch of wine with the same grapes as my father-in-law, however I sulfured and inoculated with packet yeast, while he added nothing and let the native yeasts run the ferment. It will be interesting to see how each of them compare at the end...

So his principles are malleable?
Yes, to an extent, but it sounds as though he got gradually more hardline throughout his life.
 
You bring up some interesting points, but I am still in the camp of using all available tools to ensure that the grapes that I use will make a great wine. That being said, when you get some good grapes a lot can be said about not messing with them until you ruin them.

I think that's the key to it all: with greater input you get better consistency and much more control over the quality of the outcome. With less input you might get some happy surprises and possibly some very interesting wine, but there's also much more chance of ending up with a bottle of vinegar or something that smells like a rat drowned in it...
 
Natural NEVER means better!

This topic come up from time to time.

This "Natural" approach is nothing more than taking a reactive approach to winemaking. There are many issues that can arise that are rather hard to deal with when detected (like oxidation). A proactive approach (like the use of k-meta, yeast nutrient, and adjusting acid) reduces the risk of having a bad year.

Too many times have I observed winemakers dealing with batches of wine that have gone south only because they had this same "do as little as possible" mentality. It is at times almost heart wrenching knowing that these cases could have been prevented!

At no time have I ever come across a true test that shows a "natural" approach is better. To my knowledge, no one has ever done a comparison of "natural" and "unnatural" techniques within the exact same vintage where the "Natural" approach was clearly better.


Folks ultimately make their own call on this. To me, putting your wine at risk to reap unsubstantiated reward is clearly NOT the way to go. I always attempt to do my best in talking beginner winemakers out of this line of thinking.
 
Just to add another point,

Most of this "natural" mentality stems from the idea that we should make wine like they did in the "good old days". We should consider this.. A much larger portion of wine made in the good old days sucked! When wine issues popped up, the only thing that could be done was to lower the price of wine, sacrifice a goat, and pray to the gods for help.

I am sure that the ancient winemakers would give his/her left arm for our amount of experience and knowledge.
 
I tried the wild yeast method and no additives or anything. Wellllllll it's terrible. Un drinkable!!! I have friends that do it this way for generations and some of their wines are good and some are hard to swallow. Needless to say I ordered the ph tester, chromo kit and all necessary chemicals. I wanted to keep it natural but it's truly heartbreaking when it ends up ruined. I was given a lot of great advice on this site about the wild yeast method. Very insightful and ultimately changed my mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Wine Making
 
This topic come up from time to time.

This "Natural" approach is nothing more than taking a reactive approach to winemaking. There are many issues that can arise that are rather hard to deal with when detected (like oxidation). A proactive approach (like the use of k-meta, yeast nutrient, and adjusting acid) reduces the risk of having a bad year.

Too many times have I observed winemakers dealing with batches of wine that have gone south only because they had this same "do as little as possible" mentality. It is at times almost heart wrenching knowing that these cases could have been prevented!

At no time have I ever come across a true test that shows a "natural" approach is better. To my knowledge, no one has ever done a comparison of "natural" and "unnatural" techniques within the exact same vintage where the "Natural" approach was clearly better.


Folks ultimately make their own call on this. To me, putting your wine at risk to reap unsubstantiated reward is clearly NOT the way to go. I always attempt to do my best in talking beginner winemakers out of this line of thinking.

And I appreciate it! The reason I'm on this forum is to learn more about the technical aspects of the craft...!

I'm not trying to suggest that all wine should be made without additives (some styles that I love would be impossible, and I think it would be very hard to make a fine wine with really long ageing potential). HOWEVER I have tasted some fantastic 'natural' wines which are very different from their 'conventional' counterparts. Of course quality is subjective but I don't agree that a natural approach is always going to be worse. Much more risky, of course, especially for home winemakers... but surely sometimes an approach which is too prescriptive can have its own drawbacks.

For me, I want to hedge my bets (I said I was risk-averse!) and experiment with both... Definitely don't want to go down the zero-sulphur route though, that seems like asking for trouble.
 
I tried the wild yeast method and no additives or anything. Wellllllll it's terrible. Un drinkable!!! I have friends that do it this way for generations and some of their wines are good and some are hard to swallow. Needless to say I ordered the ph tester, chromo kit and all necessary chemicals. I wanted to keep it natural but it's truly heartbreaking when it ends up ruined. I was given a lot of great advice on this site about the wild yeast method. Very insightful and ultimately changed my mind.

Hey Nayrea - I have been following your thread about wild yeast fermentation because the way you got into wine making is kind of the same experience that I'm going through now ... and a lot of what you're saying rings true for me. My father-in-law's homemade wine is sometimes very good and sometimes f'ing awful... however the last bad vintage we were able to locate the problem in a bacterial infection from the old wooden fermentation vat he was using.

This season he has some new equipment (crusher/destemmer, new basket press, high-density plastic tubs, big glass demijohns rather than old barrels for maturation). Always scrupulous with cleaning and the wine smells/tastes vibrant and healthy thus far. HOWEVER he is on a weird health kick at the moment and decides he doesn't want to add SO2 to his wine this year, so I sort of fear for its future. But we'll see how it goes. I'm doing my own batch with cultured yeast and adding SO2 (but nothing else) so this will be an interesting comparison.
 
Hey Nayrea - I have been following your thread about wild yeast fermentation because the way you got into wine making is kind of the same experience that I'm going through now ... and a lot of what you're saying rings true for me. My father-in-law's homemade wine is sometimes very good and sometimes f'ing awful... however the last bad vintage we were able to locate the problem in a bacterial infection from the old wooden fermentation vat he was using.



