First the wine, now the cheese!

[KettleWhistle]

After California kicked some French tails in the wine industry, it's on its way to do the same with cheese:

California closing on Wis. cheese crown
By JACOB ADELMAN, Associated Press WriterTue Oct 24, 2:35 PM ET


Fifteen years ago, Anto Baghassarian had a small shop in East Hollywood where he processed blocks of mozzarella from other manufacturers into the string cheese he learned to make at his family's business in Lebanon.
Now his Karoun Dairies Inc. operates a plant in the state's dairy heartland, turning a couple silos of milk each day into about 16,000 pounds of feta, queso fresco and other exotic cheeses adapted for American palates.
Aided by an abundant supply of milk, an increasing nationwide appetite for cheese and some savvy marketing, manufacturers such as Karoun are contributing to a production boom that could soon propel California past Wisconsin to become the nation's top cheese producer.

California is now the home of Hilmar Cheese Co. near Modesto, the world's largest single-site, cheesemaking operation. Every day, the plant churns out more than a million pounds of cheddar, Monterey Jack and mozzarella cheeses that are sold under a variety of brand names.

In addition, small California cheese makers have built a name for themselves among consumers and connoisseurs while winning dozens of awards at national and international competitions, casting a positive light on the producers of so-called commodity cheese that dominate the state's cheese industry.

"California cheeses are really looked upon as coming of age," said Christine Hyatt, a grocery store consultant in Portland, Ore., who serves as a judge at the American Cheese Society's annual competitions.

Last year, California turned out 2.14 billion pounds of cheese — nearly a quarter of the nation's supply. The total marked a huge increase from 1985, when the state had only about 7 percent of the national market.
The growth has put California within striking distance of the 2.4 billion pounds produced every year in Wisconsin, the state that bills itself as "America's Dairyland."

Wisconsin's share of the growing national cheese market has fallen from more than a third in 1985 to just over a quarter last year.

Nancy Fletcher, a spokeswoman for the California Milk Advisory Board, said it's hard to predict exactly when California will overtake Wisconsin, but the production trends make it just a matter of time.

Wisconsin, which lost its title as top milk-producing state to California in 1993, is nowhere near surrendering, said Patrick Geoghegan, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board.

"This is not something that we got into over the last 20 years or so," Geoghegan said. "It's been a big part of our past and will continue to be a big part of our future."

Geoghegan said Wisconsin's 1,300 licensed producers make 600 varieties of cheese, compared to the 250 offered by California's 55 producers.
"Bearing the title 'America's Dairyland' is about more than just producing the greatest amount of commodity cheese," he said. "It's about cheese quality, quality, quality."

Cheese has been produced in California since the first European missionaries arrived on the coast with dairy cows in tow. The recipe for its most famous contribution, Monterey Jack, is said to have originated in the Spanish missions.

The modern cheese boom began in the early 1980s, when the California Milk Advisory Board — the marketing agency of the state's dairy business — started promoting the cheese industry as a way to sop up a growing milk surplus.

The group encouraged large cheese producers to set up shop in California, then aggressively marketed the products with the "Real California Cheese" logo featuring a sunrise over rolling pastures and an advertising campaign touting the state's "happy cows."


In the mid-1990s, the board began cultivating smaller, artisanal producers and encouraging dairies to start their own onsite "farmstead" cheese-making operations.

"It's been a very concerted, consistent effort," said Michelle Greenwald, a professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business in New York, who uses the board's cheese campaign in class as a marketing success story. "They've left no stone unturned."

Hilmar's factory made 20,000 pounds of cheese a day, five days a week, when it began operating in 1984. It's now a sprawling complex of soaring silos, meandering pipes and milk-filled tanker trucks.

Small cheese-makers, meanwhile, have caught the attention of gastronomes while producing about 10 percent of California's output.
Marin French Cheese Co. in Petaluma took a gold medal for its Triple Creme Brie at the 2005 World Cheese Awards in London, making it the first non-European cheese producer to take top honors in the category.

Another gold medal at those awards went to Modesto's Fiscalini Cheese Co. for its San Joaquin Gold, which began as a failed attempt to make fontina.

Owner John Fiscalini was one of the state's first dairymen to enroll in a cheese-making class started in 1995 by the milk board at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.

He now channels about 10 percent of the milk from his 1,500 cows into cheese production and is seeking the county's permission to expand his cheese-making workshop so he can manufacture even more.
"I just got caught up in some of the ambiance and the romance," Fiscalini said.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/...ifornia_cheese

[redcake]

California has had great cheese for a while now. Sonoma Jack is tasty stuff.

