And the Argument for a Wine Quality Focus: Part 2
“Folklore has it in America that quality and production are incompatible: that you can not have both. A plant manager will usually tell you that it is either or. In his experience, if he pushes quality, he falls behind in production. If he pushes production, his quality suffers. This will be his experience when he knows not what quality is nor how to achieve it.” – Dr. Tsuda, as written by W. Edwards Deming in “Out of the Crisis”
Deming was, among many of his talents, an economist who went on to revolutionize quality control in manufacturing. He was the primary contributor to advancing the Japanese automobile industry post-WW II, providing quicker advancement in automobile quality than that of primary U.S. manufacturer, Ford.
It’s probable that you may not even know some of the key concepts Deming created, like operational definitions, that influence wine production. But, they are there.
In his book, “Out of the Crisis,” he pointed out the psychological misconception held by the American manufacturer that investing in “quality” of a good will plateau out in [economical] wealth. In other words, quality comes at a cost, and eventually, the cost will be too high to focus on quality of the product getting manufactured.
His book highlights the quick advancement and preference of Japanese automobiles over the American Ford automobiles. At the risk of offending car lovers, I think we primarily agree this is still true today. Thus, Deming summarizes exactly why this misconception is exactly that: a misconception.
“A clear concise answer came forth in a meeting with 22 production workers, all union representatives, in response to my question: ‘Why is it that productivity increases as quality improves?’
“Less rework.
“There is no better answer. Another version often comes forth: Not so much waste. …
“Improvement of quality transfers waste of man-hours and of machine-time into the manufacture of good product and better service. The result is a chain reaction – lower costs, better competitive position, happier people on the job, jobs, and more jobs.” – W. Edwards Deming in “Out of the Crisis”
If all of this talk about quality control and automobiles doesn’t seem to correlate well with wine, let me illuminate how Deming’s quality control philosophies hold true in the wine industry today.
Deming’s Philosophies Applied to Wineries: Real Examples
As a consultant, I’ve had the pleasure of working with several wineries across the country. Many of these wineries are considered “small” (<30,000 cases of annual production). They may be short-staffed in the production space (i.e., the cellar). It is likely that there are a “pile” of wine tanks and/or barrels and/or stainless drums that are holding wines that have been in these vessels for a year, two years, three years or more… waiting for the “right” opportunity to bottle. Sometimes these clients will “drain” a tank periodically. This means they may only bottle small increments at a time instead of bottling the entire tank in one round. The thought of bottling is not only overwhelming, but also there is very little motivation to get things into bottle unless it is absolutely needed.
Often, our conversations will begin with them asking if they have to do something at that very moment. Is it necessary? Will it cost more money? Is that technique worth the cost?
Within one year, with some dedication from the client, we can turn around the entire processing space. Within two years, it operates in a completely new flow.
Why?
By providing operational order – with reason – and the key decisions that will influence quality, the client can stop spinning their wheels. The guess work is removed. The flaws diminish in redundancy. Wines start to taste good. Wines get in bottle. The work becomes cyclical.
What we have is improved efficiency.
While quality is at the heart of these decisions, it is efficiency of the production space that improves. It may seem like more work at first, but this dwindles with persistence in maintaining work flow. Over time, the mindset and motivation of the client improves. The wine quality improves. It gets recognized, sometimes for the first time ever. The business improves.
I see it over and over again.
Quality and Wine Science
Why talk about quality in relation to wine science?
In the last post, I discussed how heavily wine quality is skewed towards terroir. While grape variety and growing region provide a starting point for wine quality, winemaking decisions also contribute largely to wine quality.
The science of wine is often related back to quality-based decisions. We can evaluate data, track trends, determine if operations (e.g., contact seeding for cold stability, bentonite fining, filtration, etc.) are influencing the wine properly (or even needed), and predict the overall quality of the wine by using the basic chemistry parameters I discussed in the last post.
It is the science associated with winemaking that is often leading to our quality-based decision-making.
And yet, we live in an artisanal obsessed industry, often making mockery of the science, shaming the science, or simply ignoring the science. It’s often deemed as “unnecessary,” “Fraken-winemaking,” “industrial,” or “too hard/too much work/too much money.”
Let’s look at a few examples in which processes are framed in an artistic manner as opposed to using scientific narratives:
Many industry members talk about the barrels like they are magical holding structures for the wine, transforming the wine with their tannins and microscopic levels of oxygen ingress. Every wine barreled becomes better, right?
Red color enhancement techniques are discussed like do-or-die situations. Telling a winemaker the cold soak process is likely not doing much for their wine is met with strong cognitive dissonance.
Wet stones provide minerality.
Every winemaker stays up until 2 AM when the grapes arrive at the crush pad, maintained at the perfect temperature, not waiting a moment for those grapes to deteriorate in flavor.
