I am sitting here at my computer watching some YouTube videos about grape vines and how to prune and care for them. As you already know, I am not an expert at grape growing and I don't mind admitting that I am learning as I go. Having now said that let me go on as to why I suddenly stopped watching the videos and had to write this short article. Doing my research I came across many types of vineyard videos. There are some that teach how to prune. There some that teach how to fertilize or how to train the vine and this is all well and good. There are some really good videos out there that can and do teach the proper care and maintenance of the vineyard. There are however, also some videos that should not be posted at all. While some of those videos appear to be produced very well they just go against everything that the real professionals with the vineyards in Napa Valley put out. These videos also have vines that look like they have never been cared for until the day the video was being made, the vines look simply out of control. These are the same videos that show the person in the video yanking and pulling on the vines or cutting the vine incorrectly or at the wrong places, basically the vines look like a mess. I would be embarrassed to show some of the vineyards that some of these people show. I think that our vineyards should be treated correctly and that includes how they look, especially if you are going to make videos on how to care for them. If you have canes growing all over the place or canes that were never trained correctly you will have a vineyard that is out of control or appears to be growing unattended.
Folks the bottom line here is if you want to post a video on Facebook to try and teach or show someone a vineyard and how one should look or how to take care of one please have your own vineyard in order first otherwise you appear to be someone who just wants attention and just got a video camera.
The Desert Wine Guy
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
The Desert Wine Guy - The Benefits Of Red Wine - Fact Or Fiction
Today we will discuss if wine can be healthy? Lets take a look and see if that is the case. The first thing we have to remember is that old practices die hard. When there is one train of thought and it is taught for so long anything that comes up to show that train of thought is not accurate is of course looked upon as a "fringe" idea. Is the case it's whether wine can be healthy for you? Let's look into
this still controversial subject and see what we discover.
The following is taken directly from an article from Yale-New Haven Hospital "For over 10 years, research has indicated that moderate intake of alcohol improves cardiovascular health. In fact, in 1992 Harvard researchers included moderate alcohol consumption as one of the "eight proven ways to reduce coronary heart disease risk." However, research has suggested that specifically red wine is the most beneficial to your heart health. The cardioprotective effect has been attributed to antioxidants present in the skin and seeds of red grapes". The antioxidants they are talking about are called flavonoids. Flavoroids have been shown to reduce your bad cholesterol. Oxidized low-density lipoproteins (LDL) damage the cells that line blood vessel walls by provoking numerous responses including inflammation, smooth muscle cell proliferation and clotting mechanisms, all of which lead to atherosclerosis, can you say heart disease? One the other hand antioxidants which are in red wine raise your good cholesterol. They also have been shown to reduce blood clotting. The research has actually shown that MODERATE red wine consumption may actually benefit more than just your heart. According to the Mayo Clinic, "moderate" is defined as up to one drink a day for women or two drinks a day for men. There is some evidence that the antioxidants might also inhibit the development of tumors such as Prostate cancer and help in the development of nerve cells which touches on helping cure Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. The antioxidant in red wine is called Polyphenols The particular antioxidant we are looking at here is Resveratrol which comes from red grape skins, red wine. Most of the research that has been done on Resveratrol has been done on animals but so far (although there has been some done on Humans) it is promising and the hope is that the good news plays out in humans as well. According to WebMd, Dr. Alice Lichtenstein & Dr. Eric Rimm, a Harvard researcher choose whichever alcoholic beverage you enjoy, drink it in moderation and try to have it with meals, advises Lichtenstein and Eric Rimm, DrS, a Harvard researcher. There was a study done and published in The New England Journal of Medicine of more that 20,000 women between the ages of 70-83 shows that moderate drinkers scored higher on a mental functions test than those that don't drink and had a 23% reduced risk of mental decline compared to the non-drinkers. Another Polyphenol in red wine is called Proanthocyanidin also a class of Flavonids which is another powerful antioxidant. Proanthocyanidins in one study kills free radicals (can you say aging). In an in vitro experiment testing the response of human mouth cells to the free radical damage caused by smokeless tobacco, grape seed OPCs were a stronger antioxidant than vitamins C and E, even when the two vitamins were combined. How do you determine your wine has all the above? Drink a full-bodied red wine aged in oak because it appears that they have the highest antioxidant properties.
There are, of course some issues with Alcohol in general, HOWEVER after doing my research into the subject, the negatives of MODERATE drinking do not seem to apply to normal,active, healthy people. Wine does however contain Alcohol and has sugar which means calories. According to the website http://winefolly.com/tutorial/wine-nutrition-facts/ "Alcohol has almost 2 times the amount of carbs as sugar". That is NOT a good thing and whether healthy or not too much sugar is not healthy and should be avoided. Whether you drink red or white though wine does matter even when it comes to sugar because some white wines contain more sugar than do red wines. Pregnant women should avoid drinking wine or any other alcohol during their pregnancy, as even small amounts of alcohol consumed during pregnancy increases risks of birth defects and fetal death. If exposed to alcohol, unborn babies may suffer a number of negative side effects, which will influence their physical and mental health: odd facial features, smaller size in comparison to other children of their age, learning and behavior problems etc. Also according to Arthur Agatston, MD, cardiologist and creator of the popular South Beach diet "There is a misperception that red wine is abundant in antioxidants. "It does contain some, but they are not always well absorbed. If you want antioxidants, you are better off eating a spinach salad with vegetables than drinking a glass of red wine"
In ending this article it is my (non-medical) belief that a normal, who drinks a couple (MODERATELY) of glasses of red wine red wine should enjoy the benefits to their health. The fact that red wine contains sugar I believe is overshadowed by the many benefits in the wine. Here is my disclaimer. I am not a doctor and am not giving medical advice in this article.
The Desert Wine Guy
The following is taken directly from an article from Yale-New Haven Hospital "For over 10 years, research has indicated that moderate intake of alcohol improves cardiovascular health. In fact, in 1992 Harvard researchers included moderate alcohol consumption as one of the "eight proven ways to reduce coronary heart disease risk." However, research has suggested that specifically red wine is the most beneficial to your heart health. The cardioprotective effect has been attributed to antioxidants present in the skin and seeds of red grapes". The antioxidants they are talking about are called flavonoids. Flavoroids have been shown to reduce your bad cholesterol. Oxidized low-density lipoproteins (LDL) damage the cells that line blood vessel walls by provoking numerous responses including inflammation, smooth muscle cell proliferation and clotting mechanisms, all of which lead to atherosclerosis, can you say heart disease? One the other hand antioxidants which are in red wine raise your good cholesterol. They also have been shown to reduce blood clotting. The research has actually shown that MODERATE red wine consumption may actually benefit more than just your heart. According to the Mayo Clinic, "moderate" is defined as up to one drink a day for women or two drinks a day for men. There is some evidence that the antioxidants might also inhibit the development of tumors such as Prostate cancer and help in the development of nerve cells which touches on helping cure Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. The antioxidant in red wine is called Polyphenols The particular antioxidant we are looking at here is Resveratrol which comes from red grape skins, red wine. Most of the research that has been done on Resveratrol has been done on animals but so far (although there has been some done on Humans) it is promising and the hope is that the good news plays out in humans as well. According to WebMd, Dr. Alice Lichtenstein & Dr. Eric Rimm, a Harvard researcher choose whichever alcoholic beverage you enjoy, drink it in moderation and try to have it with meals, advises Lichtenstein and Eric Rimm, DrS, a Harvard researcher. There was a study done and published in The New England Journal of Medicine of more that 20,000 women between the ages of 70-83 shows that moderate drinkers scored higher on a mental functions test than those that don't drink and had a 23% reduced risk of mental decline compared to the non-drinkers. Another Polyphenol in red wine is called Proanthocyanidin also a class of Flavonids which is another powerful antioxidant. Proanthocyanidins in one study kills free radicals (can you say aging). In an in vitro experiment testing the response of human mouth cells to the free radical damage caused by smokeless tobacco, grape seed OPCs were a stronger antioxidant than vitamins C and E, even when the two vitamins were combined. How do you determine your wine has all the above? Drink a full-bodied red wine aged in oak because it appears that they have the highest antioxidant properties.
