Monthly Archives: August 2012

Wine Blog Research Survey – Deadline September 1st, 2012

Posted on August 31, 2012 by Becca| Leave a comment

“Like” The Academic Wino on Facebook by clicking here! 

Follow The Academic Wino on Twitter by clicking here! (@TheAcademicWino) 

While I don’t have researched post for you to share today, I did want to let you all know about a survey for wine blog readers currently going on.  Well, it is currently active until tomorrow, September 1st, as that date is the deadline for all surveys to be completed.

You may or may not recall from my Summary of the Wine Bloggers Conference Part II, there is an ongoing study investigating the motivations of blog creators as well as the perceptions and motivations of blog readers.  The researchers contacted hundreds of bloggers and blog readers and asked them to fill out a survey was many questions aimed at answering the aforementioned questions.  The preliminary results of this study have found a few important factors that most influence wine bloggers, however it is not let clear how blog readers place value and importance on specific blog characteristics.  

That being said, the research team is  actively recruiting blog readers to complete the survey, as the sample size is not yet large enough to perform statistical analysis on the results. 

You have until tomorrow, September 1st, to fill out this survey.  It shouldn’t take you more than 15 minutes tops.  

Simply by completing the survey, you are entered into a drawing to have the chance to win $200 worth of wine from your favorite wine store!

Here is the link to the survey:  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Oregon2012

Please complete this survey ASAP, and tell them that The Academic Wino sent you!

Cheers!

Posted in Other

Tagged , , , , ,

Selective Harvesting: Is It Right For Everyone?

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Becca| 2 Comments

“Like” The Academic Wino on Facebook by clicking here! 

Follow The Academic Wino on Twitter by clicking here! (@TheAcademicWino)

When it comes to selective harvesting methods in the vineyard, there is an assumption that these methods may not be economically feasible for large quantity-producing wineries, as selective harvesting almost always requires more time, effort, and man-hours in executing.  Past research has found that the yield and quality of grapes is highly variable in the vineyard, which gives opportunity for winegrowers to better manage their resources and harvest practices for the desired quality of wine produced.

What is “Selective Harvesting”?

http://www.boordy.com/files/2020-682×600.jpg

Selective harvesting is defined as the split picking of fruit according to their yield and quality, in order to monopolize on a specific quality level in the grapes, and ultimately, finished wine.  This is sometimes achieved by sorting the grapes in the field into different bins depending on quality criteria, or by harvesting different sections of the vineyard at different times, again depending on quality criteria.  Studies have shown that grapes harvested from different portions of a vineyard may have significant chemical or sensory characteristics, which are often due to variations in the land and soil underneath the vineyard.

Selective harvesting may be problematic at times, as sometimes a winery may only have access to a single crusher or a minimum tank size of 75 tons, which can make separating grapes into two bins at harvest an issue, as well as filling a single tank with enough juice from a smaller selective harvest.  One study demonstrated that a 3 hectare low-yielding vineyard could not produce enough grapes to fill a fermentation tank with juice, which may make selective harvesting of smaller areas difficult when only certain sized tanks are available for use.

Perceptions of Selective Harvesting in Australia

In general, Australian wineries have the view that selective harvesting is only appropriate for small boutique wineries, or very large wineries that have access to a wide variety of equipment.  Those wineries in Australia’s inland warm irrigated region, according to the authors of the study presented to you today, are under the assumption that selective harvesting is not within reach.  It is because of this assumption that Bramley et al, 2011 sought to examine this assumption more closely, and to either support or refute the idea using field experimentation and economic analysis.

How did they do it?

The vineyard for this study was a Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard, planted in 1994, and located at the Deakin Estate in the Murray Valley of northwest Victoria, Australia.  Plant vigor and grape yield was calculated using remotely sensed digital multispectral video imagery, as well by using mechanical harvesters with GPS and Farmscan equipment.  Zones within the vineyard were characterized by being either high-yielding or low-yielding based on information gathered by the aforementioned methods.  After determining the yield would be too low for the fermentation tanks at the low-yield site, another low-yield site (harboring grapes with very similar characteristics as the grapes from the original low-yield site) from a Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard at Deakin Estate was also included in order to obtain the minimum yield necessary to fill the fermentation tanks available.

