But... is it organic?

One of the things that I see a great deal at work is people worrying about whether or not a certain wine is organic.

Odd -- it's a term that's pretty over-used in the wine world (go visit a vineyard.  They'll tout that their wine has an organic connection, I'll wager -- either it's "organic grapes," or "no harsh chemical pesticides," or "we farm sustainably.").  Really, it's all about the marketing -- which is what's really important, right?  Heck, it's almost impossible to define "organic wine," as there's a myriad of certifications (off the top of my head, there's California Certified Organic Farmer, USDA Organic, Demeter, Salmon-Safe, Oregon Tilth, and Low Impact Viticulture and Enology).  Not to mention that in other countries, the certification processes are different (as one vintner from Australia once told me -- "we don't bother getting certification, as we'd have to do Australia's, the UK's, the US's, and Japan's.  I'd rather make wine than fill out paperwork."), so there's plenty of uncertified organic wines!

I know the basic arguments for organic wine -- it's a lower-impact method of farming (although, that's debatable -- there are organic pesticides and fertilizers that don't break down any better than the non-organic alternatives), there's the possibility of trace pesticides/fungicides "contaminating" the wine.  Ultimately, though, I wonder...  When you're drinking wine -- which, by definition has ethanol in it, a poison -- why worry about what kind of fertilizer was used in producing the grapes?  I'd worry more about the carbon footprint of the wine (see Dr. Tyler Coleman's work on the subject). 

See, much of the impact of a wine on the environment comes not in producing it...  but in transporting it.  Transporting a wine from Napa to, say, Tampa burns an awful lot of gasoline if you're moving it by truck (which most wine is -- there's a move towards shipping wine by rail, which is much more efficient, but in my experience most wine arrives on a truck).  So let's do some math:

A refer truck gets about 6.5 MPG.  It's 2923 miles from Napa to Tampa, which means about 450 gallons of gas to move the wine -- or 8,730 pounds of CO₂ emitted (roughly -- a gallon of unleaded yields about 19.3 pounds of CO₂ when completely combusted).  The average tractor-trailer carries about 25,000 bottles of wine -- so your bottle of wine from Napa equals just over 1/3 of a pound of CO₂ -- and that's just the cost of moving the wine from producer to consumer, not the cost of getting the bottles, corks, labels, fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, and cases to the producer!

Now, if the wine were transported by train, you can cut the fuel cost in a third -- at least, that's what Union Pacific claims (in the bottom section).  And, according to Dr. Coleman, wine moved by ship is more efficient than truck as well -- to the point that, east of the Mississippi, it's more efficient to drink from Bordeaux than Napa.

And I'd say that cutting the CO₂ emissions used in moving the wine is about as important as anything else you can do in the process.

So why do most people worry about wine being organic? The cynic in me says, it's because appearing to do something to save the environment is easier than actually doing something about it.  It's easier to self-righteously spout to your friends "oh, I'm drinking organic," than it is to explain "my wine has a low carbon footprint."

That being said, it's not that organic wine is bad -- much of it is quite good, in fact, although there's some duds in the organic wines -- but that people's motivations for looking for organic wines are often screwed-up.

One to watch...

I had the joy of getting to taste two of Coelho Winery's wines at a trade tasting yesterday.  Here I am, to tell you... these folks are one to watch.

Their business plan is sound (they're running a profit in the fourth year of operations -- this is well-nigh unheard-of in the wine world).  Their costs are low (it's a family winery -- the family's children do some of the bulk work).  Their winemaking philosophy is minimalist (free-run juice only -- a good idea for pinot -- native-yeast fermentation, sustainable vineyard practices including encouraging kestrels to nest nearby and control rodents -- they're certified Salmon-Safe right now, and will probably be getting Organic certification in 2010), which appeals to me.  And, most importantly... their resultant wines are outstanding.

I got to try both the 2007 Renovação Pinot Gris and the 2006 Paciência Pinot Noir (all of Coelho's wines are given a Portuguese descriptive name -- in this case, it's Renewal and Patience, respectively).

