To: Savant who wrote (435) | 1/8/2016 12:47:48 AM | From: sense | | | Not a whole lot to quibble with on the face of that... but... there is an issue or two lurking beneath it, that means the article first begins to expose the issues, but then sort of proceeds to miss the point...
"People — on the whole — tend to favor wines that are less alcoholic" is pretty wildly incorrect... at least, it is not anywhere near the mark if what you're addressing is demonstrated consumer taste preferences rather than the consumer decisions that get made purely based on looking at the labels plastered on the bottles as they're sitting there on store shelves.
Yours is a lot closer with: "lie....to placate the public's idea of what should be". I also agree with your stated preference: "I'm in favor of knowing the actual, not some made up number"... but, that still leaves a whole lot missing in terms of gaps in the larger task in communication that the label is intended to enable. (Or, not... as the article also underplays the impact of the generic "table wine" designation, essentially meaning any wine can be labeled as 12.5% as long as the variance from that number isn't too large. Then, they ignore the incredible bureaucracy involved in getting labels approved... which means its best not to change anything you don't have to on any previously approved label... no matter what changes in the contents of the bottles there are.)
"Truth in labeling" would be a great place to start in addressing a number of large and still growing disconnects that exist between wine reality and wine marketing... but, you probably won't ever get to any bit of that without also reducing the surplus in the extant burden in the dysfunctional and over-weaning bureaucracy... who are probably even more defensive of their turf than the wine makers.
The differences being addressed are still mostly borne of the conflicts that are intrinsic to conflicting consumer preferences (in taste, versus the numbers on labels)... which differences are then greatly exacerbated by the nature of the choices made in context of, if not quite because of the drivers that dominate, marketing.
That consumers tend to prefer riper fruit flavors inside the bottle and lower alcohol numbers on the label... is only a part of the story. And, the "magic" in the numbers on the labels is only a smallish part of the story in terms of the "bait and switch" being practiced in wine making... or, at least, in wine labeling and marketing.
The real problems that exist are a duality that splits between a viticulture problem on one hand, and wine quality concerns (and reality versus perception) on the other. It's not really an issue in terms of any wine making problems... rather than the opposite. Wine making and viticulture have both gotten a lot better over the last 40 years, and continue to improve, so that today even problematic fruit used as an input can be converted into perfectly palatable wines that most consumers will find appealing. Vineyards tending to be generally not overly portable means that wine "tends" to reflect the experience of the particular vineyard in a particular vintage... and then, of course, the wine makers choices... the dirty little secret being that a lot of non-European wine is grown in vineyards that are, certainly relative to Europe's, quite incredibly hot. The last thing existing producers want to be threatened with... is an expose revealing they're growing grapes "in the wrong place". So, they continue to push the envelope in using wine making to correct for the intrinsic deficiencies in the inputs they have to work with... driven by the unmentionable fact "they're growing the grapes in the wrong place". If you want to focus on the reality rather than the marketing schtick... look at the nature of the problems producers tend to have, and the solutions being applied to address them, rather than the stories they tell in marketing.
That increasingly reduces to "wine quality issues" they'd rather avoid addressing (publicly), as the methods of compensating for overly hot vineyard conditions come in to play. One of those compromises made, of course, is to increase vine yields to slow and delay ripening... and the market reality is, most consumers really can't tell the difference, anyway, between a really good wine and basic high yield mid-market industrial plonk. Conflicts emerge there, again, between wine reality and what consumers demand... as what the consumers want is "the world's best wine"... for $13.99 a bottle, or less. And, often enough, they can be convinced easily enough by "more oak flavor"... even to the point that it makes the wine essentially undrinkable, while masking its inherent lack of quality. Or, otherwise, by increased extract, reduction to enhance fruit perception, etc.
From there we could divert to a discussion of what quality really is...
Or, we could re-focus on other aspects of the problem that does exist, and how it is being addressed on the wine making side... if you want to Google "spinning cone" technology... or want to start talking about how much water used in "cleaning the equipment"... ends up operating to reduce potential alcohol while converting water into wine by somewhat less than biblically correct methods.
There's going to be another split that occurs in the market, there, too... between giant companies whose products are "made", in the worst sense of that word, using all the available tools while leaving nothing to chance... and the smaller producers who are limited to applying more traditional methods while hand crafting quality products by getting everything right in the first place, rather than by using technology (secretly) as a means of correcting for problems after the fact.
