Feedback
Feedback
Cross currents
I liked the Morgan & Moore column "When Technology Becomes Tradition" (September 2008), and I agreed with much of it. I, too, see some wineries jumping on bandwagons prematurely. We are the exclusive West Coast distributors of Koch Membrane Systems. The authors talk about new cross-flow technology being used in the winery, but suggested that winemakers ask, "Should we buy a new cross-flow system when our old plate-and-frame or pressure leaf filter is perfectly adequate?"
In many cases a winemaker can achieve the same taste and flavor from a plate filter or pressure leaf filter with "proper wine preparation and techniques." I've seen it, and we sell an exceptional product in this area, but the "yield" in this case can only refer to the quality of the wine.
The difference is in the total wine yield from cross-flow technology. The amount of wine trapped in the D.E. or filter pad and the number of passes required for final sterile filtration is considerably higher than with the hold-up volume in a typical cross-flow filter operating on a single pass.
This is a huge revenue increase to the winery--between 1 and 4% of total winery revenue annually--and is a technological tool with advantages that can be measured.
Greg Heyes
Heyes Filters Inc.
Torrance, Calif.
Down the brain drain
I read with dismay your recent Headline ("U.S. Researcher Moves Down Under", Sept. 3) regarding Dr. James Kennedy's impending departure from Oregon State University to the Australian Wine Research Institute. The damage this represents to the domestic industry cannot be understated. Dr. Kennedy has been a leader in wine chemistry research. The loss is incalculable.
Dr. Kennedy was diplomatic in his comments, but while his funding situation was adequate it was by no means generous. The American Vineyard Foundation has been a welcome source of funds for wine academics, but its reliance on voluntary contributions has not allowed it to keep pace with the inflationary demands of modern research.
The realities of the situation were described by Dr. David Mills in an earlier article, "A Graduate Student's Cost" (Wines & Vines, December 2007.) Mills concluded that "faculty obviously cannot do research in a field where little funding exists." The repercussions of inadequate funding are now being realized.
Worse, I fear that we might see a continued "brain drain" to international institutes that offer better resources or to disciplines more aggressively supported by commodity groups. The expectation that researchers will continue to sacrifice for the general good of an indifferent industry is unrealistic.
If Dr. Kennedy's departure serves as a wake-up call to an overly complacent industry, then some good might yet result.
John Thorngate
Constellation Wines U.S.
St. Helena, Calif.
I liked the Morgan & Moore column "When Technology Becomes Tradition" (September 2008), and I agreed with much of it. I, too, see some wineries jumping on bandwagons prematurely. We are the exclusive West Coast distributors of Koch Membrane Systems. The authors talk about new cross-flow technology being used in the winery, but suggested that winemakers ask, "Should we buy a new cross-flow system when our old plate-and-frame or pressure leaf filter is perfectly adequate?"
In many cases a winemaker can achieve the same taste and flavor from a plate filter or pressure leaf filter with "proper wine preparation and techniques." I've seen it, and we sell an exceptional product in this area, but the "yield" in this case can only refer to the quality of the wine.
The difference is in the total wine yield from cross-flow technology. The amount of wine trapped in the D.E. or filter pad and the number of passes required for final sterile filtration is considerably higher than with the hold-up volume in a typical cross-flow filter operating on a single pass.
This is a huge revenue increase to the winery--between 1 and 4% of total winery revenue annually--and is a technological tool with advantages that can be measured.
Greg Heyes
Heyes Filters Inc.
Torrance, Calif.
Down the brain drain
I read with dismay your recent Headline ("U.S. Researcher Moves Down Under", Sept. 3) regarding Dr. James Kennedy's impending departure from Oregon State University to the Australian Wine Research Institute. The damage this represents to the domestic industry cannot be understated. Dr. Kennedy has been a leader in wine chemistry research. The loss is incalculable.
Dr. Kennedy was diplomatic in his comments, but while his funding situation was adequate it was by no means generous. The American Vineyard Foundation has been a welcome source of funds for wine academics, but its reliance on voluntary contributions has not allowed it to keep pace with the inflationary demands of modern research.
The realities of the situation were described by Dr. David Mills in an earlier article, "A Graduate Student's Cost" (Wines & Vines, December 2007.) Mills concluded that "faculty obviously cannot do research in a field where little funding exists." The repercussions of inadequate funding are now being realized.
Worse, I fear that we might see a continued "brain drain" to international institutes that offer better resources or to disciplines more aggressively supported by commodity groups. The expectation that researchers will continue to sacrifice for the general good of an indifferent industry is unrealistic.
If Dr. Kennedy's departure serves as a wake-up call to an overly complacent industry, then some good might yet result.
John Thorngate
Constellation Wines U.S.
St. Helena, Calif.
| Write Us: Please send us your opinions on wine industry issues, or your reactions to any of our articles. E-mail to edit@winesandvines.com or fax to (415) 453-2517. Items may be edited for clarity and brevity. |
SHARE »