There are, of course some issues with Alcohol in general, HOWEVER after doing my research into the subject, the negatives of MODERATE drinking do not seem to apply to normal,active, healthy people. Wine does however contain Alcohol and has sugar which means calories. According to the website http://winefolly.com/tutorial/wine-nutrition-facts/ "Alcohol has almost 2 times the amount of carbs as sugar". That is NOT a good thing and whether healthy or not too much sugar is not healthy and should be avoided. Whether you drink red or white though wine does matter even when it comes to sugar because some white wines contain more sugar than do red wines. Pregnant women should avoid drinking wine or any other alcohol during their pregnancy, as even small amounts of alcohol consumed during pregnancy increases risks of birth defects and fetal death. If exposed to alcohol, unborn babies may suffer a number of negative side effects, which will influence their physical and mental health: odd facial features, smaller size in comparison to other children of their age, learning and behavior problems etc. Also according to Arthur Agatston, MD, cardiologist and creator of the popular South Beach diet "There is a misperception that red wine is abundant in antioxidants. "It does contain some, but they are not always well absorbed. If you want antioxidants, you are better off eating a spinach salad with vegetables than drinking a glass of red wine"
In ending this article it is my (non-medical) belief that a normal, who drinks a couple (MODERATELY) of glasses of red wine red wine should enjoy the benefits to their health. The fact that red wine contains sugar I believe is overshadowed by the many benefits in the wine. Here is my disclaimer. I am not a doctor and am not giving medical advice in this article.
The Desert Wine Guy
Thursday, January 16, 2014
The Desert WIne Guy - Las Vegas Climate And The growing Of Cabernet Sauvignon Grapes.
Since Cabernet Sauvignon is one of the last major grape varieties to bud as well as ripen. This plays a major role in why the grape does so well here in Vegas. The weather the vine grows in determines it's suitability as a varietal wine as well as when it's grapes ripen or even if the get a chance to ripen. Gravel, clay and Limestone soils such as here in Vegas are perfect soils for Cabernet. The gravel benefits the vine by assisting in drainage and taking the heat away from the roots. The clay and limestone in the soil usually helps keep the soil cooler which allows less heat to reach the vines and in turn keeps the yields naturally low. There is even something called "Rutherford Dust" which is supposed to add to the taste of a Rutherford Cabernet. The Rutherford Dust comes from the fact that Rutherford California has soil which is considered dusty. There are also some climate and soil characteristics that actually effect the taste of the grape. In a climate (soil) that has more Prazine compounds. The main Prazine we worry about is Methoxypyrazines since in large enough quantities it can ruin the flavor of the wine. Their threshold in red wine, especially Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, and Merlot, has been reported to be as low as 10 to 15 parts per trillion. But within the range of their occurrence, their aroma can be overpowering and unpleasant. Thankfully Methoxypyrazines decreases as the grape ripens. Picking grapes to early can also mean a strong Methoxypyrazines flavor. The best way to describe thesecharacteristics are, vegetal. A study was done that showed that in Cabernet Sauvignon after racking most of the pyrazine (methoxypyrazines) was extracted from the grapes withing 24 hours of crushing. The study also showed that aging a wine does not effect the level of pyrazine present. This is great news for Cabernet Sauvignon which loves aging. A last word about pyrazines is they can contribute to a wine having that "Green Pepper Flavor" but again this impact is only when a grape is picked early. The flavors imparted by pyrazine are also dependent on the wine making process. One other factor which is part of climate is weather. Depending on the area of the country you live in also matters. If you live in a place that has a very short growing season (think lack of sun) due to the weather then Cabernet Sauvignon is not for you. The grape is slow to flower (which helps avoid frost injury) and slow to grow so it needs a long growing season. Here in Vegas we have that covered very well and I have no problems with growth thanks to the Vegas sun and soil. The weather conditions here do however cause a slight hindrance and that is that Cabernet Sauvignon develops a dense canopy and the sun has a hard time getting thru this canopy to the grapes at times so canopy management is essential to the grapes growing well. If your climate is too cold or doesn't warm up enough you stand the risk of the grapes not fully ripening "Green Pepper Flavor". Poor canopy management can also lead to poor fruit pigmentation, high pH, and reduced varietal aroma. Rain is another problem. If the climate you live in brings to much rain that is also bad. Rain means clouds and clouds of course mean no sun. Rain also means that the grapes take on more water which dilutes the taste of the grape. With too much rain, the grape berries start to swell and can split, and then you have to worry about spoilage, mold and mildew. Rain is also a concern in the spring. Grapes are formed from flowers, a heavy rain can knock the blooms off the plant and reduce the size of the crop. Damp conditions can also lead to mildew and other diseases. To make things easier for us to know what to grow or what varieties to grow areas of the country are broken down into zones or hardiness zones . For our purpose which is growing Cabernet Sauvignon, the zones 5 – 8 are what is preferred. There are also Sunset Zones which is determined by the following factors. Summer temperature, rainfall, humidity, elevation and wind. In Las Vegas we are actually zone 8-9 and normally we only have to worry about the wind. There is also the problem of pests. Depending on the (climate) zone you live in there are certain pests that you have to worry about and certain ones you don't have to worry about.
I hope this article has shed some light for you on the idea of growing Cabernet Sauvignon here in the desert or for that matter where you in particular live. I have tried to provide all relevant climate information to help you determine how to grow Cabernet Sauvignon. If you need any more help or information please get with me on The Desert Wine Guy Facebook https://www.facebook.com/DesertWineGuy?ref=hl and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
The Desert Wine Guy
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
The Desert WIne Guy - 2006 Monastery Tvrdos, Cabernet Sauvignon
Hey guys today we are truly in for a treat and an education. A treat because of the wine we are tasting and an education because of where our wine is made, which is a 13th century Monastery. Yes you read it right, a monastery. To start off with let me tell you about how I came across our wine. I was doing some shopping at the local Whole Foods grocery store here in Las Vegas the other day and as I usually do I went over to the wine section looking for a wine to review for this blog. I saw all the usual bottles and labels BUT then I came across our review wine, the 2006 Monastery Tvrdos (http://www.tvrdos.com/en/) Cabernet Sauvignon I instantly knew that this was the one. The label alone intrigued me and I picked up the bottle and discovered that it was from an actual monastery. O.k I'm hooked this is the one. I bought this wine on a Thursday and couldn't wait to taste it. I was so excited that I placed it over my other pending reviews. Before I get to the actual review let's talk a little bit about the Monastery.Monastery Tvrdos is an actual monastery located in Herzegovina which is actually in Bosnia. It is the southern region of Bosnia and Herzegovina located in southeastern Europe. The Monastery dates back to the Middle Ages. The Monastery was founded by Czar, Saint Constantine and his mother Saint Helen. It was destroyed at one time and later became the endowment of the Serbian King Milulian at the end of the 13th century. There was a time when Serbian Monks used the Monastery to make the tradition of Serbian wine making. The Monastery is today a Serbian Orthodox Church. Today the Monastery actually has two cellar's. One of the cellars is made of stone and dates from the 15th century. The grape known as Vranac is aged there in barrels that are over one hundred years old. Vranac is a black skinned grape that is related to Zinfandel by the way. Close to the old cellar is a modern up to date one. The Monastery today makes Vranac & Zilawka as well as the more familiar wines such as Chardonnay, Merlot, Syrah and of course the grape of our subject wine, the $20 2006 Monastery Tvrdos Cabernet Sauvignon.
Alright everyone here we go. This wine was chilled for about 20 minutes prior to opening it. This was just enough time to put a slight edge on the wine but not make it, what I would in any way call cold. The one thing I did immediately notice is that there really was no bouquet to this wine. There was a slight Blackberry / Oak aroma but nothing really to speak of. This did disappoint and surprise me slightly especially after tasting the wine. This also happens to be a corked wine which we all know I like. The first pour of our wine strikes your eye as a dark, red berry almost Burgundy color. After giving our glass a few swirls the taste has a rich powerful blackberry forward taste followed by a hint of Cherry and Current. There are also a good amount of Tannin's which add to and compliment this beautiful Cabernet, another surprise for a wine bottled in 2006 especially and at this price. I should add that this wine also has a hint of almost a jammy sort of flavor to it but in a very good way. One word that popped into my mind while first drinking this wine was "interesting". While the Blackberry was the first flavor I tasted it was a perfect start to the wine and was complimented by the perfect mix of all the wines other flavors
To sum this wine up lets start by saying that it is on my all time favorites list. I will be buying two more bottles to put away since this wine will hold up for a good few more years. without any problems. Knowing where and by whom the wine is made I feel adds to the enjoyment of this wine. This wine retains it's full bodied flavor to the very end. It doesn't drop off at any point and it leaves a pleasant, though slightly dry taste in your mouth. I do recommend that the wine be decanted for approximately a half an hour since the wine opens up beautifully into a powerhouse Cabernet. If there is going to be some food eaten along side this wine I recommend eating something along the lines of mildly spicy food such a a nicely spiced Lamb or Sausage. In fact with the summer coming it is screaming for barbecue. Recommendation......get a bottle of this wine, now!!
The Desert WIne Guy
Thursday, January 9, 2014
The Desert Wine Guy - Sulfites In Our Wine, What's The Real Deal?