The marketing schtick, of course, emphasizes the "romance" of vineyards and winemaking... when the reality for most larger volume producers is really all about industrial agriculture, and industrial processing, of what are essentially industrial products.
Thanks for inducing the rant. I quite enjoyed spilling that here... |
| Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
To: sense who wrote (436) | 1/8/2016 2:34:54 AM | From: Savant | | | Whew, a lot in that post... pretty much spot on.
While I was thinking about placating/seducing/fooling...the public...I couldn't help thinking about an analogy with politicians... rather than doing what I feel they're supposed to do, they do/say what they think the people want to hear and have done to/for them.
I recall many efforts to fool wine drinkers over the years...the alcohol content 'issue' is, to me, a small matter... just thought it interesting.
I recall Germans 'sweetening' their wine, in the 70's...and getting caught....and they were supposed to have had high standards.
I recall Italy fooling around w/their additives.
I also remember the bursting of the myth of European wine superiority...I think that was in the 70's also..they made a movie about it.
And yes, you're quite correct....there are a lot of wine snobs here in the US, and other countries.... That couldn't/can't actually taste their way out of a bucket, if they tried.
I don't profess to be an expert, but I know if a wine suits my taste, and mostly can tell the quality....to a point... w/out looking at a label. I also am fairly good at pairing w/foods...to suit my tastes, of course. In short, I enjoy a nice glass of wine. I don't degrade those that can't tell the difference, ....unless...they're being snobbish.
Ultimately, for most folks, you're correct...the price point is v.important to most folks... Both for the casual users...(on the modest prices)...and to the snobs, that like to brag about how expensive it is.
Also, styles come in and out of fashion...I recall when German Rieslings were out of fashion...I luved that.. It was a lot cheaper..lol.
Then, when the market collapsed after 2000...I grabbed some great buys.
Enough for now, cya later.
PS... What are we going to do about the bee problem, it is getting worse. I bought a FlowHive from Kickstarter recently, for my own satisfaction, and to perhaps help the local bee population...
A mere drop in the honey pot...but, it's something.
PPS... I made a batch of sparkling apple cider/wine last year....enjoyed it these past holidays...guests thought it was 'champagne'...it was pretty good...however, had another batch...that well...... |
| Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4) |
|
To: Savant who wrote (437) | 1/8/2016 4:23:23 AM | From: sense | | | The bee problem...
I heard a quick bit on NPR this week... the gist of which is that they've (researchers... not the industry) finally acknowledged/proven that the problem is one of neo-nicotinoids killing bees. The issue seems it is being presented now as a problem that is a dependent function of the particular plants the stuff is being applied to, and how/when they're applied. Some plants seem they just aren't a part of the problem... while others, just from having had seeds coated, will put enough of the stuff out into the pollen they produce upon flowering that bees collecting that pollen are being poisoned by the treatments that were applied to the seeds. That suggests that all you need to do to resolve the biggest source of risks is to limit the labeled uses to exclude application to those specific plants, or limit the use of "systemics" on those particular plants, that present the biggest problem to the bees.
I don't doubt that they're correct in terms of the nature and source of risks... however, I'm still skeptical that you can resolve the problem for the bees, now, at this late date, with that limited approach, the way you were able to (eventually) resolve the pending extinction of bald eagles and meadowlarks by eliminating DDT.
The guys who run bees for a living are still having to allocate a larger and larger share of their time each season to detoxifying periods between jobs... and I think that's an indication the problem really is about more than a single class of chemicals... but both about the growing diversity of chemicals being applied, and the increasing density of them. New products being developed aren't being substituted for older ones they replace... but are instead just being added to the soup. Studies of the density of the agro-chemicals sampled from the air in farm country show that the air is increasingly thick with all kinds of crap that is being sprayed, now. That's a positive only if you're focused on the profitability of the ag chemical pushers... and don't have to worry about things like... living and breathing in farm country... where the bees are just the canary in the coal mine.
|
| Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
To: Savant who wrote (437) | 1/8/2016 4:45:22 AM | From: sense | | | "sparkling apple cider/wine"
I've previously done a bit of work enabling and fostering (U.S.) west coast cider industry development which it might be fun to get into at some point... and, as it happens, just planted a small orchard last year with around 100 different varieties of cider apples the potential of which I hope to be able to evaluate in a couple of years time.
