On 27/7/07 12:05, in article , "Uncle
Marvo" wrote:

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :
snip
The freezer was invented so that we could eat broad beans with our
gammon in winter, IMHO :-)

Yes, but they're British broad beans. ;-)

I know. And British Aunt Bessie's chips :-)

No way. Chips don't come into this house! If they're eaten, it's at a
restaurant. The oven baked ones are pale imitations to me, so if I'm going
to indulge in chips I'd rather have the full, fatty, greasy, disgustingly
delicious experience.

I don't actually own one, apart from the little bit in the top of the
fridge. It will hold ice cubes plus a bag of either broad beans or
Aunt Bessie's Oven Chips.


Freezers bring out my siege mentality. We have two and both are
always bursting at the seams!

As they should be. Most efficient way to run them, full up. If they're not,
you should stuff them with newspapers rather than try to freeze a pile of
air. Apparently.


"I'm just going to freeze the newspapers, darling". I can see the family's
face now.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 27 Jul, 07:58, Emery Davis wrote:
This refers to the addition of sulfites as stabilizers to the wine, not
the use of Bdx mix in the vineyard.
It is common practice to use Bdx mix in organic grape growing. I do not
know the status in biodynamic vineyards, where it may indeed be
proscribed. (There are now more than a few biodynamic wines, using the
farming methods promulgated by Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner.)

I had always thought that 'sans souffre' was equivalent to 'vin
naturel', like no added sugar, no bx mix etc. throughout the whole
process from growing to bottleing. It is interesting to see that you
mention Rudolf Steiner, as if we could almost write Rudold Steiner
BC ;o) These practices have been used for centuries. It is a very
demanding process, labour intencive and results in lower yields, but
it is for the locals consumption. It is, in Cahors for example, the
local wine as it has always been done - nothing has changed there and
they are not in any hurry to ask for any 'labels'. They couldn't care
less to get this so their wine can be sold in the UK.

Bordeaux however has so many different grapes now, it is quite
difficult to 'label', literally!

Natural wines, 'vins naturels', or 'organic wines', have always been
available in France. No 'souffre', no 'yeast', 'no more sugar'. These
are the wines that we call 'organic'. Isn't it?

In fact there is in practice no such thing as "vin bio" because there is no
existing certification as to the use of indigenous yeasts, etc. What is
generally recognized is "vin issu de la culture biologique." This is a
meaningful label as farming practices can be certified organic. However
even this can be misleading. When the wine is chaptalized, as is more
common than admitted in the Bordelais, what is the source of the sugar?

)) Indeed! But the sugar in the grapes are sufficient for 'vin
naturel'. And why is this 'labelling' so important? There are hundreds
upon hundreds of wine growers not 'chaptalizing', nor using souffre
etc. and who couldn't care less about the commercial attitude of
others. This mass 'commercial' attitude to labelling is so confusing.
In Napoli I bought some Grappa. There's no mention of labels, organic
etc. I find the UK getting a little bit 'label' mad to the point of
complete confusion.

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On 27/7/07 12:05, in article ,
"Uncle Marvo" wrote:

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this
in , I, Marvo, say :
snip
The freezer was invented so that we could eat broad beans with our
gammon in winter, IMHO :-)

Yes, but they're British broad beans. ;-)

I know. And British Aunt Bessie's chips :-)

No way. Chips don't come into this house! If they're eaten, it's at
a restaurant. The oven baked ones are pale imitations to me, so if
I'm going to indulge in chips I'd rather have the full, fatty,
greasy, disgustingly delicious experience.

You can't have tried them. They're real. Honest.

"Uncle Marvo" wrote in message
...
In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On 27/7/07 12:05, in article ,
"Uncle Marvo" wrote:

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this
in , I, Marvo, say :
snip
The freezer was invented so that we could eat broad beans with our
gammon in winter, IMHO :-)

Yes, but they're British broad beans. ;-)

I know. And British Aunt Bessie's chips :-)

No way. Chips don't come into this house! If they're eaten, it's at
a restaurant. The oven baked ones are pale imitations to me, so if
I'm going to indulge in chips I'd rather have the full, fatty,
greasy, disgustingly delicious experience.

You can't have tried them. They're real. Honest.


WONDERFUL things :-)

Better than home made :-))

Mike


--
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
Reunion Bournemouth August/September 2007
www.rneba.org.uk
"Navy Days" Portsmouth 25th - 27th July 2008. RN Shipmates will have a Stand

On 27 Jul, 12:33, Sacha wrote:
I do not dispute that sprays - some sprays - are bad for us.
(snip fab stuff)
It just isn't as simple as "don't use
sprays".