What are Sulfites? The Sulfite we will deal with is Sulfur Dioxide because that is what is used in wine. There are many types of Sulfites that get lumped into that name however. According to the EPA "Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as “oxides of sulfur.”. According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services Sulfur Dioxide ".... is produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and oil) and the smelting of mineral ores (aluminum, copper, zinc, lead and iron) that contain sulfur. It is a liquid under pressure and dissolves in water quickly. Once dissolved, it reacts with the water to form new compounds called Sulfites. According to the California Department of Pesticide Information " when Sulfur Dioxide is used to sanitize corks, barrels and equipment, the compound is legally classified as a pesticide". Not only is it a pesticide but it is also a federally restricted pesticide. Prior to going to print with this article there was an article that came out. According to the South Jersey Times newspaper in a article dated January 8, 2014 which you can find at(http://www.nj.com/gloucestercounty/index.ssf/2014/01/schools_sheltered_dep_testing_for_sulfur_dioxide_following_paulsboro_refinery_incident.html) "Schools sheltered, DEP testing for sulfur dioxide following Paulsboro refinery incident". According to the article there was a fire at the REFINERY and Sulfur Dioxide was released into the air. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica Sulfur Dioxide is an "inorganic compound, a heavy, colourless, poisonous gas. It is produced in huge quantities in intermediate steps of sulfuric acid manufacture". Did you read Sulfuric Acid? There are natural Sulfites and man made Sulfites. Sulfiting agents include Sulfur Dioxide which include the following.
1) Potassium Pyrosulfite: Potassium Pyrosulfite is a white crystalline powder with a pungent Sulfur odor. The main use for the chemical is as an antioxidant or chemical sterilant. It is a disulfite and is chemically very similar to Sodium Metabisulfite, with which it is sometimes used interchangeably. Potassium Metabisulfite is generally preferred out of the two as it does not contribute sodium to the diet.
2) Sodium Sulfite: Sodium Sulfite also known as Sodium sulfite Heptahydrate. According to the company Solvay, Sodium Sulfite is ".....a white, granular or powdered solid. It is used in the pulp and paper industry, in the photographic industry to keep developer solutions from oxidizing and to wash fixer from film and photo-paper, in the textile industry asa bleach, desulfurizer ordechlorinator and in the tanning of leather". Some amount of Sodium Sulfites are naturally in wine. It prevents bacterial growth and the browning of exposed foods. It also prevents the growth of undesirable microorganisms during fermentation (wine) and food processing. The Sulfites used in wine-making are also a residue of natural gas & petroleum crude.
3) Sodium Bisulfite: Sodium Bisulfite which is a combination of Sodium, Hydrogen, Sulfur and Oxygen. It is also called Sodium Hydrogen Sulfate, and is classed as a Sulfite, or Sulfur-based chemical. Its natural form is a white crystalline powder, but turns yellow in solution. It is acidic, considered corrosive, and is a powerful reducing agent used in water treatment, textile dye preparation and film development".
4) Sodium Metabisulfite: Sodium Metabisulfite in the pure form may cause an allergic, asthma-type reaction, skin causing redness, itching and pain. Ingesting pure sodium metabisulfite irritates your gastrointestinal system as it reacts with acid in your stomach by releasing sulfurous acid. Ingesting high amounts may cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pains, circulatory disturbance and central nervous system depression.Inhalation of sodium metabisulfite irritates your respiratory tract. Symptoms include coughing and shortness of breath. In some individuals.
Do Sulfites cause headaches? The answer is we don't know. According to Annie Arnold, owner of The Organic Wine Exchange "People often blame Sulphur, when in reality there are a host of other issues that may contribute to headaches. Experts say more study is warranted, and that there is dissent, however a lot of research suggests that the headache culprits might be histamine and Tyramine, other chemical substances that are naturally present in wine. Histamine dilates blood vessels and Tyramine first constricts then dilates blood vessels — ouch! By the way Riesling (I like) is one of the higher Tyramine containing wines. Dan L. Keiller, president of the newly formed Medical Wine Interest and Education Society in San Diego, says several studies from Europe show that “red wines, in general, contain more Histamine than Champagnes or Sparkling wines and those usually contain more Histamine than [still] white wines, indeed headaches from red wine are so common that the phenomenon has its own name, “RWH Syndrome”-that’s “red wine headache.” But, Dr. Keiller goes on to add, “Histamine content does not correlate consistently with color, bouquet or taste characteristics of the wine.” There is even thought that the wood that the wine is fermented in may cause headaches. Lets also not forget that we are drinking a lot of sugar when we drink most alcohol. I think the most common reason for headaches is overdose. To keep this debate going though I'll leave you with this. Sulfites can cause allergy and asthma symptoms, but they don’t cause headaches,” says Frederick Freitag, associate director of the Diamond Headache Clinic in Chicago and a board member of the National Headache Foundation. There is a belief that people might actually be the cause of the headaches often blamed on Sulfites.
Why the heck is Sulfur dioxide in my wine? It's primary purpose in wine is to act as a preservative and antioxidant. It is supposedly there also to preserve wine quality and freshness. Sulfur Dioxide is also added to kill the yeast and to stop fermentation at a specific point and to prevent discoloration
Do we need Sulfur Dioxide in my wine? The answer is NO. and they might also be dangerous. There are organic wines that do not have any Sulfites other that the small amount that naturally occurs and yet they maintain very well. The fact is that aside from organic grapes being grown without synthetic pesticides they are also not preserved with Sulfur Dioxide. Did you know that Alcohol itself is a natural preservative? I've even heard of chilling the wine in the vat to cause the suspended yeast to precipitate to the bottom, then drawing off the clarified wine from the top. Is it harder to find wine that has no Sulfites, yes but it is a growing market. Here is a link http://www.theorganicwinecompany.com/ that you might find interesting. According to WebMD, the FDA estimates that one out of 100 people are sensitive to Sulphur compounds. If you've ever gotten a reaction after eating dried fruit, which often contains sulfur as a preservative, then you may be among those who are sensitive to Sulphur in varying degrees. This could be anything from intolerance to allergic reactions. There are even instances of people dying due to being allergic to Sulfites and having Asthma. According to Paul Frey of Frey Vineyards http://www.freywine.com/no-sulfites-added.html "for most of wine's eight-thousand year history it was made without any synthetic additives at all. Sulphur Dioxide is a relatively new industrial ingredient in the history of wine. He goes on to say "Sulfite is a nonessential preservative. It has never been allowed as an additive in any food or wine that carries the USDA organic seal. By using alternative organic methods, food processors and winemakers do not need to use sulfur dioxide". Wine makers claim that Sulfites help preserve the wine however Paul Frey claims if a wine is made and stored correctly it can last for a long time without any issues. By the way white wines and sweet wines have one of the highest uses of Sulfur Dioxide because they are more prone to Oxidation.
O.k now for my take on this matter. To me it is obvious (once again) that all these chemicals are NOT good for you. If Mr. Frey believes that a good wine can be made without adding chemicals (Sulfites) then I'll go for that. By the way there are more than a few wine makers who do not add Sulfites to their wines. Check out this link http://www.theorganicwinecompany.com/ as well as this one http://wine.about.com/od/wineandhealth/a/Organicwines.htm to find out more. If I could I would stay away from adding chemicals or pesticides (see my previous article) however sometimes it is either not possible or convenient. I hope this article has shed some light on what the label on the back of the wine bottle means. I am curious to know just how many people will change their wine drinking habits because of this article. If I had to guess I would guess that although it is nice to know what Sulfites are we will continue to drink them.Who do I believe? I'll let you know as soon as I drink my newly acquired bottle of Monastery Tvrdos, Cabernet Sauvignon
The Desert Wine Guy
The Desert WIne Guy - 2010 Chateau Ste. Michelle Chardonnay - A Tainted Bottle Perhaps?
Today's review will be on the 2010 Chateau Ste. Michelle from the Chateau Ste. Michelle vineyards (http://www.ste-michelle.com/) located in the Columbia Valley of Washington state. To begin with Chateau Ste. Michelle is the oldest winery in Washington State. The winery is located around 15 miles North of Seattle it is also very critically acclaimed. The winery was originally formed as the American Wine Company however in 1954 it merged with a company named The National Wine Company and The Pomerelle Wine Company. Chateau Ste. Michelle is approximately 90 acres consisting not only of vineyards of which there are 3,500 acres of them but also of large amounts of old trees since there use to be a lumber company there previously. The company now is producing over 2,000,000 cases a year. According to Wine & Spirits Magazine Chateau Ste. Michelle has been voted their "Winery of the Year" for the 19th time. Chateau Ste. Michelle is also the largest producer of Riesling in the world and happens to make one of my favorite Riesling. The Riesling they produce is not to sweet and not to dry and is packed with fruit flavor.
