This year we are all facing an uncertain future due to the gathering economic storm – black clouds on the horizon. Winegrowers have been alerted to the implications of this by our professional body, the Wine Institute of NZ. In the face of a potential reduction in demand for New Zealand wine offshore due to harder times economically, they have recommended that we consider bunch-thinning our crops so as to produce less wine. Bunch thinning is the process of selectively removing a proportion of every vine’s bunches of grapes a few months before ripening. This recommendation was aimed squarely at Marlborough, with its vast acreages of sauvignon blanc – its “savalanche” as one wit has dubbed it, most of which has to be exported. But it is a message we would all do well to consider.
Bunch thinning has the effect of reducing production costs but perhaps more importantly, smaller crops make better wine (all other things being equal). So the argument is that the increased wine quality that comes with bunch-thinning might help to minimize any drop in demand in a market where people are being cautious in their spending. At the very least it will help to keep a high quality image for NZ wine in the minds of our overseas consumers, which will put us in good stead for when the economic storm passes.
In the Matakana region the combination of a great spring fruit set and the uncertainty ahead gives us a double reason to thin our crops. Bunch-thinning is not much fun, but the combined economic and wine quality reasons for doing it are compelling.
The silver lining probably applies more to you the buyers of wine: If winegrowers heed the advice of their professional body, economic pressures may mean that over the next few years you will be able to buy even better quality New Zealand wines and at very good prices.
Robin Ransom
President, Matakana Winegrowers Inc.
robin@ransomwines.co.nz
Originally published in Mahurangi Matters February 2009
[ add comment ] ( 12 views ) | permalink |
( 2.9 / 473 )Many people prefer to drink white wine during the summer, so this is a good time to talk about the Matakana region’s most widely grown grape, Pinot Gris.
Probably the best known Pinot Gris wines are those from the Alsace region of north eastern France. But it is widely grown elsewhere, for example in Switzerland, where it is known as Malvoisie, in Germany, as Rulander or Grauburgunder, in Italy, as Pinot Grigio, in Hungary, as Szurkebarat, and also in Austria, Slovenia, Moravia, Romania, Russia and Moldova, under various names. Pinot Gris is rapidly becoming a favourite in New Zealand, being currently our fourth most widely planted variety after Sauvignon Blanc, Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, with by far the fastest rate of acreage growth in recent years.
Pinot Gris (“grey pinot”) is apparently a natural genetic mutation of Pinot Noir, (“black pinot”). Pinot Noir is Burgundy’s famous red grape, and Burgundy is where Pinot Gris first appeared, in the early Middle Ages, so it has been around for a long time. The name is a reference to the skin colour as it ripens. Ripe berries can be anything from greyish-blue to brownish-pink, compared with the black of Pinot Noir.
The wine has a reputation for being luscious and sometimes unctuous. Some see it as being all about mouthfeel and texture, as it has more gentle flavours and aromas than many varieties. These characteristics make for great versatility as a food wine. Some New Zealand commentators puzzle at why it has become so popular, noting that there is not yet a recognizable New Zealand “style” of Pinot Gris. This is partly because some producers make it slightly sweet, while others prefer it drier and more crisp.
My view is that its popularity owes something to the fact that New Zealand wine drinkers have become more sophisticated in recent years, and have found in Pinot Gris an excellent food wine which is also an easy-drinking alternative to some of the aggressive, obvious, sledgehammer wines which have dominated our wine scene for many years, such as Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc and oaky Chardonnay.
Pinot Gris wines from the Matakana region show some variation in style, notably in levels of sweetness, but they tend to share the gentleness of aroma and flavour which characterize the variety and make it so appealing for many. A great summer wine.
Robin Ransom
President, Matakana Winegrowers Inc.
Robin@ransomwines.co.nz.
Originally published in Mahurangi Matters, January 2009
[ add comment ] ( 12 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 460 )The 2008 vintage in Matakana produced more wine from the syrah grape than from any other except pinot gris. Syrah has in a sense “crept up on us” in recent years, as it was almost totally overlooked during the vine renaissance in NZ which started in the 1970s. Even today the total acreage of syrah in NZ is less than 300 hectares, compared with over 4500 of pinot noir, the most planted red grape, and over 11,500 of sauvignon blanc.
What do we know of its origins? Syrah comes from the Rhone Valley in Eastern France, where its apparent forebears, Dureza and Mondeuse Blanche, have been cultivated since Roman times. Two Northern Rhone regions, Hermitage and Cote Rotie are generally acknowledged today as producing the world’s finest wines made from this variety.
Syrah (then spelt “scyras” although probably pronounced as it is now) was brought to Australia in 1832 by Scotsman James Busby, considered the founding father of Australian viticulture. (Busby incidentally was British Resident in the Bay of Islands later in the 1830s and played a major role in the preparation and signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, as well as being the first person to make wine in New Zealand). He took several hundred vine cuttings to Australia, collected from all over France. From his initial plantings in the Hunter Valley syrah has spread all over and is now Australia’s most widely planted grape. These days it is called “shiraz” in Australia, although when and how that name came to be applied is lost in the mists of time.
