I would love to know how Grgich blocking the final section of the bike path plays into their claimed environmental focus. How does making every visitor to their winery drive make their winery more sustainable and better for the environment?
They are forcing a realignment to the other side of the highway, knowingly making the cost prohibitive and making the bike path less safe and likely much less traveled due to the dangers of multiple highway 29 crossings on the busiest stretch.
I don’t have an answer for you, but I bet it’s more than you assume and fewer than I’d hope. But, how many would if they could bike safely along the area of the valley that has the most wineries? The bike path shifts the type of rider from road bikers to the Sunday Funday types who would spend money at wineries. Bikers spend 40% more on average at local shops than drivers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/16/cyclists-spend-40-more-in-londons-shops-than-motorists/
No, but it makes it seem like lip service instead of an actual commitment to broad sustainability—which takes an entire community’s focus and effort. The first time they’re mildly inconvenienced for the better of everyone, not just themselves, they balk?
Do you know all their reasons? I suspect they would say they've been plenty inconvenienced many times before this. The investment in regenerative practices is significant. No one would do it if they were only thinking of profit, that's for sure. So you do ALL the things? I myself do many things that are beneficial for the environment, but certainly not all. Not even close. That's a long list. But does that mean the efforts I do make should be discounted?
There’s no doubt that investing in regenerative processes are important, time-consuming, and potentially costly, but there’s also the lucrative benefits from this style of farming, which the article covers extensively. There absolutely is a profit motive both from savings on the farming side and the press from taking such actions. There may also be altruism baked into these decisions, but if it didn’t make financial sense, it wouldn’t happen.
As for being inconvenienced, they haven’t had to do any more than any other winery in the valley—actually less than most considering they’re grandfathered in under different rules than new wineries.
If the approach to being a good steward of the land is “I’ve got mine; you do yours,” then, at the very least, it appears self-serving.
Your cynicism is disheartening. Anyone undertaking regenerative farming deserves great applause for taking the risk with absolutely no certainty of financial reward. Should that reward eventually come to pass, then that serves not only themselves, but perhaps has encouragement for others to also engage in the practice. All but the chemical companies live better without the toxins as well as greater carbon sequestration. Cheers to that!
We appreciate this dialogue and the issues raised. We will explore further and report back with any findings. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns. Thank you. This is an important matter.
Thank you again for a very informative and interesting article about how one Valley winery is approaching their land and grapes. I learned more than I knew before about regenerative land management, and I appreciate the approach. I will look at their land differently the next time I am in the Valley.
As we are all aware, many vineyards are farmed organically but have not gone through the certification process. So doing your due diligence as a consumer and buying what your philosophy dictates is your job in the development of better farming practices.
I would love to know how Grgich blocking the final section of the bike path plays into their claimed environmental focus. How does making every visitor to their winery drive make their winery more sustainable and better for the environment?
Thank you for sharing. What do you mean by “blocking “?
They are forcing a realignment to the other side of the highway, knowingly making the cost prohibitive and making the bike path less safe and likely much less traveled due to the dangers of multiple highway 29 crossings on the busiest stretch.
How many people do tastings and buy wine on bikes?
Interesting observation. But as they say in the piece, there is value in building relationships.
I don’t have an answer for you, but I bet it’s more than you assume and fewer than I’d hope. But, how many would if they could bike safely along the area of the valley that has the most wineries? The bike path shifts the type of rider from road bikers to the Sunday Funday types who would spend money at wineries. Bikers spend 40% more on average at local shops than drivers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/16/cyclists-spend-40-more-in-londons-shops-than-motorists/
Does the bike path issue negate the regenerative practices?
Another interesting question. I wonder what our readers think?
No, but it makes it seem like lip service instead of an actual commitment to broad sustainability—which takes an entire community’s focus and effort. The first time they’re mildly inconvenienced for the better of everyone, not just themselves, they balk?
Do you know all their reasons? I suspect they would say they've been plenty inconvenienced many times before this. The investment in regenerative practices is significant. No one would do it if they were only thinking of profit, that's for sure. So you do ALL the things? I myself do many things that are beneficial for the environment, but certainly not all. Not even close. That's a long list. But does that mean the efforts I do make should be discounted?
There’s no doubt that investing in regenerative processes are important, time-consuming, and potentially costly, but there’s also the lucrative benefits from this style of farming, which the article covers extensively. There absolutely is a profit motive both from savings on the farming side and the press from taking such actions. There may also be altruism baked into these decisions, but if it didn’t make financial sense, it wouldn’t happen.
As for being inconvenienced, they haven’t had to do any more than any other winery in the valley—actually less than most considering they’re grandfathered in under different rules than new wineries.
If the approach to being a good steward of the land is “I’ve got mine; you do yours,” then, at the very least, it appears self-serving.
Your cynicism is disheartening. Anyone undertaking regenerative farming deserves great applause for taking the risk with absolutely no certainty of financial reward. Should that reward eventually come to pass, then that serves not only themselves, but perhaps has encouragement for others to also engage in the practice. All but the chemical companies live better without the toxins as well as greater carbon sequestration. Cheers to that!
We appreciate this dialogue and the issues raised. We will explore further and report back with any findings. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns. Thank you. This is an important matter.
Have you found anything to update?
Not yet.
I start to understand the return to the first principles. Thank you.
Thank you again for a very informative and interesting article about how one Valley winery is approaching their land and grapes. I learned more than I knew before about regenerative land management, and I appreciate the approach. I will look at their land differently the next time I am in the Valley.
As we are all aware, many vineyards are farmed organically but have not gone through the certification process. So doing your due diligence as a consumer and buying what your philosophy dictates is your job in the development of better farming practices.