[1.5 million]

While I feel great for California and for all the entrepenurs (like fellow Armenian Anto Baghassarian!) - quantity does not necesarily equate with quality (and I'm not at all knocking the quality of their products...I don't know what it is...) - but bottom line - the French still make - overall - the best wine in the world (obviously with many exceptions - but in general it is true) and they also make their kind of cheese better then anyone (I am more of a fan of harder/aged cheese lover myself - not the young soft cheese type...[though it certainly has its place and can be very yummy!] - and in this regard England rules! ...though Vermont is perhaps a close second in terms of quality)...and I've yet to have a Criossant (or a crepe!) outside of France that really measures up - Ok - well once...but again on average no one does it like the French..so credit where it is due....

[KettleWhistle]

While I feel great for California and for all the entrepenurs (like fellow Armenian Anto Baghassarian!) - quantity does not necesarily equate with quality (and I'm not at all knocking the quality of their products...I don't know what it is...) - but bottom line - the French still make - overall - the best wine in the world (obviously with many exceptions - but in general it is true)

That's very much not true. Actually haven't been true for decades. From top-tier wines to the bottom Californian wines are far better in quality. As for mid-to-low priced wines S. Australia is just as good as must Californian locales. Generally speaking whether you want to spend $10-15, ~$35, or over $100 per bottle, you (generally) get noticebly better quality with Californian wines.

and they also make their kind of cheese better then anyone

That's true for some of their cheeses, but you might be pleasantly surprised by a trip to the Californian dairyland. E. Washington and Montana have pretty good local chese producers too. Those are pretty good in quality, although their assortment is more geared toward traditional American tastes.

[Mira]

Huh? You can't say one region in the world makes "better" wine than another. It depends on the qualities in wine that you like. California wines generally have more up front fruit and French wines generally have more earthy qualities, but you will find these qualities in wine from both countries. The higher end California and Oregon wineries produce bottles that rival the higher end French wines, but I will say that the French are probably better at making consistently better mass produced wines and I'm not sure why that is. California wines generally don't have to be layed down for long ( a couple of years maybe for some and most are drinkable right away) while many higher end French wines take some time to develop. Australia now makes some fo the best Syrahs in the world that can rival anything the French put out and when all is said and done, probably the single most influential factor in wine today comes down to the taste preferences of Robert Parker.

[1.5 million]

Obviously with wine there is the issue of personal preference - including preference for varietal/blend/style - but in fact - if you were to poll wine critics or serious wine enthusiasts - worldwide - I would surmise that you would find very few who would rank wines produced in California (Napa/Sonoma primarily) on par with those produced in France (Bordeau/Burgundy/Rhone - North & South) and just in general. Sure - there are some individual producers (primarily in Napa) who are making exceptional wine...however on average there is a great deal more wine being produced in France which is of superior quality than most produced in California or elsewhere. While I like California wines (and in fact prefer their more fruity Pinots to those of Burgundy - particualrly for the price...and also love various Cabs & Zins and such) there is no question in my mind that I prefer French wines..and even Italian and Spanish to those of California - in general. I particularly like Rhone wines (Cote-Rotie! Chatenauef du Pape! etc) and Sauternes and right bank (primarily Merlot based) Bordeaux - which California cannot compete with in style/quality at this time. I also prefer Barolos/Barberescos (Nebbilio grape) from Piedmont in Italy, Brunnellos (from Tuscany) and Priorat (blended) wines from Spain over most anything from California and certainly would rather do without all California wines then not be able to access and drink any one of these wines. Aussie wines certainly have their place as well - can bu yummy yummy delicious...but again - except for a few producers and their very top limited production vinyards - quality is still not on par with the best of France, Italy or Spain...and neither is California - regardless of what people who have not had proper exposure to these other wines might think.

[1.5 million]

BTW - I am very familiar with the 1976 wine taste off - and in past years I have made it a point to sample nearly all of the wines that participated in that competition (though not those vintages of course). Many of these wines - both Californian and French are represented in my Cellar as well (I'm quite fond of the Montellena in particular - but also own and drink Stags Leap (Stags Leap Vinyard), Mouton, Leoville Las Cases and many of the others...and while I have some wines going back as far as the mid-80s alas I don't own any 70s era vintages..nor any Bordeaux from the lengendary 82 vintage - sorry to say. And while I find that the Cali wines in question are fantastic wines - they still are not equivlant in quality to the Bordeaux - regardless of competition results. The reason is that this competiton is somewhat gimmiky and unfair. California Cabs in general tend to be made in a manner to both show better alone (without food) and to drink better younger. Bordeaux tend to be made to pair with food and require longer aging to show well. So yes - in the snapshot in time - 3 years from vintage (waaay too young for these top flight Bordeaux - but right in the prime window for Cali Cabs) and tasted just on their own (where the Cali Cabs' power overwhelms and the Bordeaux - already way too young and undeveloped fall flat) - well it just isn;t at all a real good test. (I'm talking reds here BTW...though I have to admit to not at all being a fan of California Chardony - which in general is way over oaked and does not go well with most foods - there are far better white wine options available IMO...) Anyway....

