I’ve been watching Yi Fan Feng Shen recently, a Chinese TV show built around chefs and cooking. In one episode, the challenge was hong shao rou — Chinese red-braised pork.
The younger and older chefs approached the same dish in very different ways. Some pushed the traditional version as far as they could: glossy, tender and juicy, with Sichuan preserved vegetables added for extra savoury depth. The younger chefs were more willing to reinterpret the dish, bringing their own ideas to both the presentation and seasoning.
It made me think about two Marsannays I tasted recently.
One came from a more traditional producer: direct, structured, refined and classical. The other was much more lively and transparent, with more energy and tension and a strong focus on the vineyard itself. The two styles were very different, but both made sense in their own way.
Thinking about the traditional and modern interpretations of the same dish also brought me back to a term that has been increasingly emphasised in the wine world in recent years: low intervention.
Why are more producers talking about low intervention?
Low intervention does not have one universally accepted technical definition. Indigenous yeasts, lower SO₂, no filtration or fining, gentler extraction and less new oak can all be part of what people describe as low-intervention winemaking, but none of these practices alone defines it.
Its development over the past few decades can probably be understood through several things happening at the same time: improvements in technology, changes in taste, and changing consumer expectations.
Technology is one part of it. Vineyard management and harvesting can be more precise today, sorting can be stricter, and wineries have better control over hygiene, temperature and oxygen. Laboratory analysis and microbiological monitoring are also much more accessible. All of this gives winemakers more room to do less later in the process. Better control of microbial risk and oxygen exposure at bottling, for example, can help reduce the amount of SO₂ ultimately required.
This reminds me of harvests I saw when I was living in France. Many friends studying wine would spend their holidays working harvests at domaines. One year at Perrot-Minot, Christophe Perrot-Minot became very upset when someone did not follow the sorting instructions carefully enough. He immediately went back to the sorting table and checked the fruit again to make sure unhealthy grapes did not make it into the next stage.
I still remember something he once said, roughly speaking: wine is not something driven only by romance and inspiration. It is, above all, extremely precise work.
At some top Burgundy domaines, it is striking to see how much attention and manpower can go into sorting. Larger Bordeaux estates may take a different approach and use optical sorting equipment. I remember seeing the optical sorting machines at Château Mouton Rothschild. In Burgundy, where estate size, vineyard parcels and production volumes are very different, this kind of equipment is not always as practical. The methods may differ, but the principle is similar: if you want to make fewer corrections later in the cellar, careful selection of the fruit becomes even more important.
The OIV’s technical guidance on reducing SO₂ follows a similar logic. Using less SO₂ is not simply a matter of “adding less sulphur.” It is connected to grape health, cellar hygiene, microbial load, pH, temperature, oxygen exposure and bottling management, among other factors.
So low intervention does not necessarily mean less technical knowledge. In some cases, it requires more precise management.
Taste has changed too
Over the past few decades, part of the fine wine world has increasingly moved towards freshness, energy, drinkability and expressions that place more emphasis on differences between sites.
As a result, there has also been more discussion around heavy extraction, large amounts of new oak, aggressive fining or filtration, and other techniques that can leave a strong sensory signature on a wine.
That does not mean these techniques are inherently problematic. SO₂ helps control oxidation and microbial risks. Filtration can improve microbial stability. Temperature control helps manage fermentation. Destemming, extraction and oak are all normal tools available to a winemaker.
The difference is often in when these tools are used, how far they are taken, and how much they ultimately shape the expression of the wine.
Consumer expectations are another part of the picture. The OIV has also noted consumer demand for fewer chemical additives as one of the factors behind research into reducing SO₂ use. At the same time, SO₂ continues to play an important antioxidant and antimicrobial role and cannot simply be replaced in every situation.
Reducing intervention and rejecting technology are therefore not the same thing.
Are traditional and low-intervention producers really that far apart?
The more producers I speak with, the more I feel that some very good traditional estates and low-intervention producers are actually moving closer together in certain areas.
