Scientists in Australia have sequenced the Brettanomyces genome – a breakthrough that will ‘future-proof’ the industry against spoilage by the yeast organism known as brett.
Brett is widely know to spoil wine with medicinal or metallic flavors, often described as “funk”.
‘Sequencing the brett genome, which reveals its genetic blueprint, means the Australian wine industry can future-proof its strategy against brett and the risk of spoilage,’ Australian Wine Research Institute managing director Professor Sakkie Pretorius said.
Describing brett as ‘the enemy’, Dr Chris Curtin, the lead AWRI researcher on the Brett genomics project, said they could now investigate the potential for brett to develop a ‘super strain’ that would be resistant to sulphites, the common method for dealing with the organism.
Click here for the full article.
Quite a boring story to lead off with, but it certainly has major implications for the wine industry. My question is what do they plan to do with this “solution”? Notice how Prof. Sakkie stated; “…the Australian wine industry can future-proof its strategy…”.
I wonder how much “the recipe against Brett” is worth to other Countries?

Oh dear. There’s a war a-brewing!
For those of you who don’t know who Steve Heimoff is, let me fill you in. He’s a highly regarded wine writer, previously served as West Coast editor of Wine Enthusiast, contributor to Wine Spectator, vocal democrat, and has also authored a couple of wine books. He also seems to be whole-heartedly of the opinion that social media has little relevance to the wine industry.
Paul Mabray, is the Chief Strategy Officer for Vintank, a “Digital Think Tank for the Wine Industry, and probably the foremost authority on social media in the industry.
Clearly there may be a little friction between the two.
Paul writes:
“There is no question that Steve Heimoff is a professional, extremely successful wine writer and critic. While I respect his decades of industry experience, his continual statements on his blog about the value of social media are not only ignorant but seemingly motivated by his desire to generate more web traffic to his blog. His obsession with the medium is not surprising, considering that online continues to erode traditional print publication and is evolving more quickly than ever in history. In fact, it constitutes a tremendous percentage of his blog posts (#2 only to wine). But what is grossly obvious is either his complete inability to grasp the transformational change of social media or his desire to evoke the ire of the Blogosphere/Twitterati/Facebook natives.”
Click here for the full article.
I, of course, side with Paul Mabray on this one. Steve Heimoff is so off the mark it’s unreal.
It should never be suggested that social media can replace all other forms of media. But to ignore it altogether is dangerous. Once you’ve seen the positive impact of social media on any business, it’s impossible to refute its relevance.
The Web 2.0 phase that we’re experiencing is still a fairly recent phenomena, and still hasn’t anywhere close to realized its full potential. I’d like to check back with Steve in another few years, and see if he still shares the same point of view. I highly doubt it.
Posted in News | Tagged Brett, Brettanomyces, Paul Mabray, Social Media, Social Media for Wineries, Steve Heimoff | Leave a comment //

100% Pedro Ximenez, (but just call it “PX” if you want to sound cool and trendy…and I know you do).
Some of the more frequent visitors to this website may have noticed that my posts have been a little few and far between over this last week. I have good reason, if you care to know what I’ve been working on:
– I’ve enlisted a little help in giving the website an overhaul. Nothing crazy, it’s all "back-end” stuff, and there’s probably going to be no major changes that you’ll even notice.
The reason being, and I don’t mind saying it here, is that the guy who I had design the website back in mid-2010 had really screwed up a lot of the code. It also turns out I could have achieved the same results, for about half the price, with another developer. I’m not going to lie, that last sentence stings a little. Lesson learnt, that’s for sure! If you’re in the similar position of hiring a website design firm, make sure you ask for references, and get at least 3 bids. Seriously!
The changes should be rolling out within the next few weeks. As I say; it’s probably nothing you’ll notice, apart from the load time being drastically improved, and the site will be compatible across every web browser (even suck-ass Internet Explorer).
So, in these next couple of weeks, if the website looks kind of “funky” (not in a good way), just bear with me! All will be fine soon!
– Delving into my sites’ analytics, I noticed an increased amount of traffic coming from mobile devices. Currently I’m at about 300 hits a days from mobile traffic alone, and I figure that’s a number I can’t afford to ignore.
I’ve therefore deemed it necessary to optimize this website to be compatible with all forms of mobile traffic, including the iPad. Again, no real huge changes, apart from the load time, and it should also be much easier to navigate. Changes will be finalized hopefully within the next week.
Although “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” is considered to be the shortest sentence that includes all the letters of the alphabet, alcohol lovers came up with one of their own “Pack my box with five dozen liquor jugs.”

