Having read the previous articles, there has been no mention of packaging yet. I know you have mentioned this in previous posts, but it seems like this topic goes part and parcel with the matter at hand. For wines that are designed to be consumed years, if not decades, after being "containerized", what are the viable alternatives to cork topped glass bottles? Are there any ongoing studies using these other methods to determine their viability?
Thanks for sharing these ideas! I agree and respect the amazing benefits of organic farming in quality, as well as the dedication and resilience it takes to truly farm organically, but I also feel the perspective within the article fails to consider so much of the context in which the wine is being grown, both geographically and culturally.
We all know there are some wine regions (considering climate and geography) where you could do next to nothing and be considered and/or certified organic and run little risk of crop losses, whereas there are other regions where they could work tirelessly amidst much difficulty to farm organically, and still be high-risk for loss. It seems entirely short-sighted to put one label (organic) as a broad blanket of quality judgment across all wine regions, regardless of the difficulty of organic viticulture.
Furthermore, we know that not all wine regions have the same history, generational investment and government cooperation, and therefore we should not expect all producers and winegrowers to able to sustain the same business risks and losses. For example, wineries in ex-Yugoslavia countries are less than 30 years young from their independence from communism, and emerging from a period in which the idea of quality winegrowing was actively de-incentivized. Producers here do not have the same generational resources, vineyards and knowledge that other more historic wine regions have (i.e. France, Italy) and lack any significant wine support from their government given their still developing status.
Furthermore, suggesting that if a business can't withstand a 20% loss, it isn't a sustainable business, is an absurd suggestion, and a tone-deaf one at that. Point being, using Gut Oggau as an example, which is the most outrageous example imaginable. Agree here that they are an exceptional producer, but they could arguably have a terrible vintage where their wine tastes like vinegar and brett, they could put a whacky label on it, say its vintage variation, and still sell out the wines for 4x as much as their peers could. (FYI, I love the Gut Oggau wines - but the marketing has surpassed the quality at this point.) Kudos to them - they have an AMAZING business model, and amazing wines - and it's great they can farm strictly biodynamically, take whatever losses occur due to this farming, and still maintain a profitable business. But this is not the norm; this is peak wine producer privilege, and these wines should be the exception, rather than the example, to be used for this argument.
Ultimately this misused example, I believe, introduces some contradiction to your initial argument of some blasting "organic" as a marketing term. While I do not agree that it is a marketing term, you can't deny that it still serves the marketing purpose. I do not believe for a second that Gut Oggau ever intended on forcing and abusing organic farming for their marketing advantage, but let's not deny that they have ultimately achieved that. A biodynamic producer (reinforced by extremely effective labels) that is now established and known for their purity in wines and achieved infallible pinnacle status in the "natural wine" sector, that at this point to many, they can do no wrong. And that is a fair argument in regards to strictly looking at organic farming.
Having read the previous articles, there has been no mention of packaging yet. I know you have mentioned this in previous posts, but it seems like this topic goes part and parcel with the matter at hand. For wines that are designed to be consumed years, if not decades, after being "containerized", what are the viable alternatives to cork topped glass bottles? Are there any ongoing studies using these other methods to determine their viability?
A very fair point. For my own piece (here) I wanted to stay focused on a fairly narrow theme and not try to be too all encompassing.
Let's hope one of the other writers might tackle the packaging part of the topic!
Thanks for this mention, Bill. If tomorrow's writer doesn't tackle it I'll be sure to include the subject next week when I wrap this conversation up!
Thanks for sharing these ideas! I agree and respect the amazing benefits of organic farming in quality, as well as the dedication and resilience it takes to truly farm organically, but I also feel the perspective within the article fails to consider so much of the context in which the wine is being grown, both geographically and culturally.
We all know there are some wine regions (considering climate and geography) where you could do next to nothing and be considered and/or certified organic and run little risk of crop losses, whereas there are other regions where they could work tirelessly amidst much difficulty to farm organically, and still be high-risk for loss. It seems entirely short-sighted to put one label (organic) as a broad blanket of quality judgment across all wine regions, regardless of the difficulty of organic viticulture.
Furthermore, we know that not all wine regions have the same history, generational investment and government cooperation, and therefore we should not expect all producers and winegrowers to able to sustain the same business risks and losses. For example, wineries in ex-Yugoslavia countries are less than 30 years young from their independence from communism, and emerging from a period in which the idea of quality winegrowing was actively de-incentivized. Producers here do not have the same generational resources, vineyards and knowledge that other more historic wine regions have (i.e. France, Italy) and lack any significant wine support from their government given their still developing status.
Furthermore, suggesting that if a business can't withstand a 20% loss, it isn't a sustainable business, is an absurd suggestion, and a tone-deaf one at that. Point being, using Gut Oggau as an example, which is the most outrageous example imaginable. Agree here that they are an exceptional producer, but they could arguably have a terrible vintage where their wine tastes like vinegar and brett, they could put a whacky label on it, say its vintage variation, and still sell out the wines for 4x as much as their peers could. (FYI, I love the Gut Oggau wines - but the marketing has surpassed the quality at this point.) Kudos to them - they have an AMAZING business model, and amazing wines - and it's great they can farm strictly biodynamically, take whatever losses occur due to this farming, and still maintain a profitable business. But this is not the norm; this is peak wine producer privilege, and these wines should be the exception, rather than the example, to be used for this argument.
Ultimately this misused example, I believe, introduces some contradiction to your initial argument of some blasting "organic" as a marketing term. While I do not agree that it is a marketing term, you can't deny that it still serves the marketing purpose. I do not believe for a second that Gut Oggau ever intended on forcing and abusing organic farming for their marketing advantage, but let's not deny that they have ultimately achieved that. A biodynamic producer (reinforced by extremely effective labels) that is now established and known for their purity in wines and achieved infallible pinnacle status in the "natural wine" sector, that at this point to many, they can do no wrong. And that is a fair argument in regards to strictly looking at organic farming.