O.k everyone here goes this review but first hold on to your seats. You can call me crazy with what I am about to say but I am going to say it anyway. This wine took 2 hours to finally stabilize in it's taste. Yep, you heard it right, two hours. The wine, believe it or not kept fluctuating in taste. The Bouquet was of bright Peach with a hint of apricot and honeydew HOWEVER that would disappear while the glass was sitting for a few minutes. The taste of the wine itself also changed constantly. That sounds crazy doesn't it? I have never experienced that in a wine. I actually almost gave up attempting to review this wine. I would taste the wine and and write some notes down pertaining to its characteristic but when I went to taste the wine again I tasted something completely different. I finally in the end came up with the idea of actually decanting a white wine which is NOT a very common thing to do. Well as it turns out the wine did finally settle down and I did get to review it which is why I decided to possibly decant next time. Please continue reading and find out just how this wine turned out.
I actually had placed this wine in the fridge for about 20 minutes prior to drinking which those you who follow The desert Wine Guy know I don't normally do with my wines. The first pour of this 2010 Chateau Ste. Michelle Chardonnay revealed a light to medium golden color wine. Upon the first sampling of the bouquet there was a very pleasant peach intermixed slightly with apricot & almost a honeydew. The bouquet was not overly sweet smelling but yet did stand out and promise you a very rich Chardonnay. The first taste of this Chardonnay had the taste of Peach come straight forward followed by Apricot and ending with honeydew also. I actually thought the wine was very pleasant...at first. That was until I tasted it again and I didn't recognize it. The wine actually changed it's taste while in the glass because when I tasted it again the peach was gone. The bouquet actually picked up a slight burnt smell to it also. The flavor as I already have said, changed. The Honeydew had left and was replaced by grapefruit while still retaining the apricot. The wine also picked up a strong alcohol taste. The peach in the bouquet also disappeared. When I would swirl the glass the peach and honeydew came back in the bouquet and taste but as soon as the wine sat for a short period of time the Peach and honeydew were gone again. I now had been trying for over 1 hour to actually see some stability in this wine but still at the 1 hour mark I had the same issues, I could not determine exactly what the real taste of the wine was. I actually wrote in my notes at the time the following "I give up. The wine is too inconsistent to review the flavor. DONE!!!!" I didn't feel like opening up another bottle of wine due to it being late in the day and close to dinner time so I figured I would drink the rest and never buy it again. After about 2 hours though I started to notice that the flavor finally stabilized and became consistent. The bouquet was Peach & a hint of Apricot and honeydew which was consistent all throughout the tasting however this time those flavors remained. The wine itself became a Grapefruit forward wine ending in apricot AND that weird alcohol taste. The Peach taste was gone.
Here is My final take on this 2010 Chateau Ste. Michelle Chardonnay. I don't think the wine is worth the trouble. The wine is constantly in flux and changes in taste for around 2 hours going back and forth between all the above flavors and has a hard time settling down. True the wine costs $10 dollars but that in today's day and age is no excuse. I do not want to pay $10 for a Chardonnay, or any other white wine for that matter and have to wait 2 hours before I know what it tastes like. That is too much trouble. I will in the future review another Chardonnay and report on it. I know I have some readers that are interested in Chardonnay and I am sorry but I cannot recommend this wine to you.
After writing this article I decided to do some research. I read some reviews on this wine on line and discovered that people seem to love it. I am starting to believe that it might be possible that I got a bad bottle and after seeing those other reviews I have decided to revisit this wine again in the not to distant future. I will assume that the bottle was spoiled or contaminated somehow and therefore for the sake of fairness I will not be giving a recommendation on this wine today. I will re-review this wine soon and give my final verdict on it. Please check back.
As I close this review I wish to remind you guys of one thing. As I have previously stated in one of my first articles in this blog. People have different tastes so what I recommend you look for in my opinion is a reviewer who has similar tastes to you. If you read a review from a reviewer on a wine and he likes that particular wine and you also happen to like that wine then you can be reasonably assured that your tastes on that type of wine are similar and you can possibly choose to go by that reviewers judgement. Then again maybe he matches your tastes in red wines only. The reviewers opinion might be way different than you when it comes to white wines and you might want to think twice about following his opinion on white wines. Basically wine is all about personal opinion. A great wine to me might be a bad wine to you. If you don't like a deep oakey red than you will probably disagree with my reviews on a red wine. If you like a very dry Riesling the same goes there. I hope you are understanding what I mean. I say this because it is very possible that when I re-review the Chateau Ste. Michelle Chardonnay I will come up with the same findings. Then again maybe I will discover that the wine I originally tasted was indeed tainted, we will see.
The Desert Wine Guy
O.k everyone here goes this review but first hold on to your seats. You can call me crazy with what I am about to say but I am going to say it anyway. This wine took 2 hours to finally stabilize in it's taste. Yep, you heard it right, two hours. The wine, believe it or not kept fluctuating in taste. The Bouquet was of bright Peach with a hint of apricot and honeydew HOWEVER that would disappear while the glass was sitting for a few minutes. The taste of the wine itself also changed constantly. That sounds crazy doesn't it? I have never experienced that in a wine. I actually almost gave up attempting to review this wine. I would taste the wine and and write some notes down pertaining to its characteristic but when I went to taste the wine again I tasted something completely different. I finally in the end came up with the idea of actually decanting a white wine which is NOT a very common thing to do. Well as it turns out the wine did finally settle down and I did get to review it which is why I decided to possibly decant next time. Please continue reading and find out just how this wine turned out.
I actually had placed this wine in the fridge for about 20 minutes prior to drinking which those you who follow The desert Wine Guy know I don't normally do with my wines. The first pour of this 2010 Chateau Ste. Michelle Chardonnay revealed a light to medium golden color wine. Upon the first sampling of the bouquet there was a very pleasant peach intermixed slightly with apricot & almost a honeydew. The bouquet was not overly sweet smelling but yet did stand out and promise you a very rich Chardonnay. The first taste of this Chardonnay had the taste of Peach come straight forward followed by Apricot and ending with honeydew also. I actually thought the wine was very pleasant...at first. That was until I tasted it again and I didn't recognize it. The wine actually changed it's taste while in the glass because when I tasted it again the peach was gone. The bouquet actually picked up a slight burnt smell to it also. The flavor as I already have said, changed. The Honeydew had left and was replaced by grapefruit while still retaining the apricot. The wine also picked up a strong alcohol taste. The peach in the bouquet also disappeared. When I would swirl the glass the peach and honeydew came back in the bouquet and taste but as soon as the wine sat for a short period of time the Peach and honeydew were gone again. I now had been trying for over 1 hour to actually see some stability in this wine but still at the 1 hour mark I had the same issues, I could not determine exactly what the real taste of the wine was. I actually wrote in my notes at the time the following "I give up. The wine is too inconsistent to review the flavor. DONE!!!!" I didn't feel like opening up another bottle of wine due to it being late in the day and close to dinner time so I figured I would drink the rest and never buy it again. After about 2 hours though I started to notice that the flavor finally stabilized and became consistent. The bouquet was Peach & a hint of Apricot and honeydew which was consistent all throughout the tasting however this time those flavors remained. The wine itself became a Grapefruit forward wine ending in apricot AND that weird alcohol taste. The Peach taste was gone.
Here is My final take on this 2010 Chateau Ste. Michelle Chardonnay. I don't think the wine is worth the trouble. The wine is constantly in flux and changes in taste for around 2 hours going back and forth between all the above flavors and has a hard time settling down. True the wine costs $10 dollars but that in today's day and age is no excuse. I do not want to pay $10 for a Chardonnay, or any other white wine for that matter and have to wait 2 hours before I know what it tastes like. That is too much trouble. I will in the future review another Chardonnay and report on it. I know I have some readers that are interested in Chardonnay and I am sorry but I cannot recommend this wine to you.
After writing this article I decided to do some research. I read some reviews on this wine on line and discovered that people seem to love it. I am starting to believe that it might be possible that I got a bad bottle and after seeing those other reviews I have decided to revisit this wine again in the not to distant future. I will assume that the bottle was spoiled or contaminated somehow and therefore for the sake of fairness I will not be giving a recommendation on this wine today. I will re-review this wine soon and give my final verdict on it. Please check back.
As I close this review I wish to remind you guys of one thing. As I have previously stated in one of my first articles in this blog. People have different tastes so what I recommend you look for in my opinion is a reviewer who has similar tastes to you. If you read a review from a reviewer on a wine and he likes that particular wine and you also happen to like that wine then you can be reasonably assured that your tastes on that type of wine are similar and you can possibly choose to go by that reviewers judgement. Then again maybe he matches your tastes in red wines only. The reviewers opinion might be way different than you when it comes to white wines and you might want to think twice about following his opinion on white wines. Basically wine is all about personal opinion. A great wine to me might be a bad wine to you. If you don't like a deep oakey red than you will probably disagree with my reviews on a red wine. If you like a very dry Riesling the same goes there. I hope you are understanding what I mean. I say this because it is very possible that when I re-review the Chateau Ste. Michelle Chardonnay I will come up with the same findings. Then again maybe I will discover that the wine I originally tasted was indeed tainted, we will see.