http://c257.r57.cf3.rackcdn.com/6a98f6760fb19152dc75da79
118f657e1311415816-1301584591-4d949acf-620×348.jpg

Grapes were monitored throughout the growing season, and were harvested at 24 oBrix.  12 random bunches were collected from each zone in order to measure bunch weight, mean berry weight, juice Brix, pH, titratable acidity, anthocyanins (color), and phenolics.  Wines were created from bow low-yield zones and the high-yield zones in small-lot winemaking methods and also at the commercial scale.  For small-lot winemaking, 200kg of grapes were harvested then subsampled into three 50kg batches, and malolactic fermentation was not allowed to occur.  Commerical wines were made in 75 ton fermentation tanks which were filled for high-yield zone wines and filled only to 51 tons for the low-yield zone wines.  Malolactic fermentation was allowed to proceed for the commercial wines.  Standard winemaking procedures were used for all wines.

Experimental wines underwent a sensory analysis by 25 untrained panelists and Compusense Five (a sensory software tool).  For each comparison, the first sample presented was the reference sample, which was followed by two other samples, one of which was the same as the reference sample.  Panelists were asked to smell and taste the samples and to identify which sample was the same as the reference sample and were asked to provide the reason for their choice.

What did they find?

  • First and foremost, the authors noted a strong similarity between the remotely sensed data and the data collected from the GPS located on the harvesting machinery.  This provides evidence that the zones were actually separated properly into low-yield and high-yield zones. 
  • Wines created from the low-yield zone and wines created from a mix of low-yield zones were not significantly different, indicating that it was appropriate to mix the two low-yield sites without lowering the overall quality of the wine.
  • The wines from the high-yield zone tended to be more acidic and astringent than the wines from the low-yield zone.
  • When wines were made commercially, there was a significant different between wines made from high-yield zone grapes and wines made from low-yield zone grapes.  The low-yield zone grapes tended to be fuller bodied and less astringent, and with a fruitier aroma than the high-yield zone grapes.
  • Bunches from the high-yield zone were larger than those from the low-yield zone.  However, anthocyanin and phenolic concentrations were higher in wines made from low-yield zone grapes compared with high-yield zone grapes.  This result suggests greater wine quality in low-yield zone wines.

What do these results mean?

First, the results show that there are significant differences in yield and grape quality throughout different sections of a vineyard, which supports the need for purposeful zone delineation via posts, wires, or other means to separating sections of the vineyard.  Taking this one step further, another important result from the study is that if using remotely sensed data, it should be confirmed via ground-truthing (i.e. collecting information on the ground) to be certain the vineyard is being properly delineated.

The authors note that selective harvesting gives the winemaker greater control over the final blend of the wine, and ultimately the overall quality.  What many Australian winemakers are concerned about is the overall effect of cost when implementing such a strategy.  Even after taking in the harvest cost, the cost of small-lot winemaking, the harvest cost related to differing yield sizes, and total retail values (less expensive versus high-end prices), the researchers found that there was a total net benefit to a selective harvesting strategy.  See the table below (Table 2 from Bramley et al, 2011) for exact costs and benefits calculated.

Table 2 from Bramley et al, 2011

What about those vineyards that don’t make wine themselves?

There are many vineyards in Australia (and other places of the world, for that matter) that grow grapes to sell to other wineries, and not to make wine themselves.  Thereby, they do not have the added revenue of wine sold to add into the cost-benefit equation.  The authors were well aware of this fact, and performed a similar economic analysis to the one just mentioned, except leaving out the cost of winemaking and any potential wine revenue.  Even after taking these things into consideration, the researchers found that selective harvesting results in an increase in net financial benefit by more than 9% (in this particular example).  See the table below (Table 3 from Bramley et al, 2011) for exact costs and benefits calculated.

Table 3 from Bramley et al, 2011

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that the notion that selective harvesting is only feasible for larger wineries with a variety of equipment sizes or small boutique wineries is incorrect, and that selecting harvesting may be financially feasible and beneficial for those wineries who undertake more large-scale production methods (at least in warm inland irrigated regions of Australia).  It is important to note that in order to maximize the benefit of selective harvesting, detailed analysis of the vineyard to delineate yield and quality zones must be confirmed using both remote sensing data and data collected directly from the ground.