Tasting notes on the Pinot Gris:

Pale in the glass.  Inviting nose of pear and some white floral bouquet.  Surprisingly abundant flavor, showing crisp apple and pear, a vanilla midpalate, with grassy undertones.  A pop of mineral acidity on the finish.  Quite tasty; this is not generic white starter wine, this is serious stuff.  Dry wine with moderate to high acidity balancing a mid/full body, nicely complex, well-balanced, with a long, lingering minerality on the finish.  89 points.

The Pinot Gris was, in a word, excellent pinot gris (I generally dislike this varietal, so a rating in the 89-90 range is high praise).  Good acidity, but not overpowering, perfect as an aperitif or with a light "white wine" meal -- fatty sashimi tuna comes to mind, as does turkey.

The 2006 Pinot Noir -- from 4-year-old vines! -- was similarly good:

Ruby/purple in the glass.  Inviting nose of cherries over mulling spices.  Powerful flavors, showing a bit of raisin right on the forepalate, cherry, more of the mulling spices, and some smoky vanilla notes on the finish.  Tasty.  Perfectly balanced, with moderate acidity and a medium body, very fine-grained tannins barely present.  Finish is around 30 seconds.  Drink now through 2012.  90 points.

And this from 4-year-old vines.  It's generally accepted wisdom that good wine comes from vines 6+ years old, and great wines from 15+ year old vines.  These are young vines.  Not ready for prime time!  Imagine what they'll be in 10 years.

Now, these are not cheap -- $20 for the Pinot Gris in my local store, $33 for the Pinot Noir.  On the website, they're $16 and $35, respectively (although, currently they offer 10% off of cases -- solid or mixed -- and free shipping to legal states in the lower 48).  But, I'll say this... I've had a lot of crappy $30-$40 Pinot Noir (many producers have raised their prices in response to the "Sideways effect," to profit-take -- for $30 or $40, I expect a lot from my Pinot).  This is emphatically not crappy $30-$40 Pinot Noir.

So, get a bottle.  Heck, get a case.  In ten years, you can say you had them "when."

Image from the Coelho Winery website.

Sobon Estate: zinning in Amador

Full disclosure: I tasted these wines at a free tasting with the winemaker about 2 months ago.  I'm re-translating my notes (I keep them in a form of shorthand) from that event.

The first thing many of you may be wondering is, "where the heck is Amador, and why should I care?"  The Amador AVA is east of Sacramento, well inland from the coastal influences you find in Napa and Sonoma.  It's warm and dry during the growing season, and -- in my opinion, at least -- some of the best Zinfandel in California comes from there.  Certainly some of the best values in California zin are Amador county zins.  I've never seen an Amador zin over $26, and most of them are in the $10-$20 range.  So, it's a place rife with good value -- since you've likely not heard of it, neither have other shoppers, so there's not as much of a demand-based drive up in price.

My personal favorite producer in Amador County is Sobon Estate/Shenandoah Vineyards (hereafter referred to as just "Sobon.").  Sobon is a very green-friendly producer, growing organic grapes (no pesticides or herbicides), using solar power to minimize their carbon footprint (they actually sell carbon offset credits, since they create less CO₂ than they eliminate!), and best of all in my opinion, using Stelvin closures on most of their wines -- screw caps mean no corked wines, and no need for a tool to open up a bottle!

Their line includes a number of non-Zinfandel offerings; Sauvignon Blanc, Roussanne, Viognier, a zin rosé (not white zin!), Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Sangiovese round out their lineup for dry wines.  They also produce a Black Muscat, some Zinfandel-based Port, and a white Port based on their white Rhône varietals.  Their zins come in several lines -- Hillside, Old Vines, Cougar Hill, Fiddletown (from the AVA within Amador of the same name), and Paul's Vineyard.

OK, enough talking, time for some reviews.  First up, their 2007 Sauvignon Blanc:

Light yellow/green in the glass.  Shows nicely perfumed citrus in the nose. Apple, citrus and melon in the mouth, with a slightly herbaceous finish. Just enough acidity to be interesting, but not as zippy as comparably-priced Sauvignon Blancs from New Zealand.  Still, a tasty wine, good for light fish meals or just as an aperetif.  Great, if you like a slightly lower-acid Sauv Blanc.  85 points.