My gardening projects for this year are mostly back to being focused on wine grapes, though. Have already ordered the plants to establish a new motherblock this year... mostly focused on new selections of grapes I already know well enough, but with a few new things, and a couple research project potentials thrown in, just to keep it interesting... |
| Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
To: Savant who wrote (437) | 1/8/2016 5:48:32 AM | From: sense | | | "Ultimately, for most folks, you're correct...the price point is v.important to most folks... Both for the casual users...(on the modest prices)...and to the snobs, that like to brag about how expensive it is."
Yeah. Can't ever get away from the issues with the $ for long. My focus in wine interest tends to be on "the best"... by which I mostly mean truly well made, small production, artisanal wines... and well cellared wines worth the cellaring... which doesn't mean I don't appreciate the fact, as a consumer, that the biggest changes that have occurred in wine in the last half century haven't been at the high end in quality. Market reality today is that there really isn't much "bad" wine being made now... and that wasn't close to being true 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Still, with winemaker buddies it is usually more fun to uncork something entirely new to them... or something older... than something "known" that they should be "impressed" by because of what it costs... which, to people who can taste, is a pretty foreign concept.
I do know people who always want to talk wine... by leading with how much (high figures) they paid for this or that bottle... which, at the best, shows they use $ as a market proxy for quality, given an inability to tell the difference, otherwise. A lot of consumers are quite easily sucked into the "fad" generation focused on some "hot" new or hard to get label, or "limited release" products, etc., and end up overpaying as a result, for what is still fairly ordinary wine, that simply costs them a lot more without value for the $. Reality is some consumers genuinely want to pay more, for wines like that... because what they paid is an important part, to them, of being able to enjoy what they bought. As a producer, there's really no way to satisfy those customers, or give them what they want... other than by charging them more. I find that pretty twisted, personally... but I don't deny the truth of it. People who I tend to share with more often, will instead tend to brag on how little they paid for some wine of unusual quality that they've found in the market...
I find a problem with the inverse, too... as there's a whole new genre of snobs out there whose focus is on avoiding ever paying more than $10 or $20 for a bottle while bragging to others about believing that wine is really only for quaffing in quantity, not for "appreciating", and that others talk about quality for $ is only snobs talking bullshit. Given a market largely focused on immediate drinkability at the low end, the fact they can't taste the difference between a decent $10 quaffer for now and something of greater quality worth cellaring is perhaps an important personal benefit... but still not something to brag on. The lack of an educated palate... isn't much of a bragging point, either... not that there's ever any utility in debating the inverse snobs, given they really can't tell the difference. Reality today is... more if you can't tell the difference... you shouldn't ever have to pay more than $10 or $20 for "really good" drinkable now wine... which still leaves a pretty significant gap, for those who can tell the difference, between "really good" and "the best there is"... as tends to be true in most things. |
| Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
From: Savant | 1/19/2016 8:47:48 PM | | | | New grape hybrid....
A GLASS OF WINE BEFORE TURNING IN A single glass at night could mean a peaceful, uninterrupted nights sleep.
NEW Wine for Seniors , I kid you not.....
Clare Valley vintners in South Australia, which primarily produce Pinot Blanc, Pinot Noir, and Pinot Grigio wines, have developed a new hybrid grape that acts as an anti-diuretic. It is expected to reduce the number of trips older people have to make to the bathroom during the night.
The new wine will be marketed as
PINO MORE |
| Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
To: Savant who wrote (435) | 2/26/2023 10:02:02 PM | From: sense | | | Meanwhile... 7 years later...
Yeah, the article is not wrong in relation to the numbers... but, it is wrong in not quite fully and correctly connecting the dots... and wrong in attributing any "nefarious" intent...
Winemakers typically respond to two primary concerns...
They care what the critics (and thus also consumers) think of their products... and they care that what they do in the winery sustains compliance with the rules...
The first problem there is that consumers might "say" they want to consume lower alcohol wines... but, that's not what they actually "demand"... either when perusing critics evaluations in making choices, or when tasting the wines themselves.
But, for those who DO want that... there are brands that have adopted that feature that deliberately... to make reduced alcohol or even alcohol free products... but, which products, almost no one is going to mistake as that "great wine" that they want ?
