Pierre Overnoy: Interview with Francois Morel in "Le Vin Au Naturel"

9/7/10 -

The following is a roughly translated interview with Pierre Overnoy conducted by Francois Morel and appearing in his excellent book "Le Vin Au Naturel," reproduced here with the kind permission of the publisher. We encourage French readers to purchase this very infomative overview of natural wine-making, (easily done through amazon.fr) as well as the wonderful quarterly magazine "le Rouge et le Blanc" edited by M. Morel. Click "Read more" to continue...

FM: For you with forty years of experience, what is a "natural" wine?

PO: You know I'm not more clever than anyone else! To define natural wine isn't easy. For some, it's a wine with nothing added. But it's possible to have a little chaptalization, if there's a deficit in alcohol, a little bit can balance the wine. Jules Chauvet wasn't against a certain chaptalization. Of course that's an additive that's not artificial ("chimique") The ideal, it's that there be nothing un-natural added. For us, a natural wine, it's a wine that one wants to drink and drink again! But how to define the norms for entry into an association (The Association les Vins Naturels)? There are those who will add a little sulfur, while learning to eventually do without it, to have enough experience...and to have the material, because it demands a lot of equipment. To work without sulfur "it's not the little birds that sing and then one goes on vacation" (?) It's very technical with a lot of analysis, it's not a small business! If one wants to make "sans souffre" it's enough to not add any, but then you see the results... Without sulfur or with a little sulfur, it's two very different roads.

FM: And the Association les Vins Naturels?

PO: When we founded the AVN it wasn't easy to find a name... There are those who work organically in the vines and add a little sulfur as they learn to do without. We shouldn't exclude them as they're moving in the right direction. On the other hand, if there's someone who is certified organic who puts huge doses of sulfur in the wine, for us that's not admissible. What's their goal, is it to go in the right direction? So, precise norms, we were unable to put them in place, so we decided it would be done by judging their work - those in the region see how they work their vines, how they work in the cellar, then also they taste the wines. If it's full of sulfur, we'll know it! So, taste the wines, get a sense of the winemaker and have him enter the association little by little. We thought of stopping the AVN but it seems to me that it's useful, that people who try to work this way get together a few times a year, that's already positive. And we meet people with new products who tell us, instead of using copper we can use horsetail (equisetum), we can find different products to try to diminish the doses... Our goal, it's to diminish the doses and spread out the treatments, to put as little copper sulfate on the vines as possible, because the problem is that what falls on the soil blocks the microbial life - it's the only natural product that works well against mildew but we must diminish the doses. Also one tries to have vines with less rapid growth (moins "folle") because the leaves are vulnerable when they're soft - once "hardened" they are less susceptible to mildew. so one doesn't put chemical fertilizers in the vines, so that the leaves harden more rapidly; one leaves growth in competition with the vines which favors the hardening of the leaves. That permits us to spread out the treatments and diminish the doses. Thus these are things we share in common, "each brings the others to the mill."  For natural wines, in my opinion, the minimum is to be organic, to have organic certification. But there are those who are not certified, who don't want to enter that system, which costs alot... We already pay all the dues of those who are in conventional agriculture, and then we pay more to be certified, it winds up being expensive! So there are some winemakers who say: I'm organic but I'm not going to pay for certification - should they be excluded from the AVN? It's not easy to know where it starts and where it finishes.

PM: In the vinification, isn't there a basic minimum - no added yeasts, etc...?

PO: Yes, of course, but if one year you're really stuck, is it really necessary to let the vat become vinegar, rather than add a yeast? Must we be mad at those who do it to save a cuve that's lacking in wild yeasts? That's not simple either, the idea is to have the biggest yeast population possible, in good health, by organic work in the vineyard

For us, an important thing which can determine the date of the harvest, it's a strong PH (high acidity). Because our big problem, it's the following: the lactic bacteria break down malic acid and transform it to lactic acid, they stop a bit then they degrade citric acid, they stop again a few days, then if there is residual sugar, not fermented, they attack it. Then, to have high acidity and to not have a malolactic fermentation that finishes before the alcoholic fermentation. When this happens you must be able to cool the cuve so the bacterias don't develop. It's a big investment. We need high acidity because we don't kill the lactic bacteria. The fermentable sugars that remain, the bacterias are able to transform some into alcohol, but they can also transform them into vinegar. So we must suppress the bacterias by other means than sulfur, physically rather than chemically. So the first thing is to have high acidity, the bacterias will be suppressed by the acidity. To have high acidity you must not use herbicides, you must plow the vineyard. If you don't plow, the roots stay near the surface and absorb potassium, even if you haven't applied any, and the potassium combines with the natural tartaric acid of the grape and lowers the acidity. To work without sulfur you need high acidity and a large population of yeasts in good health. If you've herbicided the vineyard, you've killed a large portion of the yeasts, and it's the "schizo" which develop, the Schizosaccharomyces which give volatile acidity. Of course there are always some "schizos" but it must be the other yeasts that dominate. There can be "good" yeasts, "bad" yeasts or bacteria that are active - since we don't work with chemicals to control those elements, we work physically, but with a base of vines which bring good material. Also, if possible, one needs a high level of malic acid, but that one can't control. It's at the harvest that it's decided - if it's very hot the malic acid will diminish and one is obliged to harvest. Tartaric acid lowers by dilution, malic acid by combustion. If it rains alot one will have less tartaric and more malic and vice-versa. Then, you need the good "triangle" - high acidity, a large and healthy yeast population and a high level of malic acidity. But the most important for us, it's the yeast population - with this, even if the other elements are not favorable, we can succeed. There's a "race" which occurs between yeasts and bacterias - the bacterias must not start to attack the sugars before the yeasts have transformed them {into alcohol}. Temperature is a way to control this: in the beginning at around 8 degrees centigrade, only the yeasts begin to work, then the bacteria begin, and one must let them go, we have no other means (chemicals). Here, the cuverie is refrigerated, but when we need to let the temperature increase for the reds, it's the white that must be cooled - we have two refrigerated areas  and an apparatus which can heat or cool each cuve. It's not a small affair to work without sulfur and even with the means one must be careful (on ne fait pas les malins).

One can sometimes be de-classified from the AOC because of "typicity." Most wines are made with industrial yeasts and sulfur, so that's the norm and our wine is not like the others so it's not "typical"... If typicity, it's adding everything to be like the others, then... It's like in a grocery store, if there are nine mint syrups colored green and there's one that's white, it's a problem. It's not like the others, it's the one without artificial color, it's not typical. When wines are judged, as today, by young people who don't know the wines of the past, that can cause serious problems for the approval of the AOC.

For the conservation of wine, one thinks today that it requires a high level of acidity. It's true in today's context, with often too many grapes on the vine: the acidity lowers, and the other elements are not able to take over...  We've seen, however, Rhône Valley wines with an extremely weak acidity that keep a long time! But it's necessary to not have too many grapes on the vine, and there, one doesn't need acidity to keep the wine. For example, chez nous, 1964, a very hot year absolutely without acidity: all the winemakers thought that the wine would not keep. I kept a few bottles - recently with Marcel Lapierre and the little "gang" of the Beaujolais, we tasted it, and no-one dated it older than 2000!