Overall, I found this study interesting in that it showed that selective harvesting may be an option for all types of wineries, and is not limited to only those wineries with a greater variety of equipment or small boutique wineries.  One needs to remember, however, that this study occurred in a very specific wine region (warm inland irrigated region of Australia), the results of which may or may not be extrapolated to all wine regions around the world.  More research would need to be done to determine if this sort of harvest method is appropriate for wineries in any given wine region.

What do you all think of this topic?  If you’re curious to know more details about the methods or results of the study, please feel free to ask and I’ll see what I can find!

Please feel free to leave your comments below!

Reference:

Bramley, R.G.V., Ouzman, J., and Thornton, C. 2011. Selective harvesting is a feasible and profitable strategy even when grape and wine production is geared toward large fermentation volumes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 17: 298-305.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-0238.2011.00151.x


 I am not a health professional, nor do I pretend to be. Please consult your doctor before altering your alcohol consumption habits. Do not consume alcohol if you are under the age of 21. Do not drink and drive. Enjoy responsibly!

Posted in Viticulture

Tagged , , , ,

The Neuroscience of Wine Tasting: Dissecting the Intricacies of the Minds’ Eye

Posted on August 27, 2012 by Becca| 17 Comments

“Like” The Academic Wino on Facebook by clicking here!

Follow The Academic Wino on Twitter by clicking here! (@TheAcademicWino)

Last week, I attended the annual Wine Bloggers Conference in Portland, Oregon, which you may read all about in my two part summary series here: Part I and Part II.  I wanted to take one particular experience from the conference and elaborate a little more.  Specifically, I’d like to present to you the fascinating research by Tim Gaiser on the Neuroscience of Wine Tasting and some of the interesting findings that have come out the study.

What is the purpose of this research?

http://www.anselmovineyards.com/
wp-content/uploads/wine-tasting-classes.jpg

The most important implication for this research is in the art of teaching tasting.  According to Gaiser, the challenge of teaching wine tasting to individuals is complex: 1) we have to try and present to students our own vocabulary and experiences for wine, which may or may not resonate with each individual mind; 2) each individual student has a different neurology from everyone else, as well as different memories and experiences; and 3) we have to come up with a way to find the common denominator for tasting, so that each student may more easily learn using their own personal experiences instead of using other people’s experiences that have been impressed upon them. Thus, the overall goal of the research is to improve upon the way we teach wine tasting so that the students learn in a shorter period of time and learn to utilize their own memories and experiences.

How did he do it?

In order to find this common denominator, Gaiser set out to examine the strategies/neurological connections of some of the best wine tasters around the world.  What were the individual strategies of these professional wine tasters?  How are their neurologies connected to allow them to pick out intimate details about the wine?  How can we use this information obtained from the experts to teach others how to taste?

2009 Film Session Results

In recorded tasting sessions with Tim Gaiser in 2009, with the help of Behavioral Scientist, Tim Hallbom, it was found that eye positions and patterns are critical to experienced tasters, and olfactory cues (smells) trigger a specific image memory connection to the tasters which allow them to identify a particular smell or taste from the wine. 

http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2×3798802/
man_smelling_glass_of_red_wine_in_
off-licence_side_3043.jpg


After the film session results, Gaiser set out to repeat the 2009 Film Session experiment with several wine experts. What he found is that these positions and images are unique for every single individual taster, which means finding the common denominator for teaching purposes even more difficult.  In order to find this commonality, each experience needed to be broken down in a sort of sequence, in order to perhaps create a teachable sequence for new and training tasters.  Specifically, the experience was broken down into the following categories: language usage and patterns, eye movements and patterns, olfactory images, internal image maps, and visual constructs for calibrating the structure of the tasting experience.

What were the findings?

One interesting outcome of these tasting sessions was that not only to do individuals make different connections and have different experiences during tasting, but they also taste differently depending upon the reason for tasting.  Were they tasting for pleasure? As a buyer? As a wine reviewer? For teaching purposes?  Depending upon the reason for tasting, the individual strategies of each taster was slightly modified.

One of the first things each taster would notice prior to tasting the wine was the color.  This visual cue gives hints as to how old the wine is, possible grape varieties, and possibly the style of winemaking used.  The tasters were able to identify these characteristics by referencing internal color swatches in their memories from previously experienced/tasted wines.  Often, an internal auditory prompt (such as “what color is this?”) would initiate the image recollection process for identifying certain characteristics elicited from the wine.