If a renown winemaker does something to a wine (e.g., uses a certain yeast or enological product, utilizes a certain winemaking operation, avoids a particular wine analysis) you better believe someone will copy him.
If any of these statements sound dumb to you, these are all things I have heard at conferences or read in trade magazines, exacerbated here for emphasis.
Very few winemakers run a control wine in reaching their operational conclusions.
Many winemakers do not point to the scientific literature to prove their point(s). (I did not point to any citations in the above statements.)
I recently read an industry trade article about orange wine (not the wine made from oranges, but just white wine that turns an orange-hue due to conducting fermentation on the skins). The winemaker interviewed talked deeply about his obsession with orange wine while he was a sommelier. He often spoke about ignoring some of our very basic tools that we use to make wine today, often alluding to how these practices have “sterilized” wine tastes. Now he’s a winemaker with a financial stake in his wines. Since becoming a winemaker, he had to – surprise, surprise – make money by selling his wines. Because of this, he now integrates fundamental winemaking tools, key scientific principles, to his winemaking practices because it makes better wine.
Winemaking is Not All Science, but the Science is Significant
I’m not trying to argue that all of winemaking is science. Things like blending decisions, barrel or oak selection, aging parameters, product additions (in many cases), label and packaging selections have quite a stylistic and artistic center.
These topics, however, can be coupled with science. For example, packaging selections (the type of glass, color of glass, type of closure, etc.) will have a profound impact on wine sensory, longevity, and quality. If we take a wine bottled in both glass bottles and cans, which wine lasts longer with adequate quality?
As anyone who canned wine can tell you, the answer is likely glass bottles. Glass bottles provide an optimal package for wine over aluminum cans for a much longer time. Scientifically, flavor loss or alteration is often noted in cans at a much quicker rate and in a detrimental way compared to glass bottles.
Packaging, in fact, contains a lot of science behind it that is often overlooked by the bias of appearance, trend, marketability, or perception. Perception is funny. When I arrived to the Western wine industry in 2009, for example, no one wanted to put their wine in cans. Flash forward to today, and the canned wine market is quite an interesting one to follow.
The many issues with canning wine have also surfaced as wine-in-cans becomes more popular or acceptable in the consumer market. Everything from liner composition, wine composition, size of the can, can seals, canning operations, and can storage has quite a bit of scientific research behind it. On DG Winemaking, we provide a template of wine composition recommendations for wines getting packaged in cans for this very reason.
This is just one example where something like a marketing decision can have a profound impact on the need to understand wine science so that packaging decisions do not trump the quality of the wine.
Make it Practical: The Tiers of Winemaking Prowess
In the last post, I provided a few starting points for integrating science into your winemaking operation. To zoom out and provide a more holistic view, we can also assess where a winery operation is in terms of wine quality and scientific prowess in their winemaking operations. I find this self reflection is needed by many wineries and wine brands across the United States today. It is important for a winery to know that if they are operating at lower tier, then they cannot produce wine at the highest tier. But they can work their way towards that highest tier. Quality does not have to be stagnant.
I break down the association of quality and science into “Tiers of Winemaking Prowess” based on the experience, educational understanding, and integration of science into the winemaking process. This helps me understand what I should expect from their wines in terms of quality, marketability, and consistency. For those individual winemakers or winery owners reading this post now, these tiers should also provide some self-awareness and understanding regarding winery expectations.
The Four Tiers of Winemaking Prowess that I self-defined include:
Tier 4: Excels
Winemaking tools and operations are available at your disposal. Winemaker can easily pivot operations or additions when needed, often based on analytical data, sensory assessment, and experience. These wineries often have an extension in-house wine analytical lab. Winemaker and cellar employees can confidently make high quality wines consistently.
Tier 3: Experienced
Several winemaking tools and operations that may have been unattainable at the Introductory level (e.g., tank temperature control, monitoring DO, verifying bottling line sanitation, running QA/QC procedures during bottling, measuring and adjusting YAN, barrel programs, sensory assessments for blending, etc.) have been integrated into the production space. Winemaker and cellar employees regularly produce high quality wines, but may require outside expertise periodically to drive winemaking decisions or push wine quality in new directions.
Tier 2: Introductory
Winemaking tools and operations may be introductory in nature (e.g., lacking tank temperature control, overuse of plastic tanks, minimal wine analysis, manual work over machine labor for processing, limited production space, etc.) or offer limitations during start-up. Wine quality varies as the production space grows, wine brand develops, and grape quality varies. Winemaker requires regular assistance for making quality-driven processing decisions.
Tier 1: Amateur
All processing decisions are made by outside expertise for the winemaker, whether through written instruction, directions in kits, home-winemaking texts, amateur-based trade resources, or through use of educational expertise. Processing options are limited and usually designed for extremely small-sized production.
