The eternal battle between science proven and unproven has a new stage Ð over a fence in Margaret River. On one side of the fence is the renowned Cullen vineyard Ð a pioneer in Australian viticulture not only for its pre-eminent status as one of the finest original vineyard sites in the region, but also for its emphasis on sustainable and natural management techniques, including its high-profile adoption since 2003 of the biodynamic methods of Dr Rudolph Steiner. On the other sits a property once owned by the Cullen family but at which its new owner, Murray Burton (a major stakeholder in Ferngrove and Killerby) wishes to establish a cellar door for his winery interests, with a restaurant. And a brewery.The Cullen camp is deeply disturbed that the microbiological output of the brewery, especially brewing yeast, will be introduced to the microfauna of the local environment. If this happens, the argument goes, ‘fugitive’ brewery yeast could contaminate neighbouring properties, and in doing so, alter the ‘natural’ yeast populations of these sites, especially the Cullen vineyard, which is fully reliant on its natural yeast for its winemaking. This natural yeast, argues the Cullen camp, is a crucial part and parcel of their ability to express the vineyard’s terroir and unique typicity in its wine. Murray Burton has spent a great deal of money to design a waste disposal system whose deliverables exceed the requirements of the WA Departments of Health and Water. He believes the chances of a contamination of brewery yeasts Ð which could include the species brettanomyces that is very threatening to wine quality Ð is ‘very remote’ and that his advice says there is ‘no possible chance’ of it occurring. Any yeast leaving the brewery, he says, will be examined under a microscope. If it’s alive, he says, it would be destroyed first.If anyone can produce any scientific evidence to show that the risk is genuine, Burton says he would consider it. But he believes there is ‘simply no evidence to support’ the Cullen position, and argues that it’s not possible to design a system to combat an issue ‘that doesn’t exist’. There is a chicken and egg analogy to all of this. If Burton is correct, the contamination issue will never arise. If, however, the Cullen position is correct, one could assume that this vineyard’s ability to produce the quality expected of it in the way its owners want it to, could be seriously compromised. On one side of the fence is an environmental fear, backed by some science; on the other side is a determination to develop a modern concept, which is backed by other science. If the science that wins out is the science that favours the development, the situation will doubtless demand close and attentive monitoring. And if it goes wrong, the Cullens will know just how the residents of the beaches of Louisiana and Mississippi must be feeling right now.