edit - correction - some of the Bordeaux were 1970 vintage...still for tasting in 1976 - waay too young. I am currently drinking Bordeaux from 95,96 and 98 vintage with only occasionally opening a 2000 - and then only lesser or more Merlot based wines - no top flight Cabs - I'd be wasting my money spent on them to drink them now...in contrast I'm drinking and enjoying plenty of 2001 & 2002 Cali Cabs (the last vintage I've purchased for Cali is 2002...waiting for another quality vintage)....and while I still own plenty of 96, 97 and 99 wines - all but the best are fizzling out already (99 is drinking great right now...) and I still have plenty of Bordeaux from the mid-late 80s and mid-late 90s that are (all) drinking great...

[KettleWhistle]

Oh, you can easily say that one is better than the other. That's why there are international competitions and wine tastings.

From Wikipedia entry on California wine:

Wine revolution

Some California wine makers began to produce quality wines but still had difficulty marketing them. Frank Schoonmaker, a prominent journalist and wine writer of the 1950s and '60s introduced the idea of labeling wines using varietal (Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Riesling) rather than generic names borrowed from famous European regions ("Burgundy", "Chablis", "Rhine", etc.). Robert Mondavi was one of the first to label the majority of his wines by varietal names and was tireless in promoting the practice.
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the quality of some vintners' wines was outstanding but few took notice. On May 24, 1976, a blind tasting was held in Paris with a panel made up exclusively of French wine experts. After comparing California Chardonnays with the very best French Chardonnays, three of the top four were Californian. Every one of the nine judges ranked Chateau Montelena the highest, Chalone Vineyard came in third and Spring Mountain Vineyard fourth. When reds were evaluated, Stag's Leap Wine Cellars was ranked number one, above Château Mouton-Rothschild, Château Montrose, Château Haut-Brion, and Château Leoville Las Cases, all highly prestigious and very expensive French wines.
The historic Paris wine competition of 1976, called "history’s most important wine tasting" [1], shattered the myth of French wine superiority and revolutionized the world of wine.
Five years after the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976, New York Times wine critic Terry Robards noted that "American wines are often challenging French wines in tasting competitions these days, and the results often suggest that certain carefully chosen California wine are superior to the best that France can offer."
On the tenth anniversary of the Paris competition, the red wines earlier evaluated were re-tested in two separate blind tastings (the French Culinary Institute Wine Tasting of 1986 and the Wine Spectator Wine Tasting of 1986). In both cases, the California wines increased their rankings, apparently having aged better than their Bordeaux competitors.
The Wine Rematch of the Century [2], officially known as "The Tasting that Changed the Wine World: 'The Judgment of Paris' 30th Anniversary," was conducted on May 24, 2006.[3] The event was held simultaneously at COPIA (The American Center for Wine, Food & the Arts) in California and at Berry Bros. & Rudd (Britain’s oldest wine merchant) in London, in association with Steven Spurrier, who created the original Paris wine competition[4]. The California wines increased their rankings, taking the top five of ten ranks, having apparently aged much better than their French competitors.
In Oz Clarke's New encyclopedia of Wine, Mr. Clarke writes that California "was the catalyst and then the locomotive for change that finally prised open the ancient European wineland's rigid grip on the hiearchy of quality wine and led the way in proving that there are hundreds if not thousands of places around the world where good to great wine can be made." He observes that "until the exploits of California's modern pioneers of the 1960's and '70's, no-one had ever before challenged the right of Europe's, and in particular, France's vineyards, to be regarded as the only source of great wine in the world."
Backed by continuing research, California vintners continue to innovate in attempts to further enhance the quality and competitiveness of their products. The story of California wine continues to evolve.

[KettleWhistle]

I prefer my wines by locale rather than by brand. Russian River Valley for whites, Santa Maria valley for reds, Barossa valley for Australian reds, etc. Alexander valley Cabernets are definitely tops.

[1.5 million]

I prefer my wines by locale rather than by brand. Russian River Valley for whites, Santa Maria valley for reds, Barossa valley for Australian reds, etc. Alexander valley Cabernets are definitely tops.

Thats your preference - and thats fine - but none of these areas would be particularly accepted - internationally - as even near the best for the varietals you mention. (OK some great Barossa Shiraz...but even there some of the very best [complex] Aussie Shirazs are being made outside of Barossa...

And your 1976 competion was largely a gimmick. In no way are competions of this wort the way that quality of wine is judged internationally. Most competitions of this sort (though not that one) include only lesser wines and not the best. I have already addressed the shortcommings of this particular competion. However I will say that indeed very good and even quite excellent wine is being produced in California - the best is priced beyond reach for the average consumer - as is true in Burgundy and Bordeaux - though in fact pretty exceptional Bordeaux can be had at relatively bargain prices compared to the price of comparable Napa Cabernet these days....

[Mira]

1.5, any top 100 list whether it is Wine & Spirits, Wine Spectator, Wine Advocat etc...will contain wines from all of the regions you listed throughout the world. That is why I think to say that one region or varietal/blend is better than all others is absurd. Some years are better for one region (you know this). The wine industry is also changing, largely because of people who make these lists, like I mentioned with Robert Parker, and the industry is cattering to the taste preferences of these reviewers. French wine is actually becoming more like California wines for this reason, and the French producers are not very happy about it. That said, if I take a look at what I have currently being stored, the best of what I ahve includes two bottles from Oregon (2002 Penner Ash); and a 2003 Omega Sine Qua Non (and I challenge you to find something better within the price range, this wine is truly special), and some Australian Shiraz (a few bottles from Two Hands and a 2004 Amon-Ra). I spent my university years learning about wine in Sanoma, Napa, and Central Coast. I've had a lot of good California wine. I personally think they have become too expensive, and when I go to a shop I tend to head straight for the Australian section. But that has a lot to do with my tastes conforming to what I have been drinking lately.

[1.5 million]

Its funny that on the list of wines from the 76 competition I've had all of the French wines (again different vintages) and own some of most of these producers as well - but for the American - aside from Ridge, Stags Leap and Freemark Abbey (the latter I've not been very impressed with) - I have never tasted - nor could I remotely begin to afford - the wines of the American producers. All of these are very good wines BTW - and I don't have a good explanation for why the American wines showed better at the retasting - though perhaps 73 was an exceptional vintage in California and 70 and 73 were not so good in Bordeaux (I don't know). And I do not dispute that some small number of California producers are making exceptional wines (they certainly are - and the climate & soil of Napa & Sonoma aren;t at all so bad for winemaking either) - but overall - Bordeaux - along with Burgundy and the Rhone (and I'm a particular fan of the latter) - are still producing higher quality wine then California on average - as well as having a great number more outstanding wines/producers and volume of great wine...

[KettleWhistle]

You're comparing Bordeax and Cabs, and that's not a really good comparison. Bordeax are more like Cali Merlots. And I can't say that I ever had a Bordeax that didn't taste slightly watered down when comparing to Cali Merlots or Cabs. As for Oregon and E. Washington, I've been wine tasting there just this summer. Not bad, but not even close to Californian, despite somewhat cooler climates.

[Mira]

Its funny that on the list of wines from the 76 competition I've had all of the French wines (again different vintages) and own some of most of these producers as well - but for the American - aside from Ridge, Stags Leap and Freemark Abbey (the latter I've not been very impressed with) - I have never tasted - nor could I remotely begin to afford - the wines of the American producers. All of these are very good wines BTW - and I don't have a good explanation for why the American wines showed better at the retasting - though perhaps 73 was an exceptional vintage in California and 70 and 73 were not so good in Bordeaux (I don't know). And I do not dispute that some small number of California producers are making exceptional wines (they certainly are - and the climate & soil of Napa & Sonoma aren;t at all so bad for winemaking either) - but overall - Bordeaux - along with Burgundy and the Rhone (and I'm a particular fan of the latter) - are still producing higher quality wine then California on average - as well as having a great number more outstanding wines/producers and volume of great wine...

I disagree with your view on Rhones. There are a lot of microclimates in Oregon that produce some fantastic Rhone varieties.

[Mira]

You're comparing Bordeax and Cabs, and that's not a really good comparison. Bordeax are more like Cali Merlots. And I can't say that I ever had a Bordeax that didn't taste slightly watered down when comparing to Cali Merlots or Cabs. As for Oregon and E. Washington, I've been wine tasting there just this summer. Not bad, but not even close to Californian, despite somewhat cooler climates.

Did you go to the Wallah Wallah Valley?