Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/732978
October 2016 WINES&VINES 31 PRACTICAL WINERY & VINEYARD VIEWPOINT limiting industry growth and develop applied research and extension programs to mitigate constraints, when possible. Certainly one of the early constraints was the limited technical back- ground of many of the practitioners. This began my quest to understand how best to convey science-based information effectively. My interest in knowledge and knowledge acquisition was enhanced by a theophany, or spiritual revelation of sorts, that I experienced during a visit to a prestigious wine producer in the Medoc region of France 22 years ago. One day, while walking through one of their vineyards, the winery personnel stated that their greatest asset in controlling Brettanomyces spp. in the cellar was their use of Biodynamic prac- tices in the vineyard. I was intrigued. At that time, Biodynamics was barely within my limited lexicon. According to winery personnel, Biody- namic practices promoted a natural balance in the fruit that aided in the control of Brett. I did not know enough about the subject to argue the wisdom or fatuity of their statement. I sim- ply asked for the scientific justification for Bio- dynamic practices controlling Brett. Perhaps not unexpectedly, they offered none. There is no substitute for success; I certainly understand that reality. However, the real sur- prise was that the lack of scientific justification was not a concern. Indeed, when I asked why certain other vineyard and cellar practices were conducted, their typical response was analogous to Aristotle's Fallacy of the Consequent: "We do it this way because we do it this way." In other words, because they thought it worked. This reminded me of the different attitudes toward knowledge, both what it is and how it is attained. It further reminded me of my class- room experience. As a university instructor, one of the hardest concepts for my students to fully appreciate is that human thought has a history. The way we think now, the way we understand the world, is not the way people have always understood it or thought about it, even very recently. Any change in epistemology, how we think about knowledge—what it is, how it is ac- quired, what its limits are, how one tests that knowledge, how one thinks about these is- sues—influences every subject including viti- culture and enology. I believe this is particularly relevant in university extension delivery, be- cause not everyone thinks about knowledge the same way. In my experience, wine industry practitio- ners often tilt toward one of two directions with regard to acquired knowledge. Broadly outlined by the rationalism of René Descartes, who suggested that reason, and reason alone, unaided by the senses, yields knowledge of the world. This philosophy is contrasted by the empiricism proposed by John Locke, among others, who thought that true knowledge can only be acquired be our own experiences. In Locke's view, the mind begins with a blank slate (a tabula rasa) on which experience im- prints ideas via the senses and reflection. These dual semi-reciprocal philosophies or attitudes are infrastructures of the wine indus- try's development. However, different practi- tioners balance and value these differently. Those with science-based underpinnings often view themselves as rational, shedding myth and superstition. They have faith in the supe- riority of the new, certainly not in antiquity or tradition. There is a sort of idolatry of reason. However, I find many industry practitioners rely heavily on empirical knowledge, even when not supported by science, such as my friends in the Medoc. Pour voir c'est croire—to see is to believe. Empirical knowledge has value, of course, particularly in an industry such as ours. How- ever, it also has obvious limitations. Empirical knowledge is derived from the senses, and our senses can be errant. For example, a stick in a bucket of water appears bent but is not. An additional problem with relying too heavily upon empirical observations is that, if two outcomes are similar, we have a tendency Napa County's Winery Definition Ordinance and Implications for Other Winery Markets November 2, 2016 ~ River Terrace Inn ~ NAPA, CA $ 5 0 D I S CO U N T Use Code SPP50 800-574-4852 TSGregistration.net/1527W On January 23 rd , 1990, after years of discussion and much controversy, the Napa County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 947, generally known as the Winery Definition Ordinance, or WDO. ‚e WDO was intended to address concerns about (a) the proliferation of wineries, (b) winery traffic, (c) conversion of farmlands to wineries using out-of-county grapes, and (d) potential loss of vested rights for then-existing wineries. In recent years, the same concerns have emerged with renewed vigor, and approval of applications for new and modified winery use permits has become significantly more difficult. In addition, the current controversy has included a call for more strict enforcement of winery use permit conditions of approval, and an end to a long-standing policy of leniency towards violators who apply to correct their violations through use permit modifications. is seminar will use a comparison of the past and present debates over these issues to illuminate the future of the wine industry in Napa County in the context of local general plan policies and zoning, as well as local, state and federal environmental regulatory concerns.