The Desert Wine Guy
Saturday, January 4, 2014
The Desert Wine Guy - Organic Gardening, Why The Big Deal ?
Let us now start off with the definition of the word "organic". According to the Whole Foods grocery chain website the definition of organic means " that soil and plants cannot be treated with chemicals or persistent pesticides or herbicides. No synthetic fertilizers or sewage sludge can be used to promote growth. GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are not allowed. Animals are fed organic feeds, given access to the outdoors, and allowed to fulfill their natural behaviors. Synthetic growth hormones and antibiotics are forbidden". According to Websters Dictionary the definition of organic says in part ".... relating to, or derived from living organisms <organic evolution> (2) : of, relating to, yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides". According to the USDA Consumer Brochure entitled "Organic Food Standards and Labels: "Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation". Having the facts now I think we should be able to guess what organic farming is and isn't. Lets discuss some ways that food is grown using GMO's and poisons. Be prepared folks you will not like it. Let's first start off with the GMO's.
GMO's: What are GMO's? A GMO is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. GMO's incorporate many different items. These items can be plants, animals, vegetable, corn, Pharmaceuticals and various other items that have been genetically altered, changed (modified) from the original. Genetically modifying something sounds like a good idea if it improves something. Who wouldn't want crops that are resistant to bugs, or pesticides that kill bad bugs? Think of how much more food could be grown to feed the poor. How about Disease resistance or Cold or heat (Las Vegas) tolerance or drought tolerance/salinity tolerance?. How about better tasting food or bigger produce or animals? According to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/biocon). The good thing about designing a plant with an insecticide gene is it eliminates a lot of unwanted bugs. The downside is that only the strongest insects survive, resulting in a new class of super-bugs resistant to both the crops, implanted toxins and spray-on chemicals. Some examples of these plants include tomatoes and Cantaloupe's that have modified ripening characteristics, soybeans and sugar-beets that are resistant to herbicides, heat, cold, and corn and cotton plants with increased resistance to insect pests. Not all these products are available in supermarkets yet. This all sounds great except for the leaving only the strongest, super-bug resistant insects. There are issues however that the manufactures of genetically altered products are not telling us about. Before we get to thinking that GMO's are the answer for all of our ills beware. There are lots off issues that the manufactures of these GMO products are not telling us about. As this article goes to print there are two articles that have just been released concerning the dangers of GMO's. The first one is from NBC news - Business (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/original-cheerios-go-gmo-free-2D11844100) who posted an article entitled "Original Cheerios to go GMO Free". The reason, the article says is "But consumers have expressed concerns about the long-term impact they could have". The second article is from "Natural News" (http://www.naturalnews.com/043392_oral_vaccine_cholera_GMOs.html) which is entitled "Oral cholera vaccine loaded with GMOs to be tested on babies worldwide". The article goes on to say in part ".... California-based vaccine manufacturer PaxVax has reportedly submitted an application to begin international trials of a novel oral cholera vaccine that contains live, genetically modified (GM) bacteria. VacTruth.com reports that the new vaccine is set to be tested on more than 1,000 individuals, many of whom are young children, in a three-part clinical trial series to take place throughout Australia". Here is an interesting bit of information you can look for next time you are at the grocery store. According to Dr. Frank Lippman Here are the basics of what you should know about those stickers we all see on our produce. The PLU by the way is the little stickers on the produce:
1) "If there are only four numbers in the PLU, this means that the produce was grown conventionally or “traditionally” with the use of pesticides. The last four letters of the PLU code are simply what kind of vegetable or fruit. An example is that all bananas are labeled with the code of 4011".
2) "If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “8″, this tells you that the item is a genetically modified fruit or vegetable. Genetically modified fruits and vegetables trump being organic. So, it is impossible to eat organic produce that are grown from genetically modified seeds. A genetically engineered (GE or GMO) banana would be: 84011. If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “9″, this tells you that the produce was grown organically and is not genetically modified. An organic banana would be: 94011"
The following areas are just some of the ones in which GMO's cause problems. These are NOT the only issues known but due to lack of space I will just included the following.
1) Unintended Harm to Other Organisms: Last year a laboratory study was published in the magazine Nature (Nature, Vol 399, No 6733, p 214, May 1999) showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish.
The data was corroborated in a more recent study, as cited in a July 2011 article in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/science/12butterfly.html?_r=0) , and once again in a study by the University of Minnesota, as published online in the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity in March 2012. Another study back in 2007 showed that the corn’s insecticidal toxins leached into nearby streams, causing increased mortality and reduced growth of caddisflies, an aquatic insect related to the pests targeted by the toxin in GMO corn (yes, this problem has been going on that long!). Further, because caddisflies are a food resource for fish and amphibians, contamination spreads further when these insects are consumed by its natural predators. First reported on the Indiana University website (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16204.abstract), the study was subsequently published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. The most recent study found more than 1/3 of the 13 major pest species have become immune to GMO corn and cotton, and several others were in the process of developing resistance. In the scientist’s own words, “You’re always expecting the pest to adapt. It’s almost a given that preventing the evolution of resistance is not possible.”
2) Reduced Effectiveness of Pesticides: Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides. In 2011, scientists examined 13 major pests and found that five were immune to the poisons genetically bred into GM plants like Bt corn and Bt cotton. Similarly, farmers are battling ultra-hardy weeds which aren’t responding to glyphosate–the herbicide marketed as Roundup. As a result farmers are forced to use even more chemicals to combat these super-weeds. According to the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, GM crops cause herbicide use to increase 25 percent per year.
3) Allergies: Agricultural laborers in six villages who picked or loaded Bt cotton reported reactions of the skin, eyes and upper respiratory tract. Some laborers required hospitalization. Employees at a cotton gin factory take antihistamines everyday. One doctor treated about 250 cotton laborers.
4) Animals: Sheep died after grazing in Bt cotton fields. After the cotton harvest in parts of India, sheep herds grazed continuously on Bt cotton plants. Reports from four villages revealed that about 25% of the sheep died within a week. Post mortem studies suggest a toxic reaction. Farmers report pigs and cows became sterile from GM corn. More than 20 farmers in North America report that pigs fed GM corn varieties had low conception rates, false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. Both male and female pigs became sterile. Some farmers also report sterility among cows. Genetic manipulation is different and so far fraught with danger. It works by forcibly inserting a single gene from a species’ DNA into another unnaturally. A pig can mate with a pig and a tomato can mate with a tomato. But this is no way that a pig can mate with a tomato and vice versa. The process transfers genes across natural barriers that separated species over millions of years of evolution and managed to work. The biotech industry now wants us to believe it can do nature one better, and that genetic engineering is just an extension or superior alternative to natural breeding. It’s unproved, indefensible pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and that’s the problem. Rats fed genetically engineered Calgene Flavr-Savr tomatoes (developed to look fresh for weeks) for 28 days got bleeding stomachs (stomach lesions) and seven died and were replaced in the study. Rats fed Monsanto 863 Bt corn for 90 days developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies, infections, toxins, diseases like cancer, anemia and blood pressure problems. Their blood cells, livers and kidneys showed significant changes indicative of disease. Iowa farmers reported a conception rate drop of from 80% to 20% among sows (female pigs) fed GM corn. Most animals also had false pregnancies, some delivered bags of water and others stopped menstruating. Male pigs were also affected as well as cows and bulls. They became sterile and all were fed GM corn. One interesting point. When given a choice, animals avoid GMO foods. This was learned by observing a flock of geese that annually visit an Illinois pond and feed on soybeans from an adjacent farm. After half the acreage had GM crops, the geese ate only from the non-GMO side. Another observation showed 40 deer ate organic soybeans from one field but shunned the GMO kind across the road. The same thing happened with GM corn.