Yes I agree entirely, albeit the 'it isn't as simple'. It is so easy
to just say 'little me wouldn't make a difference'. Off course we can
all make a difference.

Your original reaction did smack of the evangelical, if you prefer that to
'fanatical'! I think the problem is that people are less easily or readily
convinced by emotional reactions and arguments, however they are expressed,
than by a calmer approach.

You always refer to this 'emotional' and 'calmer' approach. It's what
you read in what I write and no others have. Have you noticed that it
is after one of your post to me that others follows. I cannot remember
one post that someone has posted refering to this 'emotional' state I
might, or in any case might not, be. But that is not the point ...

Not everyone has the time or patience or
physical ability to dig. I don't But I'm lucky that I live with people who
can do the digging. But for those who can't, sprays are undoubtedly useful
and while the science is available, not everyone is going to read it or be
swayed by it. They're going to do what is most useful for them. And "even
Judith" is entirely unnecessary, BTW. Judith has children and
grandchildren, works within the medical profession and has a husband who is
a respected scientist. I think she knows more about environmental concerns
and has as much invested in them, as anyone here.

Off course. I don't deny it. Thought when Judith husband is not
around, she cannot come up with any info. She is the one using
sandwich bags and chemicals, not her husband. And as for digging,
there's no need to dig. You know that too. I think once again you are
not trying to go back to your initial 'emotional' outburst but try to
make me sound as if I am the guilty one, again. Someone using
chemicals and saying at the same time that they like nature is
ridiculous beyond ridiculous. And if you don't like my 'emotional'
state, just ignore me. It would be easier for everyone to conduct a
discussion without you having to constantly undermining what I say,
what I might not say, what I feel, etc.

We can all see the bigger picture but your reaction to one person talking
about glyphosate for his garden was extreme

I responded to Martin who wasn't the poster about the query. I did so
precisely because I didn't want to scare the poster. The fact remain
that what I said still stands.

and didn't do your pov any
favours in the way you expressed it. And I have no idea what you mean about
me making a point and not coming back to it. I have now done so twice.

I think we must leave it here. You and I won't see eye to eye, even
though sometimes I agree wholeheartedly with what you write, more than
you would imagine, there's still something not right. Sadly.

In reply to La Puce ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

It is so easy
to just say 'little me wouldn't make a difference'. Of course we can
all make a difference.

Hear hear!

On 27/7/07 13:16, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 27 Jul, 12:33, Sacha wrote:
I do not dispute that sprays - some sprays - are bad for us.
(snip fab stuff)
It just isn't as simple as "don't use
sprays".

Yes I agree entirely, albeit the 'it isn't as simple'. It is so easy
to just say 'little me wouldn't make a difference'. Off course we can
all make a difference.

Your original reaction did smack of the evangelical, if you prefer that to
'fanatical'! I think the problem is that people are less easily or readily
convinced by emotional reactions and arguments, however they are expressed,
than by a calmer approach.

You always refer to this 'emotional' and 'calmer' approach. It's what
you read in what I write and no others have. Have you noticed that it
is after one of your post to me that others follows. I cannot remember
one post that someone has posted refering to this 'emotional' state I
might, or in any case might not, be. But that is not the point ...

I can't see any point in going on with this. I think Martin's post has made
clear both the personal and scientific response to over-emotive posts like
yours to one poor person trying to clear up a problem in his own garden.

Not everyone has the time or patience or
physical ability to dig. I don't But I'm lucky that I live with people who
can do the digging. But for those who can't, sprays are undoubtedly useful
and while the science is available, not everyone is going to read it or be
swayed by it. They're going to do what is most useful for them. And "even
Judith" is entirely unnecessary, BTW. Judith has children and
grandchildren, works within the medical profession and has a husband who is
a respected scientist. I think she knows more about environmental concerns
and has as much invested in them, as anyone here.

Off course. I don't deny it. Thought when Judith husband is not
around, she cannot come up with any info. She is the one using
sandwich bags and chemicals, not her husband. And as for digging,
there's no need to dig. You know that too. I think once again you are
not trying to go back to your initial 'emotional' outburst but try to
make me sound as if I am the guilty one, again. Someone using
chemicals and saying at the same time that they like nature is
ridiculous beyond ridiculous. And if you don't like my 'emotional'
state, just ignore me. It would be easier for everyone to conduct a
discussion without you having to constantly undermining what I say,
what I might not say, what I feel, etc.

This is impossible. You are responding with unnecessary aggression to a
perfectly calm response from me. It was your decision to drag in Judith,
not mine. I told you that was unfair and so your response is to have
another dig at Judith and then tack on another one at me for good measure.

We can all see the bigger picture but your reaction to one person talking
about glyphosate for his garden was extreme

I responded to Martin who wasn't the poster about the query. I did so
precisely because I didn't want to scare the poster. The fact remain
that what I said still stands.

It may still stand but it doesn't have a leg to stand on with such an
advocate!

and didn't do your pov any
favours in the way you expressed it. And I have no idea what you mean about
me making a point and not coming back to it. I have now done so twice.

I think we must leave it here. You and I won't see eye to eye, even
though sometimes I agree wholeheartedly with what you write, more than
you would imagine, there's still something not right. Sadly.


As far as I can see what is not right is that you simply cannot bear to be
contradicted or corrected, by me or anyone else. So indeed, there is no
point in discussing with you because for you, there is no discussion
necessary as, in your opinion, you are always right and everyone else is the
one out of step. Your stock response to those who don't agree with your
every word is "so ignore me". Has it occurred to you that this might be why
most people ignore you?!

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 27/7/07 13:19, in article , "Uncle
Marvo" wrote:

In reply to La Puce ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

It is so easy
to just say 'little me wouldn't make a difference'. Of course we can
all make a difference.

Hear hear!


Nobody disputes that a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single
footstep and so forth.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 27/7/07 13:06, in article , "Uncle
Marvo" wrote:

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On 27/7/07 12:05, in article ,
"Uncle Marvo" wrote:

In reply to Sacha ) who wrote this
in , I, Marvo, say :
snip
The freezer was invented so that we could eat broad beans with our
gammon in winter, IMHO :-)

Yes, but they're British broad beans. ;-)

I know. And British Aunt Bessie's chips :-)

No way. Chips don't come into this house! If they're eaten, it's at
a restaurant. The oven baked ones are pale imitations to me, so if
I'm going to indulge in chips I'd rather have the full, fatty,
greasy, disgustingly delicious experience.

You can't have tried them. They're real. Honest.


No, we haven't tried Aunt Bessie's, I admit. Perhaps I'll get some for The
Grand Daughter and blame it all on her. ;-)


--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 27 Jul, 13:58, Sacha wrote:
I can't see any point in going on with this.

Me neither.

This is impossible. You are responding with unnecessary aggression to a
perfectly calm response from me. It was your decision to drag in Judith,

Drag?! I'm not 'draggin' anyone - she is the only one beeing refered
to as using glyphosade with sandwich bags! Is Judith untouchable now
because she happens to be your 'friend'?

not mine. I told you that was unfair and so your response is to have
another dig at Judith and then tack on another one at me for good measure.

I did not 'have a dig' at anyone. You are imagining things yet again
as you did 3 days ago about me sending 'peace to all sincerely'. Six
posters told you so remember? You are imagining things.

As far as I can see what is not right is that you simply cannot bear to be
contradicted or corrected, by me or anyone else.

Where do I seem 'not to bear this' in this thread? In your head
again!!!! Once someone suggested you go and lie down. Lie down Sacha,
go and lie down or have your neck twisted or whatever, but just take a
break!

So indeed, there is no
point in discussing with you because for you, there is no discussion
necessary as, in your opinion, you are always right and everyone else is the
one out of step.

Who?! It is only you Sacha! Who is disagreeing with me?!? Have you
noticed anybody else in this thread, well perhaps Martin, but he is
'special', and I like 'special' people.

Your stock response to those who don't agree with your
every word is "so ignore me".

No, it's to you only. I've never told anybody to 'ignore me'. Just to
you.

Has it occurred to you that this might be why
most people ignore you?!

I don't feel myself 'ignored'. Why should I?! Now you are being nasty
and trying to hurt me again and make me someone I'm not. I'm getting
this week after week unless you're on holidays and I wouldn't be
normal if I wouldn't admit this is frankly getting to me. So you can
**** off Sacha Hubbard, **** off well and trully.

On 27/7/07 14:12, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

snip

I don't feel myself 'ignored'. Why should I?! Now you are being nasty
and trying to hurt me again and make me someone I'm not. I'm getting
this week after week unless you're on holidays and I wouldn't be
normal if I wouldn't admit this is frankly getting to me. So you can
**** off Sacha Hubbard, **** off well and trully.



Actually, I was *trying* to point out to you why you have given yourself
such a bad reputation here and why you're in so many kill files. But once
again you've demonstrated that for us in the above. As I said, I responded
to you politely and as always, we end up with you shouting and swearing,
screaming and stamping your foot.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

Puce, I'm a little unsure how to respond to you, but I'll give it a go.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:49:24 -0700
La Puce wrote:

On 27 Jul, 07:58, Emery Davis wrote:
This refers to the addition of sulfites as stabilizers to the wine, not
the use of Bdx mix in the vineyard.
It is common practice to use Bdx mix in organic grape growing. I do not
know the status in biodynamic vineyards, where it may indeed be
proscribed. (There are now more than a few biodynamic wines, using the
farming methods promulgated by Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner.)

I had always thought that 'sans souffre' was equivalent to 'vin
naturel', like no added sugar, no bx mix etc. throughout the whole
process from growing to bottleing. It is interesting to see that you

"sans souffre" means exactly what it says: no sulfites added. I have
explained why almost no wine is made this way, and why it is unlikely
you are drinking any.

Quoting from the Guide Hachette on vinifications: "[tout] est envoyé
dans la cuve de fermentation, après légère addition d'anhydride sulfureux
pour assurer une protection contre les oxydations et les contaminations
microbiennes."

If this stage is omitted and the wine not aged in sulphur treated barrels,
the wine may be said to be "sans souffre."

The only time I know of 'vin naturel' being employed is in the context
of a Vin Doux Naturel (VDN). One might say a VDN is anything but
natural as the fermentation is stopped (with a high residual sugar content)
by the addition of neutral spirits.

mention Rudolf Steiner, as if we could almost write Rudold Steiner
BC ;o) These practices have been used for centuries. It is a very
demanding process, labour intencive and results in lower yields, but
it is for the locals consumption. It is, in Cahors for example, the
local wine as it has always been done - nothing has changed there and
they are not in any hurry to ask for any 'labels'. They couldn't care
less to get this so their wine can be sold in the UK.


Of course farmer/winemakers in Cahors want to sell to the UK market.
It's how they make their living. Some have succeeded: Triguidina and
la Cédre now go for a lot of money world wide. But many Cahors producers
are struggling to make ends meet, at the same time they are making
wonderful wine.

They use modern techniques as everywhere. The cuves are usually
temperature controlled stainless. Although oak barrels were not
traditionally used, to please the palate of American critic Robert Parker,
many are experimenting with them. In the face of increased competition
from Oz and South America, a good review in the Anglo-Saxon press can
make the difference between staying in business or closing shop.

I know many wine people in the area, and I'll take the time to recommend
wonderfully silky and full reds from Dom Gravalous and Ch. les Ifs, either
one under 3 quid a bottle 'depart cave.'

So, please, let's respect these farmers who are having a very very difficult
time of it right now, by not romanticizing their situation overly.

On the subject of Steiner, biodynamicism does not reduce yields. Triage
reduces yields. You can have high yields with biodynamic methods. And,
Steiner may have been half nutty, but he was original. Although some methods
are adapted, some are certainly all his own.

Bordeaux however has so many different grapes now, it is quite
difficult to 'label', literally!

Natural wines, 'vins naturels', or 'organic wines', have always been
available in France. No 'souffre', no 'yeast', 'no more sugar'. These
are the wines that we call 'organic'. Isn't it?


No, we don't. We are allowed to call a wine organic so long as it is
made from organically grown grapes. That's all. After it arrives in
the cellar we can manipulate it any old way we want.

It may be silly, but that's the law.

The "no more sugar" only works in the warmer regions, as well. And
here it is common to add tartaric acid to fix the balance. (I.e. in Bordeaux
they add sugar. In California and Oz, they add acid).

As for "no souffre" you will have to understand that there is virtually
no such thing. I have explained why.

Yeast is another issue. There are many winemakers that are able to
use indigenous yeasts. But even these had to come from somewhere.
(When you start making wine somewhere for the first time, there is usually
no yeast in the brand new cellar walls and ceilings). Over time they mutate
to give a wine it's typicity, that some would argue are a part of the "terroir."
But originally they were purchased. When a very large concern makes
like a "Diamond Label" they want it to be the same year in and year out,
so they use a yeast strain that reliably produces a recognizable flavour
profile, immune to the variation of natural or wild yeast.

According to the law you can add tons of sulphur, truckloads of chemically
produced beet sugar, palettes of tartaric acid, ground up oak chips in paper
"tea bags" and still call the wine organic, so long as the grapes are organically
grown.

In fact there is in practice no such thing as "vin bio" because there is no
existing certification as to the use of indigenous yeasts, etc. What is
generally recognized is "vin issu de la culture biologique." This is a
meaningful label as farming practices can be certified organic. However
even this can be misleading. When the wine is chaptalized, as is more
common than admitted in the Bordelais, what is the source of the sugar?

)) Indeed! But the sugar in the grapes are sufficient for 'vin
naturel'. And why is this 'labelling' so important? There are hundreds
upon hundreds of wine growers not 'chaptalizing', nor using souffre
etc. and who couldn't care less about the commercial attitude of

You are mistaken about "using souffre", there are only a handful
of winemakers experimenting with this.

Winemakers in Bordeaux only chaptalize when necessary, as it will
be this year. Otherwise the wine will not reach the 12 degrees required
to achieve AOC status.

The reason labelling is important is that as a consumer, it gives you
a way to know what you're being sold. I can know which grape varieties
are permitted in AOC Bordeaux Superieur, whether chaptalization is authorized,
what maximum yield is allowed, all of this lets me know something about
what I'm about to purchase.

On topic, I once had a respected "organic" grower (before the bio label was
enforced in France) tell me glyphosate was OK to use because it was a
"synthetic plant hormone." Now, I know if something is labelled "bio" in the
store, that glyphosate was not used in production. Thus, the label is of
some worth to me.

Along the same lines, glyphosate is very heavily used in the wine industry,
in France as elsewhere. (All your little Cahors producers use it, of that you
may be sure. Glyphosate is very cheap if you're a farmer in France...) If
I buy a "vin issu de la culture biologique" I am certain that no glyphosate
was used in the farming of the grapes. If I buy a wine labelled "vin naturel"
I have no such assurance.

others. This mass 'commercial' attitude to labelling is so confusing.
In Napoli I bought some Grappa. There's no mention of labels, organic
etc. I find the UK getting a little bit 'label' mad to the point of
complete confusion.


I hope you enjoyed the grappa. I have some very nice Marc de Chateauneuf
du Pape from Dom. Mont Redon, next glass I will tip my hat in your direction.

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:17:13 +0200
Martin wrote:

[]
The EU has directed that bottles containing sulfites must be labeled.


Interesting, I hadn't seen that. Directive?

Means that every bottle of wine (which by EU directive is only made from
Vitis vinifera and no other fruit!) will contain the mention "contains sulfites."

[]
AIUI, the more sulfites the more the chance of headaches

Yes!


Lots of anecdotal evidence.

and the cheaper the
white wine the more sulfites?
Yes!


I'd be interested if you can provide any evidence to back up this claim. I've
certainly never seen any studies plotting sulfites against price.

Other additives, like oak chips, may be giving you headaches in white cheapies.

Or so I was told in USA some years ago,
though not by a wine grower.
snip

I took me a long time to work out that it was high levels of sulfites that gave
me pains in my stomach that last for a day.
Some beers contain it too.

How did you know that the wines (or beers) in question had higher levels of
sulfites than any other? Perhaps something else was the culprit, I wonder.

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On 27 Jul, 15:08, Emery Davis wrote:
Puce, I'm a little unsure how to respond to you, but I'll give it a go.

I thank you very much indeed to have taken the time to explain so
much. I really don't bite, really I don't, please beleive me! Your
knowledge in wine is wonderful and you'd be such a great addition to
our gathering, which is taking place in 4 days time, in Bordeaux, on
my birthday, a table for 26 people, under 5 oak trees. There will be
lots of Cahors wine because we all prefer it to Bordeaux so much.
Cahors has always been my favourite too. We are all going for some
tasting next week in Bordeaux, but because it's my birthday, it's a
surprise for me so I'm not sure which Chateau yet. I'll let you know
on my return.

I hope you enjoyed the grappa. I have some very nice Marc de Chateauneuf
du Pape from Dom. Mont Redon, next glass I will tip my hat in your direction.

Mmmmm... Rhone. I was offered last year a Domaine de la Mordoree. It's
wasted on me really (I knew how much the bottle had been and I felt so
bad), as I think my palate like just about anything I'm being offered.
But I'm also quite capable of finding a bad wine too. I love liquors
and ports, especially dessert wine like Sauternes, and one day I'll
try to find a Muscat 1964 ;o)

On Jul 27, 7:58 am, Emery Davis wrote:
Hello,

Although it pains me to respond to this thread, I'd like to clear up a
vinous bit of confusion, which I believe I am competent to comment on.

Hi Emery, nice to see you here! There's a bit of a change from our
other group, yes?? I post here only to comment that Emery is an
absolute expert on anything to do with wine and I would NEVER ever
take him on in an argument about this as I have the utmost respect for
his vast knowledge. Emery knows more about wine that I could ever
hope to even if I lived two lifetimes.

Judith p.s. I have a St. Emilion, Chateau Soutard, Grand cru Classe
2000. Is it now ready to drink or will it improve with another year
or so?

Judith