Most New Zealand plantings of syrah are in Hawkes Bay. Some in that region see it as the great red hope which will re-establish Hawkes Bay as New Zealand’s premier red wine region. We are demonstrating that Matakana is also capable of producing very smart syrah. In this region, like its Bordeaux cousins cabernet and merlot, syrah tends to express warm, earthy complexity while Hawkes Bay versions can be fruit dominant. Both regions, along with Waiheke, are now producing some knockout wines from it.
Why has it taken so long for syrah to emerge in New Zealand? Maybe the wine industry here has always looked across the Tasman, seen how apparently well they do it there, and been a bit daunted about trying it here. However tastes in wine are changing as wine drinkers become more knowing. Australian shiraz has a “blockbuster” reputation while New Zealand syrahs tend to be more elegant and restrained – more like their Rhone Valley counterparts perhaps.
Indicative of how well we can do syrah is the fact that New Zealand versions are starting to show very well in Australian tastings, and in a number have outperformed the locals. While we are still tiny in volume it seems likely that the winegrowers of Oz are starting to look anxiously at our syrah efforts just as we have respected theirs for so long.
Robin Ransom
Originally published in Mahurangi Matters, November 2008
[ add comment ] ( 10 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 381 )It has been said that what distinguishes the human species from other mammals is that we are the only political animal. Our need to compete amongst ourselves also makes us fairly unique in the animal kingdom. Many human endeavours in addition to sport lend themselves very well to the competitive urge – politics, business, war, fishing, dog breeding, vegetable growing, ballroom dancing, tiddlywinks and so on. In most of these activities either an obvious outcome or the use of valid scoring protocols mean there can be clear winners and losers.
There are also human endeavours which are not so obviously suited to competition. Art, literature, and dare I say it – wine. Please note that what I am about to say is a wholly personal view.
For winemakers, good results in wine competitions can confer powerful marketing benefits. We experienced this in our early days while attempting to establish a profile. Winning medals in competitions and high scores in magazine articles really helped put us on the map. Wine competitions can also be useful for consumers who are less knowledgeable about wines by giving them some names to seek on crowded supermarket shelves. But this is where a cautionary note or two needs to be issued.
Wines can differ from each other in extremely subtle ways. So many variables come together in the growing of grapes and the making of wine that the range of aroma and flavour nuances is vast - virtually unlimited. Combine this with the fact that the appreciation of wine’s aromas and flavours is a deeply personal thing (like art and literature), then you have a situation where it is impossible to make valid, universally applicable judgements about merit.
On top of this, the conditions under which wines are judged in competitions make objectivity in evaluation impossible. Judges taste wines in “flights” comprising large numbers of samples and this goes on over many hours. During this process they are expected to be able to bring a wholly objective approach to bear on each and every wine they taste. Can you imagine being able to score the 67th wine you taste in a day in exactly the same way as the first, and to distinguish between them to the point where you can give them all a mark out of 100?
Pretence at such accuracy is a fanciful fiction. But to be fair, the bottom line for the inexperienced punter is that a wine with an award or a high score should be of a good drinkable standard.
Robin Ransom
President, Matakana Winegrowers Inc.
robin@ransomwines.co.nz.
Originally published in Mahurangi Matters, October 2008
[ add comment ] ( 10 views ) | permalink |
( 2.9 / 363 )Last year I received a big response when I wrote about the myriad of compliance issues winegrowers are faced with, and how they impinge mightily upon our time. I did not include an estimate of what it all costs in money – that would be too depressing to calculate and contemplate.
As of September 1 a whole new layer of compliance has been added to the burden. A requirement of the Wine Act 2003 is that all wineries must submit a “Wine Standards Management Plan” to the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. The NZ Wine Institute did go to bat for winegrowers when this piece of heavy-handed bureaucracy was mooted to try and convince them how unnecessary it is for winegrowers, but to little avail.
The Food Safety Authority is motivated almost wholly by the need to avoid the contamination of food. As we have seen in recent years this has become a major issue through the apparently growing prevalence of many nasty biological agents which can cause severe illness. But wine, whilst technically a food, is totally “safe” from biological contaminants - its alcohol is enough to kill any microbial life likely to be a health threat.
We are henceforth obliged to establish and maintain data recording systems in excessive detail. Again the Wine Institute has come to our assistance by developing a standardized Code of Practice. But this requires comprehensive documentation of much of our grape growing activity and all of our winemaking operation.
When we have put together our plan a “Verifier” spends a day or so at our premises, entirely at our cost, checking our set up and all of our records against the plan to ensure that we are doing exactly what the plan says. It is not entirely clear how often we have to get “verified” or what happens if the verifier finds inconsistency between practice and plan. But one thing for certain is that it will involve more time and expense for the winegrower.
It is highly unlikely that winegrowers who already live or die according to the quality – “safety” if you like, of their product, are going to do anything they are not already doing to improve their practice as a result of this.
The thinking behind this sort of bureaucracy is that producers cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and the consumer has to be protected by Nanny State against these rogues. Winegrowers who value their integrity and are proud of their product may justifiably feel insulted by this new imposition, not to mention aggrieved by the additional time wasting and cost it requires.
Robin Ransom
President, Matakana Winegrowers Inc.
robin@ransomwines.co.nz
Originally published in Mahurangi Matters, September 2008
[ add comment ] ( 10 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 363 )
Random Entry