5) Humans : Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced. In a single year, 1999, soy allergies in the UK jumped from 10% to 15% of the sampled population. GM soy was imported into the country shortly before 1999. Antibody tests verify that some individuals react differently to GM and non-GM soy varieties. GM soy also has an increased concentration of a known allergen. A GM food supplement killed about 100 people and caused 5,000-10,000 to fall sick. One brand of the supplement L-tryptophan created a deadly US epidemic in the 1980s. The company genetically engineered bacteria to produce the supplement more economically. Their product contained many contaminants, five or six of which were suspected as the cause of the disease. In GMO foods Genes are sometimes turned off. Native Genes in a subject can be mutated and even deleted. GMOs also pose other health risks. When a transgene functions in a new cell, it may produce different proteins than the ones intended. They may be harmful, but there’s no way to know without scientific testing. Even if the protein is exactly the same, there are still problems. Consider corn varieties engineered to produce a pesticidal protein called Bt-toxin. Farmers use it in spray form, and companies falsely claim it’s harmless to humans. In fact users of Bt had powerful immune responses and abnormal and excessive cell growth, and a growing number of human and livestock illnesses are linked to Bt crops. Arpad Pusztai and other scientists were shocked at their results of animals fed GM foods. Other independent studies showed stunted growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomachs, abnormal and potentially precancerous cell growth in the intestines, impaired blood cell development, misshaped cell structures in the liver, pancreas and testicles, altered gene expression and cell metabolism, liver and kidney lesions, partially atrophied livers, inflamed kidneys, less developed organs, reduced digestive enzymes, higher blood sugar, inflamed lung tissue, increased death rates and higher offspring mortality as well. Nearly all 100 Filipinos living adjacent to a Bt corn field became ill. Their symptoms appeared when the crop was producing airborne pollen and was apparently inhaled. Doing it produced headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever, and allergies plus respiratory, intestinal and skin reactions. Blood tests conducted on 39 victims showed an antibody response to Bt-toxin suggesting it was the cause. Four other villages experienced the same problems that also resulted in several animal deaths. Promoters are used in GM crops as switches to turn on the foreign gene. When done, the process may accidental switch on other natural plant genes permanently. The result may be to overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen, anti-nutrient, enzymes that stimulate or inhibit hormone production, RNA that silences genes, or changes that affect fetal development. They may also produce regulators that block other genes and/or switch on a dormant virus that may cause great harm. In addition, evidence suggests the promoter may create genetic instability and mutations that can result in the breakup and recombination of the gene sequence. There are other things besides GMO's to worry about. We will continue by discussing pesticides (or poisons).
The next problem we will discuss is that of pesticides. I will give examples of some pesticides and just what they do. If you haven't started to wake you up to the dangers in our food already, sit back you are in for a wild ride.
1) Pesticides: A study funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and published in the September 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives shows eating organic foods provides children with “dramatic and immediate” protection from exposure to two organophosphate pesticides that have been linked to harmful neurological effects in humans. According to the website Pure Zing, The pesticides—malathion and chlorpyrifos—while restricted or banned for home use, are widely used on a variety of crops, and according to the annual survey by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program, residues of these organophosphate pesticides are still routinely detected in food items commonly consumed by young children. I bet you didn't know that the pesticides that are sprayed on our foods are not only poison to us and our family's but they are also poison to the bugs, both good and bad . How many have heard about large amounts of birds just dying or the loss of the Bumble Bee? On July 22, 2013 The New York Times published an article http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/science/loss-of-bees-can-affect-plants-ability-to-reproduce-study-finds.html?_r=0 entitled "Loss of Bees Can Affect Plants’ Ability to Reproduce, Study Finds". If plants don't reproduce the human population won't exist much longer. On January 2, 2014 the Huffington Post printed an article entitled "Birds Dying". On this page is 8 articles of mass bird deaths. What do birds eat folks? They eat bugs, plants, fruits, vegetable. The same that we eat. These items are sprayed with pesticides folks. There are many more articles of this sort if you are interested. Here are some pesticides that are used in our foods. The following are examples of Pesticide that were or still are used in our foods.
A) Chlorpyrifos: Chlorpyrifos was widely used in homes as a residential insecticide under the name Dorsban. In 2005 it's use was ended due to the fact that the E.P.A (Environmental Protection Agency) banned it for that use due to it's hazards for children. Even though it's use was banned in homes as an insecticide it is still used on your food, the same food you and your baby eats. Here is the E.P.A link concerning Chlorpyrifos. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2012/chlorpyrifos.html. Chlorpyrifos is produced by the Dow Chemical Company. Dow's vision statement http://www.dow.com/company/aboutdow/vision.htm states the following: "To passionately innovate what is essential to human progress by providing sustainable solutions to our customers" with the vision: "To be the most profitable and respected science-driven chemical company in the world", and the values: “Integrity, Respect for People, and Protecting our Planet”. I think they violated the "Integrity, Respect for People, and Protecting our Planet” section.
B) Azinphos-methy: Azinphos-methyl is a neurotoxin derived from nerve agents developed during World War II. In the US, it is registered for use on select nut trees, vegetable crops, and fruit trees. It is not registered for consumer or residential use. It has been linked to health problems of farmers who apply it, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered a denial of reregistration, citing, “concern to farm workers, pesticide applicators, and aquatic ecosystems". After settling a 2004 lawsuit brought by the United Farm Workers of America and other groups, the EPA announced it would begin phasing out the remaining uses of the pesticide in 2007 with all uses ending in 2012. In January 2007, the suit was reopened, with the plaintiffs seeking a quicker phaseout. The question here is how many of our children ate this "neurotoxin? Azinphos-methyl is a broad spectrum organophosphate insecticide manufactured by Bayer CropScience, Gowan Co., and Makhteshim Agan.[2] Like other pesticides in this class, it owes its insecticidal properties (and human toxicity) to the fact that it is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. Here (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/azm/settlement_fs.htm) is the E.P.A link to the settlement agreement betweenthe E.P.A and the United Farm Workers.Health and Environmental Effects which are know for Azinphos-methy are Endocrine disruption. This type of chemical effects the hormone system in Humans and is associated with learning disabilities, severe attention deficit disorder, cognitive and brain development problem, breast, thyroid, prostate and other cancers. Some other associations are Kidney/Liver Damage. This chemical is toxic to insects including the good insects such as bees. This chemical is sold by non other than Bayer http://www.wonderdrug.com/products/ar/ar_cc.htm. Yes the same Bayer that makes the children's aspirin. The Bayer main page says "The new Farming’s Future focuses on the empowerment of smallholder farmers and biological crop protection"
C) Monocrotophos: sold under the trade names Hazodrin, Azodrin, Dominator, Plandrin, Megatron, Macabre (personal favorite) and Phoskill among others – has left a trail of damage since it was first registered. It was introduced in the United States in 1965 by the chemical-pharmaceutical giant Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis). It soon was linked to massive bee die-offs and thousands of dead birds, leading the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to start limiting its use in 1984 and to ban it outright in 1991. The American Bird Conservancy, which lobbied for its withdrawal, calls it “one of the most avian-toxic substances ever developed.”. Haven't we been heard stories of the Bumble Bee disappearing as of late. How many of you were eating fruit before 1991? How many of you were feeding your babies fruit before 1991? In the January 2, 2014 edition of the Hindustanitimes http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/is-monocrotophos-a-banned-pesticide-responsible-for-mid-day-meal-deaths/article1-1099689.aspx newspaper the country of India still uses the chemnical Monocrotophos and the chemical company (Novartis) that produces the product convinced them to continue using it. Novartis by the way makes "Pharmaceuticals, Generics, Vaccines (more than 20 they say) and consumer health products (such as surgical devices)".
D) Dicamba: According to research compiled by scientists from Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and the University of California at Davis, dicamba is a pervasive plant killer that can cause birth defects and other serious problems in humans (http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu).
E) 2,4-D: This chemical according to Natural News "..... is composed of roughly 50 percent of the Agent Orange chemical weapon used to carpet-bomb Vietnamese villages during the Vietnam War. This deadly chemical is capable of destroying virtually anything it comes into contact with, except, of course, the genetically-modified (GM) crops designed to resist it". According to research compiled by scientists from Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and the University of California at Davis, dicamba is a pervasive plant killer that can cause birth defects and other serious problems in humans (http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu). Agent Orange was used in Vietnam to kill the jungle that the enemy was hiding in. Our troops developed Cancers of all sorts, destroyed their lungs and suffered all kinds of medical conditions due to Agent Orange.
