Smoke Continued from Page 1
between people who may have had good relationships beforehand.” In 2020, two buyers accepted Rosenthal’s grapes. But a third, to whom he was selling most of his crop, reject- ed them. “When the winery did their tests, most of the compounds were fine, and one was high, so they rejected the grapes,” he said. Rosenthal decided to harvest his grapes anyway, paying out of pocket to process them. When he did, “the wine did not show any smoke taint issues in the aromas or flavors,” he said. Rosenthal suspects that smoke taint was not the only reason, or even the pri- mary reason, his grapes were rejected. “It’s a winery that is oversupplied,” he said. “Any excuse to not take grapes, they jump at it.” Among growers, it is accepted that qual- ity markers come under closer inspection when wineries have surplus inventory. “The presence of smoke in vineyards is more highly scrutinized and evaluat- ed when the market is long,” Bitter said. “That doesn’t make all buyers bad. It’s just the reality of any market when you don’t have demand for something and you have the opportunity to get out of buying it.” In other words, it often makes busi- ness sense for wineries to reject grapes, and due to the lack of specific smoke
taint standards, Bitter said, “the con- tracts allow [them] to do that.” At the same time, federal crop in- surance policies have set a low bar for winegrape growers to file claims based on smoke taint losses. “That has given wineries the ability to feel a little more comfortable about rejecting grapes that have been exposed to smoke,” he said. But such rejections can still be costly for growers. “If you don’t have crop insur- ance, which I didn’t, you can either leave the grapes on the vine and lose your crop or you can take a risk,” Rosenthal said, and pay to “custom crush them and have them turned into wine and then try to sell it.” While Rosenthal’s wine came out untainted, he struggled to sell it, taking about a 70% loss. “Because so much of the state was impacted, many people were leery of buying any bulk wine from 2020,” he said. Rosenthal doesn’t blame the wineries. As a grower and winemaker, “I can see both sides,” he said. “If I’m contracted for grapes, I don’t want to have to take them if they’re going to make bad wine.” For everyone’s benefit, Rosenthal said, “I just wish there was a better predictor of how the wine will turn out.” That’s what Tomasino and other re- searchers are working towards. Last year, her research team at Oregon State discov- ered a new class of compounds, called thiophenols, are markers for smoke taint. “This changes the game as these new compounds are a completely different class of compounds than we were pre- viously studying,” she said. “We should be much more successful over the next
year or two in providing mitigation strategies for the industry that are ac- tually effective.” There are still challenges. Thiophenols are much harder to test for than the vola- tile phenols typically used in smoke taint analysis. According to Tomasino, only a handful of labs in the world are equipped to test for them, and doing so is expensive and time-consuming. Growers say further research is critical. In June, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, D-California, and Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, introduced the Smoke Exposure Research Act, which would commit $32.5 million over five years to smoke taint research. “Ultimately, where the research and this funding is going is to determine re- ally accurate predictors for the industry,” Tomasino said. “We want to find some- thing that is accurate but quick.” Researchers are also exploring ways to test entire vineyard blocks for smoke taint without having to sample any grapes. “We measure the air quality for different parameters,” she said. That way, growers “don’t need to put any extra effort into that vineyard block,” she added. In addition to improving testing and analysis for smoke taint, researchers are studying ways to completely re- move smoke taint compounds during the winemaking process without com- promising other aspects of the flavor. “Eventually, that will probably be pos- sible,” Tomasino said, “but it’s very tricky to do.” (Caleb Hampton is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. He may be contacted at champton@cfbf.com.)
“You can measure these different chemical compounds, but you don’t know how it’s going to show up in the wine,” said Rosenthal, the Lake County grower, who also works as a winemaker for Yokayo Wine Company. Elizabeth Tomasino, associate profes- sor of enology at Oregon State University, has spent years researching smoke taint. “Much of the smoke taint mitigation work to date has not been overly success- ful and now we know because we have been looking at the wrong thing,” she said last year after her research team made a breakthrough discovery. Tomasino and other researchers are working to create specific standards for diagnosing smoke taint in different va- rieties of winegrapes. “Those are going to be really important for the industry,” she said. The lack of standardized testing levels for smoke taint has ramifications across the sector, impacting crop insurance policies and contracts between growers and wineries. “I’ve seen contracts that are very ge- neric,” Tomasino said, referring to lan- guage that mentions only “smoke ex- posure” and does not include specific compound levels in grapes. “That’s where you can get some disagreement
Agricultural Market Review Quotations are the latest available for the week ending Sept. 29, 2023 Year Ago Week Ago Latest Week Livestock
2023 Retirement Plan
Slaughter Steers – 5-Area Average Select & Choice, 1150–1460 lbs., $/cwt. Hogs – Average hog, 51-52% lean, Iowa-Minn. market, $/cwt. Slaughter Lambs – $ per cwt. 125–175 lbs. National weekly live sales Field crops – basis prompt shipment Cotton – ¢ per lb., Middling 1 3/32” Fresno spot market Corn – U.S. No. 2 yellow $/bu. trucked Alfalfa Hay – $ per ton, quality*, FOB Region 1, Northern Inter-mountain
138-142
182-183
181-183
95.28
80.72
83.63
105-147
173-230
190-205
California’s state retirement plan mandate expanded on January 1 to include those employers with one or more employees. Ensure you are prepared to comply with the new California retirement plan mandate. Join us at one of our webinars presented by Nationwide. For a list of class dates and to register, visit cfbf.com/FBE or call (800) 698-FARM for assistance. You will receive a Zoom link and details two days prior to your selected webinar date. Members, enjoy access to free classes! Register for the upcoming webinars.
82.66
80.76
81.65
9.70
6.96
6.83
350 (S)
220 (S)
450 (S)
Region 2, Sacramento Valley
No Quote No Quote 410 (G/P)
No Quote
No Quote 165 (F/G)
Region 3, Northern San Joaquin Valley Region 4, Central San Joaquin Valley
160-180 (F)
No Quote
350 (S)
Region 5, Southern California Region 6, Southeast Interior
22 (P/S, per bale)
215 (P)
No Quote No Quote
390 (P/S)
245-300 (P)
Rice – Milled #1 Head, FOB No. Calif. mills Medium grain, $ per cwt.
58-62
70-72
70-72
Provided by the California Farm Bureau as a service to Farm Bureau members. Information supplied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Market News Branch. * ADF=Acid detergent fiber; (S) = Supreme/<27%ADF; (P) = Premium/27-29; (G) = Good/29-32; (F) = Fair/32-35.
14 Ag Alert October 4, 2023
Powered by FlippingBook