In the interest of fairness, I generally don't like California Sauvignon Blancs (give me the enamel-stripping acidity of New Zealand, or the elegant minerality of Bordeaux, or the light crispness of the Loire instead), but this one really is quite good in that genre.  It's not nearly as flabby as most, with enough acid and low enough residual sugar to be quite tasty, in fact.

Then, their 2007 Hillside Zinfandel.  I'll note that 2007 was a very good year for Amador Zinfandel -- ideal growing conditions through most of the summer -- so if you have the chance to get an '07 from there, do so.  Anyhow, the Hillside:

Garnet.  Nose shows blueberry and blackberry, with some darker notes of cocoa.  Similar in the mouth, some dark cherry, with the addition of a little eucalyptus/mint note on the finish. Nice, moderate tannins give the wine good structure.  The wine is moderately heavy, with a fairly long finish.  88 points.

Next, 2007 Fiddletown:

Bright ruby in the glass. Powerful nose of cherry and black pepper-esque spice.  In the mouth, shows off more of the fruit -- cherry and raspberry -- with a distinct undercurrent of charcoal and black pepper.  Powerful, deep wine, but still very well-balanced, with enough acidity and tannin to keep from being flabby.  Very long finish.  This is quintessential "steak wine," especially if you're grilling over coals and peppering the steak.  Great value.  Drink through 2019.  91 points.

Finally, their 2007 zin Port:

Dark red in the glass. Inviting nose, showing LOTS of plum and some raisin/prune notes. More of the same in the mouth; lots of fruit, some of it dried.  Just a hint of spice on the finish to show off the Zin character. Quite tasty. Good balance and finish.  A rich port, perfect for "dessert in a glass," or with cheesecake. 89 points.

So there you have four very nice wines.  And the best part?  Every one of them is under $25 -- at the winery's website, you can buy Fiddletown for $22 and the Port for $13 for a half-bottle.  The other two appear to be sold out at the winery, but my local wine store has them for $10 for the Sauvignon Blanc and $11 for the Hillside.

What in the world is this doing here?

Full disclosure:  this wine was given to me as a sample at work.

Sometimes, one finds an unusual wine hiding in the "wrong" place -- talk to me sometime about the first time I tried a Monica di Sardignia (blind, I thought it was a Côtes du Rhône.  Wrong country, wrong grape).  Such was the case last night, when I tried Sonoma Cuvee's 2006 Russian River chardonnay.  I had expected typical Russian River wine -- really ripe fruit, lots of oak and malolactic.  In other words, a manipulated-to-hell-and-back wine.  This is such an unusual wine; it is completely atypical of the region.

By all rights, the wine didn't even belong in the Russian River; it was much more like a white Burgundy -- one of the white Burgundies that sees oak, like a Montrachet, but a white Burgundy nonetheless.  It was most emphatically not a California oakbomb of a chardonnay.  Admittedly, this might turn off some, as it's... well, unexpected.  There's little malolactic fermentation evident, so there's no creamy texture, just crisp tree fruit.

The wine is clear yellow in the glass, almost straw-colored.  The nose shows the style immediately, with tree fruit dominating, apples and pears, very crisp.  A hint of limestone/slate is also in evidence.  A taste reveals more of the same, with a bit of new oak coming through on the finish.  The wine appears light on it's feet, despite being reasonably full-bodied, mainly due to the high acidity.  It's balance is quite good, and the finish remains in the mouth for some time.  89 points.

Sonoma Cuvee is a biodynamic producer; while I don't agree with the entirety of the biodynamic philosophy (especially the "preparations," which seem like voodoo to me), the end result in this case is tasty, and organic. Taking care of the estate that grows the grapes seems to me to be, ultimately, a sensible approach to farming. 

All in all, a good $20 bottle.  Sonoma Cuvee also makes Pinot Noir, and has (more expensive) single-vineyard versions of both varietals.