From within each tier a winemaker and winery operation can grow. There is always something to work towards, which should stimulate more growth and development both in the winemaker and winery. As new products emerge, especially with things like the RTD market (formulaic wines), a winery may be engaged with multiple tiers at once.
You, too, can work on building your own individual or business prowess. Winemaking is often described as a career that requires continued education. Not only do new winemaking techniques and technologies emerge, but the science continues to advance with changing recommendations, as well. Winemakers can embark in their own form of continued education through use of Extension programs (e.g., Texas A&M Webinar Series), certifications (e.g., Penn State Continuing Education Winemaking Certification, Cornell Winemaking Certification, UC Davis Winemaking Certification), industry-driven educational programs (e.g., DG Winemaking Elite Memberships), and by maintaining a regular practice of professional reading. These investments can be the difference between a lifetime of thinking winemaking decisions may be impacting quality and knowing that one’s winemaking decisions provide results.
At some point, most winemakers, winery brands, or wineries will need external assistance to enhance their skillset. This is where finding outside expertise such as individual consultants or consulting firms become useful. It is important to work with someone or a group of expertise that is quality driven in addition to production driven; a production driven consultant will only provide an end product, but may not move the winemaking prowess needle. These investments can be significant for any operation, but results are also significant.
One of my mentors used to say to me, “You should always find someone that tastes [wine] better than you and taste with them occasionally because that is how you, yourself will improve your own tasting skills.” I still practice this advice to this day.
The same is true for winemakers and wineries. You need outside expertise to help drive you in the nuanced, quality-driven decision making that ultimately makes a difference for you and your brand. Not every consultant is for everyone. Obviously picking a consultant requires some time and thought to ensure you can have a comfortable, result-driven relationship.
We are currently at a point in time where wine is certainly taking some strong hits from external forces: a global perception on alcohol, inflation, aging markets that consistently bought wine, new generations with new expectations from the alcohol market, new alcohol products, and lower national sales. At a point in time where quality could result in a sale over your competitors, now is the time where investing in growth and advancement could be advantageous to your brand in the long run. When the market begins to pick up in strength, having such an advantage in quality recognition could replenish sales at a quicker rate than your competition.
We’re living during a time when “production” is not the primary goal of many industry members right now. Thus, now is the time to ask yourself if you’re ready to jump into Deming’s philosophies: investing in quality, investing in efficiency, and investing in your product?
To quote physicist Lisa Randall, “You can’t have these executive committees or congressional committees that really understand things. I mean, some things are difficult to understand, and not everyone will understand them. And it’s really important for a scientist to be able to at least get the information out there and have that taken into account. There’s also an idea that, you know, when people talk about science, they’re being elitist. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about understanding the world. It’s something that we want to share. I mean, there’s a wonderful universe out there.”
I’ve recently been listening to the Freakonomics series on Richard Feynman, of the greatest scientists of modern-day era. In the last of this three-part series, The Vanishing Mr. Feynman, there was a large emphasis on the decline of trusting scientists or scientific information.
I have to admit that I gravitated to this podcast series as I, like many other scientists in many scientific fields, have recently found the dissemination of scientific information a rather challenging uphill battle.
In the lowest of times, I have considered completely giving up on communicating enology information, the scientific understanding of winemaking. But in the highest of times, I recognize that I have to continue to communicate this information for those that simply do not know the science that strive to learn the science or that strive to make better wines using well-documented winemaking principles.
Therefore, over the next few months, I’d like to address a series of – what I call – “winemaking myths and misconceptions” based on commonly communicated ideas/opinions by industry members that are often veiled as scientific fact or industry standard.
Instead, I’ll work on coming back to what we know scientifically about each of these topics.
Fair warning: the science is usually more complicated, less definitive, and sometimes not yet determined compared to the common discussions you may hear in the winemaking community.
With that in mind, I think it’s important to remember that very fact. The science is complicated. The science may not be definitive as scientists continue to research and test hypotheses (questions) related to winemaking, and as technologies improve giving scientists access to possibility of researching more hypotheses. And sometimes, the science is not yet conclusive. Sometimes scientists do not know the answers we may be looking for. And that’s okay. Even in the face of “not knowing all,” I have managed to advise many of my clients into making a fair share of good quality wines, or award-winning wines. Of course, there have also been growing and learning opportunities during those times in which we don’t know the answers.
Ultimately, it is the continuous stream of new information associated with enology that led me to enology in the first place. Winemaking, after all, is a continuous educational experience.
Would you like to learn with me?
Resources that Supported this Blog Post:
Deming, W.E. 1982. Out of the Crisis. ISBN: 978-0-262-54115-2.
The views and opinions expressed through dgwinemaking.com are intended for general informational purposes only. Denise Gardner Winemaking does not assume any responsibility or liability for those winery, cidery, or alcohol-producing operations that choose to use any of the information seen here or within dgwinemaking.com.