2) Growth Hormones: Growth Hormones: Growth hormones can be natural or un-natural however the mere fact that they are placed into food means they don't belong there so they are NOT natural, they are artificial. While not technically a pesticide, growth hormones are still poisons (they are no good for us) that are placed into our foods. What are growth hormones and what is so bad about artificial growth hormones? Growth hormones (GH) are a protein-based peptide hormone. It stimulates growth, cell reproduction and regeneration in humans and other animals. Growth hormone is a 191-amino acid, single-chain polypeptide that is synthesized, stored, and secreted by the somatotroph cells within the lateral wings of the anterior pituitary gland. Growth hormone is used in medicine to treat children's growth disorders and adult growth hormone deficiency. In recent years, growth hormone replacement therapies have become popular in the battle against ageing and obesity. Today, there are six anabolic steroids given, in various combinations, to nearly all animals entering conventional beef feedlots in the U.S. and Canada. There are three natural hormones given to our animals they are estradiol, testosterone, and progesterone. There are three man made and they are estrogen compound zeranol, the androgen trenbolone acetate, and progestin melengestrol acetate. Questions and controversy over the impacts of these added hormones on human development and health have lingered for four decades. In 1988 the European Union banned the use of all hormone growth promoters. The ADIs on the books for years are based on traditional toxicity testing methods and do not reflect the capacity of these drugs, which are potent endocrine disruptor s, to alter fetal and childhood development. According to Swan et al. "the possible effects on human populations exposed to residues of anabolic sex hormones through meat consumption have never, to our knowledge, been studied. Theoretically, the fetus and the pre pubertal child are particularly sensitive to exposure to sex steroids." This gap in research is remarkable, given that every beef-eating American for over 50 years has been exposed to these hormones on a regular basis. To begin to explore possible impacts, Swan et al. (2007) carried out a study assessing the consequences of beef consumption by pregnant women on their adult male offspring. The families included in the study were recruited from the multicenter "Study for Future Families" (SFF). The study team assessed sperm quantity and quality among 773 men. Data on beef consumption during pregnancy was available from the mothers of 387 men. These mothers consumed, on average, 4.3 beef meals per week, and were divided into a high beef consumption group (more than seven meals per week) and a low-consumption group (less than 7 per week). The scientists compared sperm concentrations and quality among the men born to women in the high and low beef consumption groups. They found that sperm concentration (volume) was 24.3 percent higher in the sons of mothers in the "low" beef consumption group. Almost 18 percent of the sons born to women in the high beef consumption group had sperm concentrations below the World Health Organization threshold for sub-fertility  about three-times more than in the sons of women in the low consumption group. Growth hormones also known as somatotropin or somatropin (marketed as Posilac by Monsanto) don't just make the cows or animals bigger or produce more milk they also effect our human bodies, our cells. They are used in animals to make them grow faster so the can be slaughtered faster which means less money the farmer spends on food which means the meat costs him less to produce. The farmer however still sells the meat or produce for the same price. Artificial Growth hormones also make the chickens produce more eggs and faster which again means more for the farmer to sell. Posilac has been banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), from 2000 or earlier. In 1994 a European Union scientific commission European Union scientific commission stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used". If you want to read it here is the report from the Canadian Government. http://web.archive.org/web/20080110050349/http:/www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/1999/1999_03_e.html. There is also a report from the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health Here in part is what they said about artificial growth hormones. ".....These six hormones include three that are naturally occurring – Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone – and three that are synthetic – Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrol. When hormones are injected into cattle, some naturally occurring hormone levels increase 7 to 20 times. The committee found that “no acceptable daily intake could be established for any of these hormones.” Cows treated with rbGH (Recombinant bovine growth hormone) reportedly have higher incidence of infections in the udder. These infections are treated with antibiotics. Like in humans, high use of antibiotics can create a resistance to certain bacteria making treatment difficult. It is unknown if the antibiotics used to treat the mastitis create harm in humans. Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone that was developed by, among others, Monsanto Company, and is sold under the name Posilac. Monsanto Company spent around one billion dollars to develop BGH and bring it to market. The FDA approved BGH for use in dairy farming in November 1993, it actually began usage in February 1994. BGH is injected into cows to increase their milk production by approximately 20%. To illustrate how devastating BGH is, I will quote directly from an article written by Minnesota dairy farmer John Kurtz who carried out BGH field trails between 1985 and 1988 before FDA approval of BGH.(113)"When the injections began, it was obvious something happened. After about three days the injected cows were milking more. An hour before milking time, their milk would run, because they weren't able to hold the milk. They'd be stomping from side to side and bellowing, wanting to be milked. Something had been triggered.... "The first lactation milking period went extremely well. But one problem caught up with us in the second lactation: poor body condition. Basically, these cows were... taking fat and body reserves and turning them into milk." To get the cows back into good condition Kurtz worked closely with veterinarians and nutritionists sent by the FDA and Cyanamid. "But, by the end of the second lactation, one - fifth of the rBGH - treated cows had died, and another 15 percent had gotten "down cow syndrome" -- they fell, could not get up, and had to be killed. Autopsies conducted on these animals by the University of Minnesota showed that "these cows had so much taken out of their skeleton that even their shoulder blades had a ripple effect, like a ripple potato chip, where they had pulled calcium out of their system to produce milk." "These cows are in a negative energy balance. They can't eat enough to maintain their milk and maintain their bodies and be able to conceive." As if this devastation alone were not enough for BGH non-approval by the FDA, consider what the BGH (Posilac) package insert says about side - effects: Painful udder infections (mastitis); increased body temperature; an increase in digestive disorders such as indigestion, bloat, and diarrhea; increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions of the knee; disorders of the foot region; infertility; increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus; decreases in gestation length and birth weight of calves; increased twinning rates; higher incidence of retained placentas following calving; and possible unknown dangers to replacement bulls (adult male progeny of rBGH - treated cows used for breeding).
Now that we have covered the non-organic end let's go into the organic end. As many of you already know if you are following me on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/DesertWineGuy?ref=hl) I will soon be growing Cabernet Sauvignon grapes in about 1 month and I have already decided that I will NOT be using any poison pesticides or fertalizers on them. I will also be growing some form of a white grape and the same goes for them. I also will have a small garden and will follow thru with the same plan. One of the items in organic farming also has to do with the soil you use. If you buy soil that is not organic then you are still to a certain extent adding poisons into your food. This is an area that I have not done anything about myself. I am planting into soil that is the native soil which is fine but have added a form of top soil which I doubt is organic. I might be wasting my time with this whole organic thing since the soil is not organic however I do think I have at least cut my risk way down by purchasing organic grape vines and Heirloom, non G.M.O seeds for my plants. According to the Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations "Genetically modified organisms. The use of GMOs within organic systems is not permitted during any stage of organic food production, processing or handling. As the potential impact of GMOs to both the environment and health is not entirely understood, organic agriculture is taking the precautionary approach and choosing to encourage natural biodiversity. The organic label therefore provides an assurance that GMOs have not been used intentionally in the production and processing of the organic products. This is something which cannot be guaranteed in conventional products as labelling the presence of GMOs in food products has not yet come into force in most countries. However, with increasing GMO use in conventional agriculture and due to the method of transmission of GMOs in the environment (e.g. through pollen), organic agriculture will not be able to ensure that organic products are completely GMO free in the future. A detailed discussion on GMOs can be found in the FAO publication "Genetically Modified Organisms, Consumers, Food Safety and the Environment".
The following are reasons to go organic:
1) Me and my family eat the food I grow.
2) Sustainability over the long term: Many changes observed in the environment are long term, occurring slowly over time. Organic agriculture considers the medium- and long-term effect of agricultural interventions on the agro-ecosystem. It aims to produce food while establishing an ecological balance to prevent soil fertility or pest problems. Organic agriculture takes a proactive approach as opposed to treating problems after they emerge.
3) Soil: Soil building practices such as crop rotations, inter-cropping, symbiotic associations, cover crops, organic fertilizers and minimum tillage are central to organic practices. These encourage soil fauna and flora, improving soil formation and structure and creating more stable systems. In turn, nutrient and energy cycling is increased and the retentive abilities of the soil for nutrients and water are enhanced, compensating for the non-use of mineral fertilizers. Such management techniques also play an important role in soil erosion control. The length of time that the soil is exposed to erosive forces is decreased, soil biodiversity is increased, and nutrient losses are reduced, helping to maintain and enhance soil productivity. Crop export of nutrients is usually compensated by farm-derived renewable resources but it is sometimes necessary to supplement organic soils with potassium, phosphate, calcium, magnesium and trace elements from external sources.
Water. In many agriculture areas, pollution of groundwater courses with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is a major problem. As the use of these is prohibited in organic agriculture, they are replaced by organic fertilizers (e.g. compost, animal manure, green manure) and through the use of greater biodiversity (in terms of species cultivated and permanent vegetation), enhancing soil structure and water infiltration. Well managed organic systems with better nutrient retentive abilities, greatly reduce the risk of groundwater pollution. In some areas where pollution is a real problem, conversion to organic agriculture is highly encouraged as a restorative measure (e.g. by the Governments of France and Germany).
4) Biodiversity: Organic farmers are both custodians and users of biodiversity at all levels. At the gene level, traditional and adapted seeds and breeds are preferred for their greater resistance to diseases and their resilience to climatic stress. At the species level, diverse combinations of plants and animals optimize nutrient and energy cycling for agricultural production. At the ecosystem level, the maintenance of natural areas within and around organic fields and absence of chemical inputs create suitable habitats for wildlife. The frequent use of under-utilized species (often as rotation crops to build soil fertility) reduces erosion of agro-biodiversity, creating a healthier gene pool - the basis for future adaptation. The provision of structures providing food and shelter, and the lack of pesticide use, attract new or re-colonizing species to the organic area (both permanent and migratory), including wild flora and fauna (e.g. birds) and organisms beneficial to the organic system such as pollinators and pest predators. The number of studies on organic farming and biodiversity increased significantly within the last years. A recent study reporting on a meta-analysis of 766 scientific papers concluded that organic farming produces more biodiversity than other farming systems.