The Science Behind Nonalcoholic Win The article you posted gets that mostly right... that the "features" consumers want tend to come paired with "riper" fruit... while "riper" fruit, for the most part, requires grapes with higher sugars... and higher sugars means either higher alcohol wines, or wines with a higher residual sugar content. California has been, for a long time, trending along that line in consumers preferences... by producing wines with BOTH higher alcohol... and higher residual sugar levels in wines that are no longer "dry"... but creeping up toward 1% residual sugar. That's not my preference in wine... Not a huge fan of Cabs (etc.) with that sweet mid-palate and sweet cloying finish.
It IS possible, still, to get "riper fruit' with lower alcohol... which you accomplish by growing grapes in cooler climates... where longer hang times with much less heat have grapes ripen a lot more slowly... and make "fruit" faster than "sugar"... but, with corresponding requirements imposed by the climactic difference. "Cool" vineyards... mean you can ripen only a fraction of the fruit you might ripen in a warmer site... so, probably, in the range from 2 (ideally) up to 4 tons to the acre... while in warmer sites you can get the same ripeness from fruit cropped at 8 to 12 tons to the acre, or more. So, you might choose to drink better quality "cooler site" wines from France, often with sugar added to get them up to 12% alcohol, and much higher natural acidity (which they're not allowed to add), rather than wines from (relatively) smoking hot vineyards in Napa or Sonoma, with 14.5% alcohol (even though not allowed to add sugar), with 1% residual sugar, and no acid at all... except for that they've added (which they are allowed to do) ? [ Naturally, the rules are different in different places... to disallow you from doing that which you have no real need for... while criticizing competitors for doing it.]
But, most consumers don't want to know any of that... and they aren't expert tasters... they just know what they like, and want to be allowed to like it without over-thinking what that is. That means both that they like those features paired with higher alcohol... but, also, that they don't trust themselves too far in judging wine quality, so "like" what they're told is good by Wine Spectator... or, whichever critic or review they follow as best matching their own preferences. And, beyond that, what you think is "good"... depends on where you are. Frenchmen generally prefer "fruitier" in terms of European wines, with higher acidity. American's prefer "fruitier" in American terms... and many actively dislike wines with higher acidity.
But, its a big market... and you can find a bit of everything, everywhere... if you know where to look.
Then, as much as they might try to deny it... the critics also bear a lot of responsibility... because the tyranny of the 100 point scale determines quite a lot about what wine makers can do, or want to do. And, in the work they do, as in other "tasting events"... one of the truisms that is when you're tasting a lot of wines, that one "just like the others" but with a little bit higher alcohol... is like that one stalk of wheat with its head poking up a couple of inches higher than all the others in the field. It gets noticed. Tasting... generates more of that bias that already exists... as an artifact in work of making the comparison.
As far as "global warming is causing higher alcohol wines"... ? Mostly... total bullshit. The alcohol in the wine is a function of the wine maker deciding... telling the grower... when she wants the fruit picked. Warmer, longer growing seasons... usually called "great vintages"... will "allow" accumulating higher sugars in grapes... but, that means nothing, does nothing, to alter the part that matters... which is the wine maker making the call on when to proceed in picking the grapes. That's a complex decision... lots of factors considered... but almost ZERO of that is going to be about "lets work to make a wine with more alcohol"... rather than "let's shoot for optimal fruit quality, and balance"... as that is defined by wine makers, aware of both "the potential in a grape," their own take on wine quality, and both "critics" and "market preferences". It would be easy to make wines with far higher alcohol than most do have... but, then, the market only demands so much of that fruitless $10 a bottle >14% alcohol cough syrup ?
The other issue... "compliance"... is as they noted... about a couple of different things. Taxes is one of them... as a wine that bumps "just" over the bracket limits... gets itself bumped up into a higher tax bracket. So, yes, there are (used to be) more than a few wines that might report containing 14.0%... rather than 14.1%... to avoid that tax bump. And,it is also true that the rules, both as written, and as enforced, are pretty "flexible" in how you report the alcohol content... not really requiring that degree of precision. Read a lot of labels, and you might find a whole lot of wines reporting 12.5% (the generic value)... or 14% (the generic limit)... in a proportion that is hardly probable... But, given rules that (did) exist... ?
Only, the rules can change... the link from about two years after our posts... And, whatever it is today... it is what it is... ? The one useful bit in that first link worth noting... is that boutique / quality producers aren't really impacted by it at all... as a tax issue. As a quality producer, you mostly won't make wine-making decisions based on that tax concern... but, as they note, either the big boys who do care about the tax issue, will "remove alcohol"... as is done by large producers in California... or, "add water" as smaller producers might... as both are quick ways to get there... only, with both of them largely destructive of wine quality.
Note in the second link... the tax credit also changed... so ? There's really not any linkage that exists between "the taxes"... and "wine quality concerns"... much less "truth in labeling concerns... with the impact of the tax structure being mostly destructive of wine quality...
So, what's a consumer to do ?
Smaller producers will mostly be happy to talk to you about their wines... what they seek to make in them, etc., more even than you want to know. Find smaller quality focused producers you trust, who are willing to speak truth... while selecting those working in growing regions where "what you like" tends to be what they make anyway... because that's what happens where they are growing grapes and making wines. Deal with them directly... and add a relationship to your life, rather than another trip to the grocery store, to puzzle over the incomprehensible selection.
And, at some threshold in larger scale... producers will be happy to connect you to their marketing department.
Large producers, still... pick any big name producer in California... they're mostly all using the "alcohol reduction" technology... a dirty little secret called "the spinning cone"... the same as that noted in the Smithsonian article as giving alcohol free wines. They don't want you to know that use it to reduce the alcohol in their wines... because the wines that result are both less than they should be... and, they are really no longer "wines made by fermenting grapes... that reflect the qualities the grapes contained"... but are wines made by removing alcohol and other volatile compounds from wine... then putting some volatile compounds back... which may or may not be exactly the same as the ones removed... ie, they have about as much of the romance of the vineyard in them... as a glass of Kool-aid served in a vineyard. |
| Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
To: Savant who wrote (437) | 2/26/2023 10:57:24 PM | From: sense | | | On the bee problem...
As it happens, have been spending a bit of time on that again, recently...
A lot has changed in the last couple of decades... since the problem of colony collapse first appeared.
It's much better understood, now...
And, there have been a lot of adjustments made in addressing it...
A big part of that is... urban dwellers who think living in the country means "clean air"... have no idea.
Agriculture has been increasingly made dependent on "big pharma for plants"... and, the number and quantity of things being applied to plants... and thus injected into our air... has continued to skyrocket over the years...
Most of farm country now resembles "living under constant chemical warfare attacks" more than it resembles "clean air and the great outdoors"... as I think most imagine it to be.
For the bees... that was (and remains) certainly the case. A couple of new products that were introduced, in particular, appear responsible...
So, bee keepers have become more aware... and adjusted management of the bees... They now are far more aggressive in moving hives from "working sites"... to R&R sites... where the bees get a respite from the chemical warfare... and a chance to recuperate... Bee's now take longer holidays than they used to... and do so in more deliberately selected sites... where the plants they're able to access are more carefully selected to help them recover... That also means that hiring bees as pollinators is now a lot more expensive... given their reduced work week...
I've had a couple of bee wranglers asking me to set up "bee resorts" for them...
More interesting, perhaps... is that the ongoing industrialization of agriculture... now means that urban areas, as bad as urban pollution is, and all... are far better locations for bees than ag lands are. Probably the key reason we didn't risk losing bees entirely when the problem was at its worst... was that there were reservoirs of wild populations living in the cities... where they weren't having the same difficulties as their country cousins.
Today, that remains true. Bees are better off in near urban areas where there are far more flowers, and a vastly larger diversity of them, than exist in the sterile landscape of the modern industrial ag monoculture.
So, with that awareness, there are now a lot more urban beekeepers, too...
Have been planning an urban installation this week...
It's made more complicated, because... in farm country, if you want bees... you figure out what you need to do, do it, and then you get bees. In the urban landscape, though, they assume you're an idiot... and they won't LICENSE you to keep bees... unless you attend their classes, pass their tests, to prove... worthy of earning the honor of being certificated as an apprentice beekeeper... rolls eyes...
So, am I attending apprentice beekeeping classes ? Hell no. My daughter is doing it...
|
| Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
To: Savant who wrote (444) | 2/27/2023 5:53:04 PM | From: sense | | | Mostly a massive failure...
Two major reasons...