I was recently faced with a minor problem.
A guest had ordered a bottle of ‘07 Napa Cabernet ($70) from my wine list (that’s right, in case you didn’t know, I run a restaurant/wine bar). The problem arose when the guest realized the bottle (after it had been poured) was in fact not from the ‘07 vintage as the wine list had stated, but actually ‘08.
Did the Server explain the vintage discrepancy before the bottle was opened, as per her training, to make sure the guest was cool with it? I’m not sure, but to be quite honest, it doesn’t really matter. Even if she had, and the guest confirmed it and then realized their mistake, I’m sure there would have still been a problem.
The guest complaint went something like this: “’07 in California was a MUCH better year than ‘08. There was a bunch of rain in ‘08, and it diluted the grapes. It isn’t fair to charge the same price for a ‘07 as an ‘08. It’s misrepresented on the wine list.”
Long story short, the problem was resolved, and the guest was happy. The guest, after all, is always right (at least in a restaurant, and nowhere else for some reason). However, I’d like to dissect this situation in the next couple of paragraphs
Truth be told, 2007 WAS actually a “better year” in Napa than 2008, although not for the reasons given. Rain in 2008 was actually lighter than most other years, and frosts destroyed quite a few vines. Through all of this, the grapes managed to pull through, and still produce one the best Napa vintages on record.
Now; I’ve personally never paid much attention to Californian wine vintages, and certainly will never waste my time debating good vs bad years. The temperatures in California stay fairly uniform, in comparison with Old World countries, where you’ll see big year-on-year fluctuations.
With all of that being said, I’d still been caught “with my pants down” with regard to the vintage discrepancy.
You could write a book on this one question alone! The one un-debatable detail is that a “good year” can certain help toward making a good wine, but it isn’t an all encompassing factor.
Why should you take my word for it? I’m not a winemaker.
Well, how about this……
I was talking with a very influential and renowned Napa winemaker (who shall remain nameless*) a few weeks ago, and the conversation wondered onto the 1997 vintage (one of the most heralded vintages of all time). I asked him what made ‘97 so special?
He started smiling, and stated “You know….everyone was, and still is, all excited about 1997 vintage, proclaiming it the ‘best vintage Napa has ever made’. Personally, what I saw was one of the first vintages where the alcohol levels in the large majority of wines had really started to make a sizeable jump. THAT, in my opinion, is what got the vintage such rave reviews with the critics!”
What he was saying was that ‘97 had been declared unanimously by “the critics” to be possibly the best vintage Napa had ever had. Then again, it’s a well known FACT that (at least back in 1997, and arguably still to this day), that the major wine writers and publications were susceptible to being swooned by higher than normal alcohol levels. This winemaker was therefore stating that the only reason ‘97 was given two thumbs up, was that it was one of the first years where this had happened on such a large scale. Until he’d pointed that out, I’d never made the connection; but I think he had a very good point! Maybe there’s a few small holes in the system…
That’s a very good question! Was I too lazy to have correct vintages on my wine list? Truth-be-told, I actually do weekly/bi-weekly menu reprints, adjusting pricing, correcting vintages, and modifying the selection overall. I’m fairly meticulous when it comes to have a correct wine list, and cringe whenever someone points out even the smallest typo.
The whole process of a restaurant staying up-to-date with their list is a nightmare! Just because a winery is selling their ‘08 vintage, doesn’t mean that you’re not going to encounter some cross-over with the distributor, without any warning. They could also randomly find a case from ‘07 hiding away in their warehouse, halfway through the release of ‘08, and you sign for it without knowing.
If we were talking 2000 Mouton Rothschild, then a little more rigorous vintage-checking usually takes place. In this case, one bottle must have slipped through. Sue me. I guarantee that if you go through 99% of the worlds’ wine lists, you’ll find vintage inaccuracies.