5) Reduce the toxic load: Buying organic food promotes a less toxic environment for all living things. With only 0.5 percent of crop and pasture land in organic, according to USDA that leaves 99.5 percent of farm acres in the U.S. at risk of exposure to noxious agricultural chemicals.
6) Taste Better and Truer Flavor: Scientists now know what we eaters have known all along: organic food often tastes better. It makes sense that strawberries taste yummier when raised in harmony with nature, but researchers at Washington State University just proved this as fact in lab taste trials where the organic berries were consistently judged as sweeter. Plus, new research verifies that some organic produce is often lower in nitrates and higher in antioxidants than conventional food.
O.K great now how do we get rid of pests on our grapevine (or other plants) Let me now give you some organic ways to eliminate pests.
1) Garlic and Onions: Grind up raw onions or garlic into a puree. Soak in warm water overnight and strain. Liquid can be sprayed on roses, fruit trees, and flowers. Kills aphids and apple borers. Scrape off any loose bark on the trunk and swab liquid on. Many gardeners mix onion water and wood ashes and paste mixture on tree
2) Tomato Leaves, Crushed: To avoid chemical sprays, try using crushed tomato leaves for leaf-spot diseases. Tomato leaves contain solanine, a chemical that has an inhibiting effect on black spot fungus. Grind two cups of leaves to a puree. Add five pints of water and one ounce of cornstarch. Keep refrigerated.
3) Garlic and Red-Pepper Spray: grind up a large bulb of garlic (or a large onion). Add one tablespoon of ground cayenne pepper and one quart of water. Steep for one hour. Strain liquid into a sprayer or watering can and refrigerate remainder in a tightly covered jar. It will be potent for several weeks, and is effective on all kinds of chewing and sucking insects.
4) Spearmint Spray: Put into a blender one cup of chopped spearmint leaves, one cup of green onion tops, and 1/2 cup of chopped hot-red pepper. Add 1/2 cup of water to assist in blending. Pour solution into a gallon of water. Add 1/2 cup of liquid detergent (preferably lemon-scented). Dilute by adding 1/2 cup of mixture to a quart of plain tap water. If the plant is small, dunk it in this solution, otherwise strain it and spray on. Effective on all chewing insects.
5) Lady Bugs: Ladybugs eat Aphids. Aphids are soft bodied insects that suck the juices out of plants. If you have roses in your garden, you have seen aphids. Aphids also come in a variety of colors and not all ladybugs like all the "flavors" of aphids. Ladybugs will also feed on scale insects and plant mites.
6) Praying Mantis: Praying mantis are highly predacious and feed on a variety of insects, including moths, crickets, grasshoppers and flies. They lie in wait with the front legs in an upraised position. They intently watch and stalk their prey.
7) Alfalfa meal: Derived from alfalfa plants and pressed into a pellet form, alfalfa meal is beneficial for adding nitrogen and potassium (about 2 percent each), as well as trace minerals and growth stimulants. Roses, in particular, seem to like this fertilizer and benefit from up to 5 cups of alfalfa meal per plant every ten weeks, worked into the soil. Add it to your compost pile to speed up the process.
8) Compost: Compost is mostly beneficial for adding organic matter to the soil. It doesn't add much in the way of fertilizer nutrients itself, but it does enhance and help make available any nutrients in the soil.
9) Animal-based fertilizers: Animal manures provide lots of organic matter to the soil, but most have low nutrient value. A few, such as chicken manure, do have high available nitrogen content, but should only be used composted because the fresh manure can burn the roots of tender seedlings. How about Bat/seabird guano or Fish by-products.
10) Orange Guard - http://www.orangeguard.com/. The following is from the company and no i am not getting anything from the company nor am I related to or no anyone who is related to anyone in the company. "Orange Guard was created as an alternative to harsh chemical insecticides that contain hazardous contaminants which may lead to potential long-term health and environmental dangers. Since Orange Guard is non-toxic, it is safe to use around food, adults/children and pets and kills insects on contact, repelling them for weeks. The effectiveness of Orange Guard lies in the ingredient d-Limonene orange peel extract that is a natural repellant. It is a water-based, indoor and outdoor insecticide that exterminates ants, roaches, fleas, aphids, spider mites, leaf hoppers, and other insect pests. Recognized as safe by the FDA and is EPA registered, it leaves a pleasant citrus smell in the home rather than that harsh chemical smell that conventional insecticides often carry".
11) Neem Oil: I had the opportunity to run into a man names Jack Sanders the other day in Pahrump Nevada since he happens to own Sanders Winery. Jack has worked in the wine industry for many years including with the Mondavi family vineyards and he let me in on a little secret. There is an oil that you can use to prevent these pests from even starting to destroy your vineyard. The oil is Neem Oil. Neem Oil has been around for many years and according to the National Pesticide Information Center (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/neemgen.html) is 100% safe and natural.
These above listed natural pest killers seem to me to be a lot better to me than pesticides. They have to be better than spraying poison directly onto my plants, (which means INTO my fruits and vegetable) skin or breathing poison into my lungs and my children's lungs since they like to be outside with me in the garden. Are they perfect? No they are not but it sure is healthier that going to the average grocery store and picking a semi green Tomato that was picked when it was even greener that was grown in Night Soil. Night Soil is soil that is fertilized by human excrement, and yes it is used in developing nations (can you say Mexico) and shipped into our country thanks to the trade agreements our country has signed. Check out this article http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/USDA-issues-import-alert-for-certain-Mexican-cukes-204752401.html. I will take some loss of crops in order to eliminate such a great amount of poison. I think my family and your family is worth it. I also happen to be lucky in that I only have 1 bug that....well, bugs me and that is the Skeletonizer. I have written an article on this in this blog. There are many other ways to control pests and diseases. Lady Bugs are a great way to help keep pests down and so are Praying Mantis's. Here (http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/organic-pesticides/) is a website that gives 10 organic pesticides if you are interested. I want myself as well as my children go out to be able to step into my backyard and pick a red Tomato or Basil or a Banana Pepper and eat it right there. I want to wake up in the morning and pull up an Onion to cut into the eggs I am making for my family. I would love to get out of my pool in a few months and grab a couple of grapes. To me that would be fun and a great way to start my day. I don't think that I am asking to much to be able to eat fruits and vegetables without poison.
O.k wine lovers here is the wrap up. The pesticides are without question BAD, POISON to everything. The artificial Hormones are BAD, POISON to everything. If you can, avoid them at all costs. Having said all this I do know that more often than not we cannot avoid them. We buy a bottle of wine and those grapes are grown with some forms of pesticides and we drink it and unless the soil, compost, insecticide, fertilizer and vines themselves are organic or GMO free we are really not reasonably confident that we are are eating a poison free or healthy product. I do not want to mislead the reader that if you eat non-GMO product or a product that does not have pesticides or Human Growth Hormone that you are guaranteed of a purer product. However I myself would rather have a so called natural product go into me and my family's stomach than one grown or soaked with poison of any kind. Here is the U.S.D.A National Organic Program (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.dotemplate=TemplateNnavID=NationalListLinkNOPNationalOrganicProgramHome&rightNav1=NationalListLinkNOPNationalOrganicProgramHometopNav=nullleftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPNationalList&resultTy. I hope you have enjoyed as well as learned about the agriculture industry. I hope you will use the information to better your life and push for safer eating.
In ending this article I wanted to let everyone know that before researching this issue I knew very little about GMO's, hormones or pesticides other then the fact that they were not healthy for us, the environment or the animals. I already knew that these items were unhealthy and that the government was doing nothing fast to help the situation. I am also in no way shape or form what you would consider an "environmental Waco". I am an average guy. I simply don't enjoy feeding myself nor my family poison nor do I see a point to it. Having said this I want my readers to be aware that a lot of this article is directly taken from other websites. At also at times copied and pasted some of the information in this article. In some cases I have made it plain that I have copied and pasted from my sources in other instances I have not. I am not attempting to portray this article as being written without the help of information already put in print on the internet. One of the the purposes of this article was to let you, the reader, the consumer, The Desert Wine Guy fans know that there are many dangers in out foods and that there are ways to cut down or avoid entirely the dangers in what we eat. The other purpose is to educate you. The purpose was not to fool people into believing The Desert Wine Guy is the end all be all of knowledge in the area of agriculture. I hope you have enjoyed this article as much as I have putting it together.
The bottom line in the organic / non-organic debate is to allow nature to do what nature does best.
The Desert Wine Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Desert Wine Guy - 2021 Fox Run, Dry Riesling
I don't know about you but for the most part, I am not into sweet white wines. There, I said it and I feel so much better. Now you ...
-
Meiomi, Pinot Noir (Non-Vintage) So I was doing a lot of work outside in the garden today and I asked Mrs. Desert Wine Girl if she ... -
Today I am going to be going down a different road here on The Desert Wine Guy wine blog. I will still be doing a review but this revi...