Moving on to smelling the wine, Gaiser noted that all of the tasters used an extremely consistent starting eye position or pattern when smelling the wine.  Most tasters had a sort of forward and down eye position while smelling the wine, while one taster appeared to have a darting around-type eye movement position.  This starting position is the place of focus and concentration, and the position which elicits the olfactory image recollection connections in the brain.  Similar to the color, nearly all tasters experienced an auditory prompt in addition to the eye positions to get the tasting started (i.e. “what does this smell like?”).

EXERCISE
How about you?  Where is your starting eye position? 
Take a glass of wine (in a standard wine glass).  Now, simply go about your usual method for smelling the wine.  Where do you notice your eyes are? This position is imprinted in your neurology and wherever you notice your eyes are positioned is the position that elicits the olfactory connections in your brain.  For me, this position was down and slightly centered in front.  You are allowed to close your eyes if that is more comfortable, but note your eyes are still in a particular position.
Once you find this position, keep smelling the wine while moving your eyes in a different position.  Do you notice any change in the aroma?  For me, I noticed that the smell almost went away completely when I changed the position of my eyes.  What did you experience?

Eye Assessing Cues

This study of eye patterns is not new to the study of neurology, as many books and scholarly articles have presented results showing relationships between eye movements and internal memories/representations.  During the 1970s and 80s, several collaborating researchers found that eye pattern movements were associated with the activation of different parts of the brain.  These patterns are near consistent across many individuals, however, for left-handed individuals (such as myself), these patterns can be reversed.  Even if an individual recalls visual cues in a different pattern, this pattern is at the very least consistent and repeatable.  Read this article by Robert Dilts for a more detailed analysis on this research by clicking here.

Courtesy: Robert Dilts (see link above)

Olfactory Image Connections

Another interesting finding from Gaisers’ research is that all tasters represent specific aromas and flavors of the wine with internal images or words, or a combination of the two.  These images were both still or moving, depending upon the individual taster.  Also, these images varied in size, location, color and brightness.  Gaiser also found that there was a relationship between the intensity of the aroma and the structure of the image.  These images are presented in a particular sequence for each individual taster, which combine to be what is referred to as an “image map”, which was found to be unique and vary dramatically from individual to individual.

EXERCISE:
After finding your eye position, go ahead and smell the wine.  What do images do you see?  What sort of pattern do you see these images?  How about the size of the images?  Does the main characteristic of the wine present itself as a very large image? Or perhaps not large but maybe very brightly colored?  What do you see in your minds’ eye? 
For me, I only saw words, which was relatively frustrating since nearly all of the others in the room saw bright and vivid images.  I wonder if my experience was so different because I’m left-handed, or maybe I haven’t had the experiences necessary to elicit the appropriate image for the aroma of that particular wine.
Now, try changing these images.  If you see the image as large and up close, try shrinking the image by moving it further into the background.  What happens to the aroma?  Does it change?  Does the aroma become less pronounced and harder to smell?  Is the image in color?  What happens when you change this image to black and white?  How did the aroma change?

Altering Images

Interestingly, this research found that changing the images in one’s mind changed the tasters’ experience of the wine.  Related to the palate versus the nose, a stronger intensity on the palate versus the nose resulted in the image increasing in size, brightness or location.  As one would expect, a lower intensity on the palate versus the nose resulted in the image decreasing in size, brightness or location.

Structure of Wine

The structure of the wine also elicited image recollection for each individual taster.  For some tasters, a sort of ruler or other calibrating image was presented in the mind, and depending upon the structure of the wine, the focal point of the image would change.  For example, for acidity, one taster saw a 12-inch ruler with marks on it for low, medium, and high. After tasting the wine, the taster was able to focus on and point to a particular point on the ruler in order to identify the acidity of the wine.  Similar mechanisms were found for alcohol content, tannin, and finish.

Example of an image elicited for structural identification in wine tasting

How do these results help us teach others about tasting wine?

According to Gaiser, the results of this study indicate that we should teach students to identify color and age in wine using color spectrums and swatches.  We should also help students become aware of the aroma-to-image connections they already have in their mind, and to utilize these images to identify aromas and flavors in the wine.  The students should be presented with images in order to create new memories in their psyche, particularly if they’ve never experienced a particular aroma or flavor on their own.  Finally, Gaiser claims we should teach students how to taste without wine, as well as teach students to calibrate the structural elements of wine by using internal visual scales.