This season he has some new equipment (crusher/destemmer, new basket press, high-density plastic tubs, big glass demijohns rather than old barrels for maturation). Always scrupulous with cleaning and the wine smells/tastes vibrant and healthy thus far. HOWEVER he is on a weird health kick at the moment and decides he doesn't want to add SO2 to his wine this year, so I sort of fear for its future. But we'll see how it goes. I'm doing my own batch with cultured yeast and adding SO2 (but nothing else) so this will be an interesting comparison.


Well keep me updated on how it goes. After sooooooo much research and advice I have kinda gone the opposite way. I am actually going to use the cultured yeast, meta and I am also going to do a mlf fermentation on my grapes in a few weeks. A big undertaking for a newbie but I am reading and preparing. And after doing some reading a lot of these things we add and promote to the wine can happen naturally as well but just not a guarantee. Which answers my question of why some wine is better then others they make. I would guess the better ones most likely went through some degree of mlf on their own...!?? But most of their wine is like rocket fuel.


Sent from my iPhone using Wine Making
 
You state that you have to have good quality grapes as one of the means for success. Well, WHO has perfect grapes? Most years, the weather creates challenges for producing the perfect grape. No one is in control of that so it's up to the winemaker to make up for what nature could not provide. The last perfect year that we had here was in 1999.

I think people get too obsessed with this "natural" movement. It's also very natural to poop in one's pants--but who wants THAT??
 
You state that you have to have good quality grapes as one of the means for success. Well, WHO has perfect grapes? Most years, the weather creates challenges for producing the perfect grape. No one is in control of that so it's up to the winemaker to make up for what nature could not provide. The last perfect year that we had here was in 1999.

I think people get too obsessed with this "natural" movement. It's also very natural to poop in one's pants--but who wants THAT??


Bahahahahhaha
I like when someone told me u can catch a fast ball with your bare hands but why would u?!? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Wine Making
 
LOL---no wonder all my friends, who know me well, tell me that I'm VERY organic!!! I just couldn't think of a more natural thing to do that most of us take unnatural control over.
 
I tried the wild yeast method and no additives or anything. Wellllllll it's terrible. Un drinkable!!! I have friends that do it this way for generations and some of their wines are good and some are hard to swallow. Needless to say I ordered the ph tester, chromo kit and all necessary chemicals. I wanted to keep it natural but it's truly heartbreaking when it ends up ruined. I was given a lot of great advice on this site about the wild yeast method. Very insightful and ultimately changed my mind. .

Naerea, sounds like you learned the hard way. Natural fermentation takes the choice of yeast out of your hands. Winemaking this way is nothing more than a crap-shoot. Why go with wild, unpredictable yeast when there are yeasts that have been bred for centuries to produce good wine!

And I appreciate it! The reason I'm on this forum is to learn more about the technical aspects of the craft...!

I'm not trying to suggest that all wine should be made without additives (some styles that I love would be impossible, and I think it would be very hard to make a fine wine with really long ageing potential). HOWEVER I have tasted some fantastic 'natural' wines which are very different from their 'conventional' counterparts. Of course quality is subjective but I don't agree that a natural approach is always going to be worse. Much more risky, of course, especially for home winemakers... but surely sometimes an approach which is too prescriptive can have its own drawbacks.

For me, I want to hedge my bets (I said I was risk-averse!) and experiment with both... Definitely don't want to go down the zero-sulphur route though, that seems like asking for trouble.


REDRUM,

Please do not mistake my criticism of the Natural approach as a slant against you. I am glad you brought up this subject.



Well keep me updated on how it goes. After sooooooo much research and advice I have kinda gone the opposite way. I am actually going to use the cultured yeast, meta and I am also going to do a mlf fermentation on my grapes in a few weeks. A big undertaking for a newbie but I am reading and preparing. And after doing some reading a lot of these things we add and promote to the wine can happen naturally as well but just not a guarantee. Which answers my question of why some wine is better then others they make. I would guess the better ones most likely went through some degree of mlf on their own...!?? But most of their wine is like rocket fuel.

Sent from my iPhone using Wine Making

Again, Good for you Nayrea! You will be glad you did it this way!:r:r
 
Another thing that comes to mind is that you can spend alot of money on grapes. So you want to be sure you get a good result from them. I'll bet we drink much better wines today than what was ever made in ancient times. And it's only because we use more scientific means in order to get it there. This is why it's called wine"making"----other wise it'd be called wine"happenstance." What you do at the primary is the designing of the wine. To just let anything happen-- with what happens to be there-- is like raising a child without discipline and the teaching of boundaries of behavior. We're creating boundaries for the wine's behavior by working with it in the primary--what you do there is basically what you're going to get.
 
Another thing that comes to mind is that you can spend alot of money on grapes. So you want to be sure you get a good result from them. I'll bet we drink much better wines today than what was ever made in ancient times. And it's only because we use more scientific means in order to get it there. This is why it's called wine"making"----other wise it'd be called wine"happenstance." What you do at the primary is the designing of the wine. To just let anything happen-- with what happens to be there-- is like raising a child without discipline and the teaching of boundaries of behavior. We're creating boundaries for the wine's behavior by working with it in the primary--what you do there is basically what you're going to get.

Turock, I could not more strongly agree on all of your above points. Take all of that into account! Too many times have beginners been lured into "natural" winemaking only to experience heartache in the end.
 
Back
Top