One, herbicide/pesticide over-spray by a local wheat farmer killed a lot of trees outright... damaged most of them, and, damage was not limited to just the orchard. They killed a number of 100+ year old giants on our property, and throughout the neighborhood bordering their wheat fields for a couple of miles. That in result of spraying an herbicide intended to prevent emergence of weeds... a pre-emergent... but, they didn't spray it until after the trees had budded out, well outside legitimate boundaries. The worst impacted of them dropped flowers, leaves, entire shoots... the best of them "quit growing" and didn't grow again the rest of the season. As fruit trees are highly dependent on the first three or four years of growth... losing a key year... means, even if they survive, a decade or more of delay being imposed. So, also invalidating the results of any "study".
And, not just plants. A local wildlife rescue operation lost recuperating birds they kept in outdoor aviaries... the spectacular growth of the quail and pheasant population, which we'd helped enable... all suddenly gone. Our elderly neighbors became ill... and moved away.
Two, not unrelated... an intense eruption of fireblight... which was uncontrolled in the neighboring orchards whose owners had abandoned them.
But, prior to the disasters occurring... I learned a whole lot in a short time. Got to evaluate qualities of fruits from a large number of cider varieties... and a couple of dessert apples...
And, did complete a good number of other projects, which helped out others... improving the local direct to consumer farms... tomato trials, strawberries... and got them adopting quite a bit of permaculture in how they're growing them... Selected seed sources for local oaks... and helped them plant a lot of oak trees... which will mean acorns for the pigs...
My own experience with the cider varieties seems it is being duplicated by others... not only at the application level... but at the nursery level... While there are some spectacular cider varieties out there... they tend to be "very high risk" for growers, only in part because of disease susceptibility... and, far more... too often ignored... older varieties tend to be far more susceptible to the chemical assaults imposed by neighbors that are now a routine part of agriculture. Modern varieties, intentionally or not... are selected to survive in the chemical dominated landscape that defines our modern reality.
So, the nursery operations have been throttled back... making it harder to get heirloom varieties as easily as was true, for a time... But, that's at a time that "interest" has soared... pandemic driven, largely... so that obtaining trees to plant is harder, now... and costs two to three times what it did a short while ago.
The key takeaways... there are a solid handful of "antiques" that are fairly robust... along with a handful plus of modern varieties that not only incorporate quite good disease resistance as the objective.. but, also, have better chemical tolerance as an inadvertent selection factor...
If I were starting over to make a small planting to use in cider production... I'd go organic... meaning... plant only that handful of highly disease and chemical resistant apple varieties... knowing the product wouldn't be nearly as good as it might be... but having a product being a better plan than having a dead orchard.
Have also relocated... still have access to the (surviving) plant materials I've left there... but now working on enabling new efforts in places that are far more isolated from other agriculture...
Should note... the difficulties almost exclusively impacted apples... All the others I planted... a range of plums, and a range of tart cherries... shrugged it all off, and kept going. The plums in particular, encountered difficulty only in result of growing too fast... and not being properly pruned after I left them...
But, French heirloom prune plums... and "Thomas Jefferson's favorite" plum... spectacular. Cherries I planted were English Morello, Northstar, Sure-fire... and a variety I don't see listed any more, anywhere... that was a seedling found growing wild in Manitoba... super cold hardy... All proved valuable... and, from a growers perspective, they compensated well for each other in terms of the annual crop variations imposed depending on seasonality. But, if you've never had a cherry pie made from freshly picked English Morello... you've never really had a cherry pie... Unbeatable flavor, but, perhaps... not a quality that is optimal for being preserved... which others seem to do better.
The level of care I provided to the cherry and plum plantings... was zero. They had no problems...
My biggest regret from that couple of years... had nothing to do with the other disasters... was entirely self imposed. I spent years searching and sorting citrus plants for sale... finally found one, that had been growing in the ground in a back yard in New Jersey for ten years... said to be tolerant to -10F below... a Chinese import from before they cracked down on that... Got a couple, and grew them outdoors in pots for three years... during which time they blithely survived temperatures as low as -25F... which decimated the trifoliate oranges I grew as controls... Very excited by that... purposed to plant them out... so, moved them for that purpose... then, forgot about them... and, without water during a heat wave, killed them.
And, now... can't locate them any more... as it seems "someone" has made that impossible... and has disincentivized the grower from making them available... So, the future of the citrus industry of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, western Montana, and coastal/southern British Columbia... died in my back yard. |
| Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |