Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

More Regulations for Ohio Wine Producers

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion More Regulations for Ohio Wine Producers

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 59 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #380693
    Manatee
    Manatee
    Participant

    Andrew Hall wrote >>
    Google ‘cow horn manure wine.’
    A.

    But that’s biodynamic, n’est pas? That’s not for us to drink.

    I just want to drink manure, Andrew, why you gotta pee on my manure parade?

    By the way, I saw a really, really boring lecture on biodynamics this year. The lecturer made a drawing of the “cosmic forces” coming into to the top of the plant, while the “earth forces” came in from below.

    I always called that sun and dirt, but you know, I’m not fancy. :)

    #380694

    Bear
    Participant

    jackoh wrote >>
    Could someone point out to me the downside if the Department of Liquor Control were to be abolished and the liquor enforcement division of the Department of Public Safety were to follow suit?

    (crickets chirping)

    ETA More seriously, there’d be a loss of revenue of about $700m per year to the state, and, I dunno, a number of jobs in the low double digits I think. But the former could be made up, I’m fairly sure, with an appropriate liquor/wine/etc. tax.

    #380695

    Geez
    Participant

    It’s about making quality wine or factory wine. If the wineries want to improve they have to have the ability to be creative without standard manufacturing practices getting in the way. There is absolutely no pathogenic hazard from wine. Only adulteration and I have not heard of a case of that (such a cooling systems leaks in Italy) for about 25 years. Something like that is a freak accident. Some wineries may use natural yeast carried by insects to make their wine. Excessive sanitation, excluding insects, and washing ruin that process. Plus washing can dilute the wine. You can’t really wash machine picked grapes (partially crushed) that may even contain birdnests, mice, snakes, etc. Washing is only used (mostly California) to remove elemental sulfer from grapes that would create sulfide problems in the wine. Plus dilute the excessively high sugars and resultant alcohol they have to deal with. Not a practice for here. I have seen wineries excessively wash, in to the juice, their large picking bins to increase volume(in California reduce sugar level), more a factory than quality practice. All in all this doesn’t matter even a tiny amount as wine is naturally purified in the fermentation and processing. As far as vineyard chemicals, many used on fresh small fruit have much closer harvest intervals than grapes. In the end you have a product that has no food safety issues. Wine has in history even been routinely used as a disinfectant. This is purely a grab by bureaucracy to get money, justify their existence, and even expand. The opposite should be what is done. Every dollar that goes to government is a multitudinal drain on the productive economy.

    #380696

    catlover99
    Member

    0Angle wrote >>
    The department of Agriculture and department of Liquor Control both have jurisdiction in breweries and I sure haven’t found the department of Ag an impediment. While alcohol does prevent pathogens, the idea of trying to wash insecticides off of wine grapes doesn’t necessarily seem like a bad idea to me…

    Insecticides are never used close to harvest and ODA suggested we wash the grapes to eliminate insects. If grapes are machine harvested (we harvest by hand), the grapes sometimes contain birds nests, bees, fruit flies, Asian lady beetles, dead mice, etc. In the manufacture of wine, all these things disappear when the wine is racked off the debris in the bottom of the tank or barrel or during filtering. No winery in the world would wash grapes, it would dilute the flavors.

    #380697

    catlover99
    Member

    Bear wrote >>
    It sounds, frankly, more like a combination of unwise policy (excessive and pointless fees/regulations that discourage businesses without any clear upside) and a bureaucratic mistake (classing wine grapes with table grapes in food-safety regs). That’s my guess, not knowing more about it.
    I’d hope the latter could be cleared up with a quick bill sponsored by the relevant state representative(s). The former could be harder to resolve. Kinkead Ridge is by most metrics the top winemaker in the state; if Ohio is willing to annoy them enough to get them to relocate for such minor stakes, it really makes me question their commitment to quality Ohio wines.

    I think your comment about our commitment to quality Ohio wines is very unfair. Kinkead Ridge has now grown grapes in Ohio longer than we grew grapes in Oregon. We planted our vineyard in 1999, and we could have relocated to Paso Robles, the Finger Lakes, Walla Walla, or southern Oregon. We chose Ohio to make a difference. An 11 year commitment is a pretty serious one; and while managing our own vineyard and winery, we mentored Harmony Hill, Meranda-Nixon, Renascent, LaVigna among others. This latest thing really is the straw that broke the camel’s back. I wish you could read some of the posts from a vineyard up north, who is madder than we are. He has pointed out inconsistencies in the Ohio legislative law. All of it is met with the stonewall from lawyers: “We have the authority to do this.” In the beginning, we asked reasonable questions and could not get any kind of answers or commitment.

    #380698

    catlover99
    Member

    jackoh wrote >>
    I wonder how much of this is driven by a public health concern and how much of it is a liquor control issue?

    This inspection is not a liquor control issue, it is only the Ohio Dept. of Agriculture.

    #380699

    KSquared
    Member

    catlover99 wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    It sounds, frankly, more like a combination of unwise policy (excessive and pointless fees/regulations that discourage businesses without any clear upside) and a bureaucratic mistake (classing wine grapes with table grapes in food-safety regs). That’s my guess, not knowing more about it.
    I’d hope the latter could be cleared up with a quick bill sponsored by the relevant state representative(s). The former could be harder to resolve. Kinkead Ridge is by most metrics the top winemaker in the state; if Ohio is willing to annoy them enough to get them to relocate for such minor stakes, it really makes me question their commitment to quality Ohio wines.

    I think your comment about our commitment to quality Ohio wines is very unfair. Kinkead Ridge has now grown grapes in Ohio longer than we grew grapes in Oregon. We planted our vineyard in 1999, and we could have relocated to Paso Robles, the Finger Lakes, Walla Walla, or southern Oregon. We chose Ohio to make a difference. An 11 year commitment is a pretty serious one; and while managing our own vineyard and winery, we mentored Harmony Hill, Meranda-Nixon, Renascent, LaVigna among others. This latest thing really is the straw that broke the camel’s back. I wish you could read some of the posts from a vineyard up north, who is madder than we are. He has pointed out inconsistencies in the Ohio legislative law. All of it is met with the stonewall from lawyers: “We have the authority to do this.” In the beginning, we asked reasonable questions and could not get any kind of answers or commitment.

    I think Bear was questioning the state’s commitment to quality Ohio wines, not the commitment of Kinkead Ridge. I think it’s just an awkward sentence.

    #380700

    Mercurius
    Participant

    catlover99 wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    It sounds, frankly, more like a combination of unwise policy (excessive and pointless fees/regulations that discourage businesses without any clear upside) and a bureaucratic mistake (classing wine grapes with table grapes in food-safety regs). That’s my guess, not knowing more about it.
    I’d hope the latter could be cleared up with a quick bill sponsored by the relevant state representative(s). The former could be harder to resolve. Kinkead Ridge is by most metrics the top winemaker in the state; if Ohio is willing to annoy them enough to get them to relocate for such minor stakes, it really makes me question their commitment to quality Ohio wines.

    I think your comment about our commitment to quality Ohio wines is very unfair. Kinkead Ridge has now grown grapes in Ohio longer than we grew grapes in Oregon. We planted our vineyard in 1999, and we could have relocated to Paso Robles, the Finger Lakes, Walla Walla, or southern Oregon. We chose Ohio to make a difference. An 11 year commitment is a pretty serious one; and while managing our own vineyard and winery, we mentored Harmony Hill, Meranda-Nixon, Renascent, LaVigna among others. This latest thing really is the straw that broke the camel’s back. I wish you could read some of the posts from a vineyard up north, who is madder than we are. He has pointed out inconsistencies in the Ohio legislative law. All of it is met with the stonewall from lawyers: “We have the authority to do this.” In the beginning, we asked reasonable questions and could not get any kind of answers or commitment.

    Have you tried to contact your state legislator?

    #380701

    catlover99
    Member

    gramarye wrote >>

    JimL2 wrote >>
    The tone of her email just got under my skin …
    But the Dept. of Ag. claims they’ve already been inspecting wineries without incident, they’re just expanding that. So to me it sounds like a whole lot of nothing, people complaining rather than talking to each other, complaining that a $50-$300 inspection fee and being forced to wash grapes (which may or may not be the case) will ruin their business.

    I agree that the tone of the e-mail wasn’t the best, and also that $300/yr, assuming this is an annual thing, isn’t massive in the grand scheme of things. The part of the e-mail that was actually the most interesting to me, and on which I might feel more sympathetic to KR than the inspection issue, was the denial of the auxiliary tasting room permit for the Scenic Byway location in Ripley. That represents potentially more than $300 in lost revenue for the business as well as more than $300 in lost investment for Ripley.

    I wanted to clarify the auxiliary tasting room issue. Tom Niehaus, our state senator, created the verbiage to allow this with our help. Two things shut it down; at a hearing at Liquor Control, it was implied we would not be allowed to sell wine by the bottle for people to sit and drink the wine, but only do what we already do in the tasting room, i.e. 1 or 2 oz. tastes. There was no point spending tens of thousands of dollars on a building to do the same thing we do in the winery. Also some wineries up north opposed this idea because they see auxiliary tasting rooms as competition… “not in my back yard”. We see it differently; the more the merrier, the more people you will get to visit your area. The chance of getting this passed expires Jan. 1, 2011, but frankly, we put so much effort into this that to have Liquor Control and wineries against us was disheartening. We just gave up. It not only hurts Ripley, it hurts small wineries throughout the state who could locate a tasting room in their town, in a mall, near a freeway, etc.

    #380702

    catlover99
    Member

    KSquared wrote >>

    catlover99 wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    It sounds, frankly, more like a combination of unwise policy (excessive and pointless fees/regulations that discourage businesses without any clear upside) and a bureaucratic mistake (classing wine grapes with table grapes in food-safety regs). That’s my guess, not knowing more about it.
    I’d hope the latter could be cleared up with a quick bill sponsored by the relevant state representative(s). The former could be harder to resolve. Kinkead Ridge is by most metrics the top winemaker in the state; if Ohio is willing to annoy them enough to get them to relocate for such minor stakes, it really makes me question their commitment to quality Ohio wines.

    I think your comment about our commitment to quality Ohio wines is very unfair. Kinkead Ridge has now grown grapes in Ohio longer than we grew grapes in Oregon. We planted our vineyard in 1999, and we could have relocated to Paso Robles, the Finger Lakes, Walla Walla, or southern Oregon. We chose Ohio to make a difference. An 11 year commitment is a pretty serious one; and while managing our own vineyard and winery, we mentored Harmony Hill, Meranda-Nixon, Renascent, LaVigna among others. This latest thing really is the straw that broke the camel’s back. I wish you could read some of the posts from a vineyard up north, who is madder than we are. He has pointed out inconsistencies in the Ohio legislative law. All of it is met with the stonewall from lawyers: “We have the authority to do this.” In the beginning, we asked reasonable questions and could not get any kind of answers or commitment.

    I think Bear was questioning the state’s commitment to quality Ohio wines, not the commitment of Kinkead Ridge. I think it’s just an awkward sentence.

    THANK YOU! I misread that too!

    #380703

    catlover99
    Member

    Mercurius wrote >>

    catlover99 wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    It sounds, frankly, more like a combination of unwise policy (excessive and pointless fees/regulations that discourage businesses without any clear upside) and a bureaucratic mistake (classing wine grapes with table grapes in food-safety regs). That’s my guess, not knowing more about it.
    I’d hope the latter could be cleared up with a quick bill sponsored by the relevant state representative(s). The former could be harder to resolve. Kinkead Ridge is by most metrics the top winemaker in the state; if Ohio is willing to annoy them enough to get them to relocate for such minor stakes, it really makes me question their commitment to quality Ohio wines.

    I think your comment about our commitment to quality Ohio wines is very unfair. Kinkead Ridge has now grown grapes in Ohio longer than we grew grapes in Oregon. We planted our vineyard in 1999, and we could have relocated to Paso Robles, the Finger Lakes, Walla Walla, or southern Oregon. We chose Ohio to make a difference. An 11 year commitment is a pretty serious one; and while managing our own vineyard and winery, we mentored Harmony Hill, Meranda-Nixon, Renascent, LaVigna among others. This latest thing really is the straw that broke the camel’s back. I wish you could read some of the posts from a vineyard up north, who is madder than we are. He has pointed out inconsistencies in the Ohio legislative law. All of it is met with the stonewall from lawyers: “We have the authority to do this.” In the beginning, we asked reasonable questions and could not get any kind of answers or commitment.

    Have you tried to contact your state legislator?

    We are working closely with Rep. Dan Bubp. Re the legislation: the Ohio legislative code on this is full of inconsistencies. Although the law has been on the books for some time, someone, we don’t know who, slipped the annual fee collection into the Representative budget bill just before it went to the senate, with no input from any wineries. Apparently, ODA got interested in this because they had an outdated database of wineries who wholesale. My partner Ron suggested to them they could get the entire list by looking at who has paid for a B2A permit to sell wholesale in Ohio. Unfortunately, the House is now or almost out of session, so nothing can happen this summer. And how is it fair that wineries who retail only out of their winery are not subject to inspection? Is our product less “safe” than theirs for public consumption?

    #380704

    michaelcoyote
    Participant

    catlover99 wrote >>

    KSquared wrote >>
    I think Bear was questioning the state’s commitment to quality Ohio wines, not the commitment of Kinkead Ridge. I think it’s just an awkward sentence.

    THANK YOU! I misread that too!

    Not to presume to speak for Bear, however I’ve had opportunity to assist him in “quality checking” several bottles of Kinkead Ridge wines, and I’ve never heard a complaint from him yet. :-)

    #380705

    Mercurius
    Participant

    catlover99 wrote >>

    Mercurius wrote >>

    catlover99 wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    It sounds, frankly, more like a combination of unwise policy (excessive and pointless fees/regulations that discourage businesses without any clear upside) and a bureaucratic mistake (classing wine grapes with table grapes in food-safety regs). That’s my guess, not knowing more about it.
    I’d hope the latter could be cleared up with a quick bill sponsored by the relevant state representative(s). The former could be harder to resolve. Kinkead Ridge is by most metrics the top winemaker in the state; if Ohio is willing to annoy them enough to get them to relocate for such minor stakes, it really makes me question their commitment to quality Ohio wines.

    I think your comment about our commitment to quality Ohio wines is very unfair. Kinkead Ridge has now grown grapes in Ohio longer than we grew grapes in Oregon. We planted our vineyard in 1999, and we could have relocated to Paso Robles, the Finger Lakes, Walla Walla, or southern Oregon. We chose Ohio to make a difference. An 11 year commitment is a pretty serious one; and while managing our own vineyard and winery, we mentored Harmony Hill, Meranda-Nixon, Renascent, LaVigna among others. This latest thing really is the straw that broke the camel’s back. I wish you could read some of the posts from a vineyard up north, who is madder than we are. He has pointed out inconsistencies in the Ohio legislative law. All of it is met with the stonewall from lawyers: “We have the authority to do this.” In the beginning, we asked reasonable questions and could not get any kind of answers or commitment.

    Have you tried to contact your state legislator?

    We are working closely with Rep. Dan Bubp. Re the legislation: the Ohio legislative code on this is full of inconsistencies. Although the law has been on the books for some time, someone, we don’t know who, slipped the annual fee collection into the Representative budget bill just before it went to the senate, with no input from any wineries. Apparently, ODA got interested in this because they had an outdated database of wineries who wholesale. My partner Ron suggested to them they could get the entire list by looking at who has paid for a B2A permit to sell wholesale in Ohio. Unfortunately, the House is now or almost out of session, so nothing can happen this summer. And how is it fair that wineries who retail only out of their winery are not subject to inspection? Is our product less “safe” than theirs for public consumption?

    Rep Bubp is a good guy and while you’re correct that the legislation can’t change over the summer, he can schedule a meeting with you and the head of ODA where you can explain why the bureaucracy doesn’t make any sense. This sounds like it’s administrative and probably a bureaucratic misunderstanding with the ODA.

    Edit: Might check with the Ohio Beer and Wine Wholesale Ass. too? I’d imagine any change they know why (and were probably responsible for)

    #380706

    myliftkk
    Participant

    catlover99 wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>

    JimL2 wrote >>
    The tone of her email just got under my skin …
    But the Dept. of Ag. claims they’ve already been inspecting wineries without incident, they’re just expanding that. So to me it sounds like a whole lot of nothing, people complaining rather than talking to each other, complaining that a $50-$300 inspection fee and being forced to wash grapes (which may or may not be the case) will ruin their business.

    I agree that the tone of the e-mail wasn’t the best, and also that $300/yr, assuming this is an annual thing, isn’t massive in the grand scheme of things. The part of the e-mail that was actually the most interesting to me, and on which I might feel more sympathetic to KR than the inspection issue, was the denial of the auxiliary tasting room permit for the Scenic Byway location in Ripley. That represents potentially more than $300 in lost revenue for the business as well as more than $300 in lost investment for Ripley.

    I wanted to clarify the auxiliary tasting room issue. Tom Niehaus, our state senator, created the verbiage to allow this with our help. Two things shut it down; at a hearing at Liquor Control, it was implied we would not be allowed to sell wine by the bottle for people to sit and drink the wine, but only do what we already do in the tasting room, i.e. 1 or 2 oz. tastes. There was no point spending tens of thousands of dollars on a building to do the same thing we do in the winery. Also some wineries up north opposed this idea because they see auxiliary tasting rooms as competition… “not in my back yard”. We see it differently; the more the merrier, the more people you will get to visit your area. The chance of getting this passed expires Jan. 1, 2011, but frankly, we put so much effort into this that to have Liquor Control and wineries against us was disheartening. We just gave up. It not only hurts Ripley, it hurts small wineries throughout the state who could locate a tasting room in their town, in a mall, near a freeway, etc.

    How is the winery political opposition to aux. tasting rooms here a State of Ohio problem? Your plans ran into counter-interests who obviously thought your plans threatened their business goals, nothing more. I don’t really see that as a State issue, except to the extent that your idea lost the political battle versus the other winery interests in the context of State government.

    #380707

    Geez
    Participant

    About the comment about inspecting for a period of time by the Agriculture department. Most of that was done for several years at larger wineries as juice production, only more recently have they added the wine production and distributing. Especially after sneaking in a fee structure in last years 3000 page state budget bill. I don’t think anyone in the wine business has ever concerned themselves with agricultural or health legislation. Until now.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 59 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE