Kudos To Ridge...

Got in last week my latest Ridge ATP...Lytton Estate Zin '07. 93% Zin from their 6-yr old Primitivo block. We had it Wed night and it is one of the best ATP Zins in some time. Terrific Zin. The 15.2% alcohol was not at all obvious.
I was reading the backgrounder sheet and noticed the comment: "...two grams/liter tartaric acid and a total of 4.6% rehydration during fermentation, minimum effective sulfer (35 ppm at crush, 260 ppm over the course of aging). Pad filtering at bottling...." Huh?? What's dat mean??
An inquiry to EricBaugher received the response that Ridge will now be listing on their backgrounder sheets processes and ingredients added to the wine for the sake of greater transparency. The water addition ("rehydration" to be technically correct) is to replace lost water due to grape dehydration on the vine, not to lower the alcohol level per se.
I applaud Ridge for this increased transparency. Hope more wineries will follow their example. Course it means that sweet Alice will get all worked up into a tizzy and put Ridge on her "do-not-fly" list.
Tom

Ridge is awesome. I wish that every winery would do that.
Of course it means that consumers need to educate themselves about the methods and terminology.

Cheers,
Bill

The water addition ("rehydration" to be technically correct) is to replace lost water due to grape dehydration on the vine,

Thats all fine but anyone want to guess how it was determined that 4.6% was the amount lost to dehydration? I applaud them for adding the info so I guess I am picking nits and attacking the first one to do so but I find the level of detail in the percent of water added hard to address with the answer. Lastly, one could ask why the berries suffered dehydration at all. However, this was a zin so with the uneven ripeing that they face, I can see if happening for a number or reasons.

two grams/liter tartaric acid and a total of 4.6% rehydration during fermentation, minimum effective sulfer (35 ppm at crush, 260 ppm over the course of aging)... The water addition ("rehydration" to be technically correct) is to replace lost water due to grape dehydration on the vine

anyone want to guess how it was determined that 4.6% was the amount lost to dehydration?... one could ask why the berries suffered dehydration at all.

Exactly. On top of that, acidification at 2 g/l is quite a bump (very hard to call this "non interventionist"), and to claim a net addition of 260 mg/l SO2 during ageing as "minimal" is stretching the definition of "minimal" IMO.

But, without doubt, they deserve serious applause and respect for this kind of transparency!

I keep intending to look it up but haven't done so yet so I will ask here. I thought Ridge was all native yeast fermentation. How much sulfur can be added at crush if not adding a commercial strain of yeast before impacting fermentation. 35ppm is what I add to knock everything back before I add yeast. I always thought that to do native yeast fermentation the sulfur additions at crush were much lower.

I wouldn’t call a 2-g/L addition of tartaric acid a big “bump”. (Or a high degree of manipulation. All you are basically doing is adding something that is produced by the berries themselves. Besides if adding water to your must/juice (in affect lowering the soluble content) how much of a “bump” are we actually talking about? Now on the other hand if after cold stabilization one was to de-acidify the wine by 2 g/L that I would call a big "bump”). As far as the “initial” addition of SO2 at crush, as far as I know a large percentage of that can "immediately" become “bound”.

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

Umm...Ben, where does anyone claim Ridge is "non-interventionist"? Ridge has never been a "natural wine" producer, just one that makes delicious juice and is now being completely open about how they do it.

It's nice that Ridge is putting the details on the labels. The fact that they choose to make additions does not change how i feel about their wines one bit.

35ppm is what I add to knock everything back before I add yeast. I always thought that to do native yeast fermentation the sulfur additions at crush were much lower.

Indigenous strains will still prevail after getting hit with more than 35 mg/l; but they'll take a bit longer to get going, and the different SO2 dosage may result in (a) different yeast strain(s) dominating during fermentation.

I wouldn’t call a 2-g/L addition of tartaric acid a big “bump”.

In my opinion, a 2 g/l tartaric addition is quite a lot of adjustment - I think it can show in the final wine.

Besides if adding water to your must/juice (in affect lowering the soluble content) how much of a “bump” are we actually talking about?

Assuming the 4.6% (of the final wine) water addition, we're talking a net addition of 1.9 g/l - pretty close to 2 g/l.

Now on the other hand if after cold stabilization one was to de-acidify the wine by 2 g/L that I would call a big "bump”).

I would call it an even bigger bump, and its footprint highly likely to show in the final wine.

Umm...Ben, where does anyone claim Ridge is "non-interventionist"?.. The fact that they choose to make additions does not change how i feel about their wines one bit.

It doesn't change how I feel about Ridge wines either. (I didn't mean to imply anyone claimed Ridge as interventionist, though I can see how my comment would read that way - poor wording on my part.)

Another way to look at it is the winemaker “replacing” the tartaric acid lost during a “normal and healthy” transformation of juice to wine.

Salute

Umm...Ben, where does anyone claim Ridge is "non-interventionist"? Ridge has never been a "natural wine" producer, just one that makes delicious juice and is now being completely open about how they do it.

It's nice that Ridge is putting the details on the labels. The fact that they choose to make additions does not change how i feel about their wines one bit.

David,

I'm not sure I agree but these terms sometimes confuse me and I'm sure there are degrees of intervention.

In summary, Ridge bases grape-growing in each vineyard on long experience with the site, while simultaneously making use of the most recent advances in vineyard management. Pre-industrial winemaking begins with respect for the natural process that transforms fresh grapes into wine, and the 19th-Century model of minimum intervention. When you have great vineyards that produce high quality grapes of distinctive individual character, this is not only an environmentally and socially responsible approach, it’s also the best way to consistently make fine wine.

–Paul Draper, 3/2011

[David M. Bueker]

Pre-industrial winemaking, minimum intervention...certainly not in alignment with the cult of natural wine - pre-Cambrian winemaking and zero intervention.

Yes it's brave
Yes in an ideal world the grapes wouldn't be dehydrated / low in acidity (one would hope they're aiming for 'no additions required')
Yes it's good to offer this information