At the most basic level, their goals are often not so different. They want healthy grapes and wines with balance, integrity and vitality. They generally do not want obvious technical faults to dominate the wine, and they want the variety, vintage and place to remain visible.
The differences are more about how much risk they are prepared to accept in reaching those goals, and what they choose to prioritise.
Traditional producers will often place considerable importance on stability, development and ageing potential. If a winemaker believes SO₂, temperature control, destemming, fining or filtration is necessary, they will use it. From this perspective, these tools do not automatically interfere with terroir. What matters is that their influence does not become more obvious than the wine itself.
Low-intervention producers often begin from a different point. The aim is usually to alter as little as possible of what develops naturally from the grapes and fermentation. This may mean accepting greater vintage variation, less filtration, lower SO₂ and certain characteristics that might be considered less polished within a more conventional tasting framework.
This is where the grey area becomes interesting, because the two sides do not always draw the line in the same place when deciding what needs to be controlled and what can be left alone.
VA, Brett and the boundaries of a “fault”
Volatile acidity is a good example. At high levels, VA can clearly alter the aroma and palate of a wine and is generally considered a fault. At lower levels, however, there can be different views among winemakers and tasters about the point at which it begins to interfere with the wine’s overall expression.
Brettanomyces raises a similar question. Brett can produce animal, leathery and phenolic aromas. When these characters become strong enough to obscure fruit, variety or site, modern winemaking generally regards this as a microbiological problem.
Historically, however, low levels of Brett-related character could be found in some traditionally made Burgundy and Northern Rhône wines, and some drinkers have considered certain of these aromas part of the wine’s complexity.
So the discussion is often less about whether VA or Brett can exist at all, and more about the point at which they begin to dominate the wine.
Modern microbiological analysis also makes it much easier for producers to understand what is happening in a wine than it was in the past. That distinction matters. Choosing to accept a certain degree of uncertainty today is not quite the same as being unable to control it because the tools were not available.
Doing less does not mean doing nothing
One of the easiest misunderstandings about low-intervention winemaking is the idea that once healthy grapes enter the cellar, the winemaker simply leaves everything to nature.
In reality, decisions are being made throughout the process: when to harvest, how strictly to sort, whether to use whole bunches or destem, fermentation temperature, maceration time, extraction, vessel, oxygen exposure, when and how much SO₂ to add, and whether to filter before bottling. Even deciding not to intervene is still a decision based on the condition of the wine at that moment.
For this reason, low-intervention winemaking does not necessarily ask less of the winemaker. It can require a very detailed understanding of the vineyard, the fruit and what is happening in the wine at every stage, so that the winemaker knows when intervention is necessary and when it is better to leave things alone.
Traditional producers have also been changing. Some treatments that were once used routinely as preventive measures, or simply continued through family practice, are now being reconsidered as vineyard management, cellar hygiene and analytical tools become more precise.
At the same time, many low-intervention producers are paying closer attention to microbiological stability, hygiene and bottling management. Instability by itself is not an expression of terroir.
There are still clear differences between the two approaches, but there is at least one area where they increasingly meet: trying not to let the winemaking itself become louder than the wine.
Does our idea of “good” stay the same?
Which brings me back to that plate of red-braised pork.
A traditional approach can take a familiar dish to an extremely high level. A new interpretation can find something different in exactly the same ingredients. Wine is not so different.
Our idea of what makes a wine “good” is not completely fixed. It changes with time, taste and technology. Winemaking practices that seemed entirely normal several decades ago may be questioned today, while the styles we currently favour may not be the final answer either.
What I find more interesting is watching how winemakers continue to understand their vineyards and fruit in greater detail, and how that understanding translates into hundreds of small decisions throughout the season and in the cellar.
Every harvest brings these questions back again. And for anyone continuing to learn about wine, it is a good opportunity to keep observing how the answers evolve.
Originally written in Chinese. English translation assisted by AI.
Sources & further reading
Photos courtesy of Maison Stéphan.