What are your thoughts?

What do you all think of this research?  Of course, it was not a controlled experiment, thereby the results have to be taken with a grain of salt, but regardless, I found the results very fascinating and worthy of future experimentation and research.   I think it’s a great idea to teach students to utilize their own memories and experiences when tasting the wines, and when these memories and experiences do not exists (say, if they’ve never had a fig before and the main flavor component of the wine they are tasting happens to be fig), they should be given the opportunity to create new image maps in the mind by tasting these elements outside of the wine format.

I did leave slightly frustrated, however, in that I never saw images when smelling the wine.  Gaiser noted later in a question-and-answer session that these images are moving at an extremely fast pace, so perhaps I have not yet learned to slow down these images to a point where I can see them.  I did, however, see words pop up instead of images, which perhaps may be the way my neurological connections function in this type of olfactory recollection.  He mentioned left-handers may experience things differently than right-handers, so perhaps this is another reason why I wasn’t seeing what most others were seeing.  A controlled experiment may get at these types of questions.

I am very interested in hearing what you all think of this research.  Please leave your comments below!

References

“The Neuroscience of Wine Tasting: Unlocking the Tasting Strategies of Genius”. Tim Gaiser, MS. Presentation at the Wine Bloggers Conference August 18th, 2012, Portland, Oregon.

“Eye Movements and NLP” by Robert Dilts: http://www.nlpu.com/Articles/artic14.htm Accessed August 26, 2012.


 I am not a health professional, nor do I pretend to be. Please consult your doctor before altering your alcohol consumption habits. Do not consume alcohol if you are under the age of 21. Do not drink and drive. Enjoy responsibly!

Posted in Neuroscience

Tagged , , , , ,

Summary of the Wine Bloggers Conference 2012: Part II

Posted on August 23, 2012 by Becca| 9 Comments

This post is two of a two-part series that briefly summarizes my experiences at the Wine Bloggers Conference in a light-hearted manner.  These posts will be followed later by a more academic/scientific analysis of specific events of the conference, as well as my plans for expanding The Academic Wino blog.

 I realize I promised Part II the day after I posted Part I, but alas, all this traveling has made me slightly ill and I did not have the energy to complete the post in time!  My sincere apologies!  I’m still feeling a bit under the weather, but hopefully I’m well enough to make this post somewhat coherent!   Click here to read Part I of this summary series.

Tasting wine with Luke from Wine Country BC
(photo courtesy Jeff from Conscious Wine)

As you may or may not recall, Friday night, “The Night of Many Bottles”, was not attended by yours truly, as my body had pretty much completely shut down after the sleep deprivation from my travels and only slightly due to the copious amounts of wine consumed throughout the entire day.  Granted, I spit nearly all of the wine I was offered, save for the wine served at dinner, however, alcohol is still absorbed through the pores in the tongue thus likely contributing to my fatigue at the end of the evening!  Anyhow, sleep found me and I was very quickly taken away to “la la land” for some much needed rest.

Waking up Saturday morning, I had surprisingly had enough energy to venture out on a quick run along the river.  I enjoyed seeing all of the runners, walkers, and cyclists out for their morning routines, and caught a quick glimpse of what life could be like in the great city of Portland.  I only wish I had more time to experience the pleasures this city had to offer!

Feeling refreshed after my run, I launched back in to conference mode.  I was really excited about Saturday’s agenda, as this was the day my inner nerd would shine!  Before lunch, I attended two breakout sessions: 1) “Are We Wine Writers or Wine Bloggers?”; and 2) “Research on Wine Bloggers”.  The first session elicited much debate over whether or not we can call ourselves writers, or if we’re only bloggers, the conclusion of which was left relatively uncertain.  Is “wine blogger” to “wine writer” as “bartender” is to “sommelier”? Should there be more strict rules in regards to who can call themselves a wine blogger/writer?  How does one shift from being a wine blogger to a wine writer, or are these terms one and the same?  There were many answers and many opinions, and the debate will surely rage on for the foreseeable future.

The second breakout session, “Research on Wine Bloggers” was a very fascinating look at an ongoing research study investigating the motivations of blog creators as well as the perceptions and motivations of blog readers.  The researchers contacted hundreds of bloggers and blog readers and asked them to fill out a survey was many questions aimed at answering the aforementioned questions (I was one of the bloggers that participated!).  The preliminary results of this study have found a few important factors that most influence wine bloggers: including helping others, community building, self-promotion, and career-building. 

The study also aimed to address the importance of blog characteristics for readers, as well as what influences reader satisfaction.  This study is still actively recruiting blog readers to complete the survey, as the sample size is not yet large enough to perform statistical analysis on the results. 

ATTENTION BLOG READERS!!  If you are interested in participating in this research and contributing in the name of science, please spare about 15 minutes of your time and complete the survey at the following address:  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Oregon2012  .  Please help in the name of all things science!

Food trucks in Portland

After lunch, which was spent with some of the lovely ladies from Women Wine Writers at some of the famous food trucks of Portland, I really got my nerd on by attending and thoroughly enjoying the breakout sessions entitled: “Neurology of Wine Tasting”.  A more detailed post regarding this session will come later, for certain, though I’ll start now by saying I was blown away with the information that was presented at that session.  Our brains are incredible organs, and the connections create extremely fascinating mechanisms for learning and retaining certain information.  Specifically, we learned that certain visual pathways are tightly connected to wine tasting, and that even the position of your eyes during the tasting makes a huge difference in how you perceive the aromas and flavors of the wine to be.  I’ll leave you with that little teaser, and present a more detailed analysis of this topic in a later post.

The final breakout session I attended was the “Monetization” session.  More self-serving and much less nerdy, I was curious to see how others were monetizing their blog, and how I could even grow my blog regardless of if I made any money off it.  The idea of creating a book was discussed in great detail during this session, and is an idea that I am strongly considering for The Academic Wino.  Perhaps a book highlighting the state of research related to wine, splitting up the chapters into different areas of research.  This idea is currently in the brainstorming stage, thus will be quite some time before a book coalesces, but alas, stay tuned!

Tasting a 1964 Faustino
(photo courtesy Palm Bay International)

 

The other point that stuck with me the most during this session was the point about promoting yourself and not simply your blog.  When I first started The Academic Wino, I thought I would remain relatively anonymous as a person.  However, after attending this session and after meeting with and talking to many other bloggers, it appears as though it is very common to tie the blog with the person relatively tightly.  My first step to start promoting myself as The Academic Wino, instead of being The Academic Wino without an image, was to use my own photograph as the avatar on my Twitter account, instead of simply using my logo.  I’m sure it’ll be difficult at times to promote myself more than or as much as The Academic Wino, as some of you might know already I tend to be relatively modest and undersell my own personal successes and talents.  This is definitely something that I’ll continue to work on as I grow the blog.

Rex Pickett signing autographs!

 

After the breakout sessions, we listened to an amazingly entertaining keynote speech by Rex Pickett, author of the novel “Sideways” and the new novel “Vertical”.  In a question-and-answer session, moderated by Alana Gentry from Girl with A Glass, Rex Pickett proved to be an amazing entertainer and a person I surely will never forget!

The evening wrapped up with another Live Blogging session (this time with reds), the Wine Bloggers Awards (congratulations to all the winners!), and finally an amazing 5 course dinner with wine pairing by King Estate Winery.  They truly know how to serve and entertain, and I thank them a thousand times over for being there and serving dinner to 350 wine bloggers!  After dinner, I surprisingly had enough energy to attend a few after parties, where I sampled amazing wines from all over the world, most notably the 1964 Faustino which was brought to us by Palm Bay International Fine Wines and Spirits. 

Attending the Wine Bloggers Conference in Portland, Oregon was truly an amazing experience, and I am eternally grateful to all of the donors who contributed to the Wine Bloggers Conference Scholarship this year.  Without your generous donations, I would not have been able to attend this life-changing event, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Thus ends the “brief” summary of my experience at the Wine Bloggers Conference 2012 in Portland Oregon.  Stay tuned for selected detailed posts surrounding specific talks at the conference in the coming weeks!

Don’t forget to “like” The Academic Wino on Facebook (click here) and follow The Academic Wino on Twitter (click here)!

Cheers!


Posted in Other

Tagged , , , , ,