Aaaagh well, back to "terroir".

Thinking caps on folks, Jamie Goode dives into terroir again!

http://www.wineanorak.com/winecourse/20 ... pt-in.html

As far as I'm concerned there is nothing controversial in what Jamie writes here.

At a down-market level there can also be man made typicity, e.g. in the industrial Aussie wines which used to grace the ranks of UK super-markets could be recognised anywhere seeming to be made to a standard recipe of ripe primary sweetish fruit, acid adjustment, aggressive perfumes (cultured yeast induced?) and American oak. Even budget wines made by Aussie winemakers in Europe had this taste. No sense of place here but a very recognisable style.

I use the past tense because for many years I take trouble to avoid wines like this and it is possible that some improvement may have occurred without my noticing it.

Hi Tim,

Yup, I agree.

I recently translated a book on Biodynamic agriculture for winemakers - let's not get into the pros and cons of the philisophy,
pretty please, as it's at best tangential to the topic.

In that book the author claims that it's the vines that contribute to creating their own terroir. We all know that vine roots are capable of descending DEEP into the subsoil and, if the soil isn't cultivated in such a way as to create a barrier between topsoil and subsoil, it makes sense that the bacterial and/or fungal activity that takes place around the roots and allows them to make use of minerals will both penetrate downwards and upwards driven by the vines themselves.

His thesis was, of course, that feeding fertilisers to the plant tends to keep roots much nearer the surface, and therefore actually allows the subsoil to revert to the pre-vineyard state (non terroir) state that it had before the vines were planted.

as I said, I'm not arguing for or against biodynamics, but I found the idea that vines are partially responsible for the terroir to be very interesting. It also explains why increasingly winemakers here in France are using massal selection rather than clonal selection for replanting their vineyards.

Ian, I'd venture to say that current theory around here (here being the US west coast) follows pretty closely to what you're saying...first, in that the vines contribute to creating their own terroir (how could they not, since they are the aggressive part of the plant), and second, that fertilizing tends to work on the surface, and therefore superficial portion, of the plant, when it is seen as necessary that the plant 'burrow' its root system further down.

There's been quite a lot of discussion/theory recently about the organic/bio farmers resisting the new "organic fertilizers", claiming both what your author did about keeping the roots from going deeper and insisting that such fertilizers were merely a return to "input substitution" or quick fixes, and denied the whole philosophy of what organic/bio farming was supposed to be all about.

The other element involved here is that avoidance of fertilizer and insistence on creating a "terroir" of life around the plants vastly increases the natural biomass, and thence diversity, in and around the plant. So with increased biomass there is a greater influence on and involvement in, the terroir. In other words, yes, the vine does create its own terroir, its own unique circumstances.

Hi Hoke,

I'd venture to say that current theory around here (here being the US west coast) follows pretty closely to what you're saying

Now that's fascinating. A real convergence of ideas. And while there is some cross fertilisation of ideas between Burgundy and the Willamette (for obvious reasons) Burgundy isn't renowned for its adoption of organic/biodynamic principles, so this convergence is more likely to be the practical experience of wine growers in different parts of the world, rather than theory-led experimentation.

Very interesting indeed (to me - as a newly promoted geek! )

Is it really that easy to take man out of the “equation”? At the beginning it was “natural selection”, but then as the vines became “domestic” it was “selection by man”.

Salute

Is it really that easy to take man out of the “equation”? At the beginning it was “natural selection”, but then as the vines became “domestic” it was “selection by man”.

It's very difficult to take man out. Man decided which clones (and varieties of course) should go into which vineyards. Man certainly created micro climate by pruning (which Jamie counts as terroir), and to an extent also the meso climate by deciding on row and vine spacing. Albeit unwittingly, the yeast flora in winery equipment is created by man.

While I think in principle terroir should be the bit of winemaking that man does not control - otherwise the term becomes all-encompassing - in practice it is very difficult to draw the line.

Is it really that easy to take man out of the “equation”? At the beginning it was “natural selection”, but then as the vines became “domestic” it was “selection by man”.

It's very difficult to take man out. Man decided which clones (and varieties of course) should go into which vineyards. Man certainly created micro climate by pruning (which Jamie counts as terroir), and to an extent also the meso climate by deciding on row and vine spacing. Albeit unwittingly, the yeast flora in winery equipment is created by man.

While I think in principle terroir should be the bit of winemaking that man does not control - otherwise the term becomes all-encompassing - in practice it is very difficult to draw the line.

Absolutely, Steve. After all, if it wasn't for man, those vines would still be growing up trees in forests. Mankind has the ability to alter the conditions of the environment, and thus create a new environment.

The fact that mankind didn't really know what they were doing (except in the larger gross sense) most of that time, doesn't change the fact that mankind was dictating how the vines would develop.

And, hey, all this stuff is schizoid anyway...you'll find Napa growers and winemakers blathering on about "terroir" being paramount---then following current trends and allowing the fruit to hang and sweeten up into raisins before they pick it, so they can make fruit bombs with high alcohol. What shines then, the terroir or the trend?

Is it really that easy to take man out of the “equation”? At the beginning it was “natural selection”, but then as the vines became “domestic” it was “selection by man”.

It's very difficult to take man out. Man decided which clones (and varieties of course) should go into which vineyards. Man certainly created micro climate by pruning (which Jamie counts as terroir), and to an extent also the meso climate by deciding on row and vine spacing. Albeit unwittingly, the yeast flora in winery equipment is created by man.

While I think in principle terroir should be the bit of winemaking that man does not control - otherwise the term becomes all-encompassing - in practice it is very difficult to draw the line.

Piling on here, Steve, I agree. If it were not for the intervention of man, v. vinifera would be growing in those locations that provide maximum fecundity. The fact that we find vines growing on the roasted slopes of the Rhone Valley -- a location that IMO shows as much terroir as anywhere -- owes much (if not all) to human intervention.

Mark Lipton

Is it really that easy to take man out of the “equation”? At the beginning it was “natural selection”, but then as the vines became “domestic” it was “selection by man”.

It's very difficult to take man out. Man decided which clones (and varieties of course) should go into which vineyards. Man certainly created micro climate by pruning (which Jamie counts as terroir), and to an extent also the meso climate by deciding on row and vine spacing. Albeit unwittingly, the yeast flora in winery equipment is created by man.

While I think in principle terroir should be the bit of winemaking that man does not control - otherwise the term becomes all-encompassing - in practice it is very difficult to draw the line.

Piling on here, Steve, I agree. If it were not for the intervention of man, v. vinifera would be growing in those locations that provide maximum fecundity. The fact that we find vines growing on the roasted slopes of the Rhone Valley -- a location that IMO shows as much terroir as anywhere -- owes much (if not all) to human intervention.

Mark Lipton

Yup.

Add Douro. Madeira. Pantelleria. Some of the more precipitous slopes of the Mosel.

[David M. Bueker]

The more I talk about and think about terroir the more I believe that we overstate the case when we go beyond the soil & the basic climate (not weather) & exposure of the site. Too many other things change to be included for me.

I'd agree for the most part there's nothing controversial there, and there are good points made by many above.
But there was one statement I found myself robotically nodding along with, as it fits with Conventional Wisdom. but then I started rethinking a bit. "some varieties tend to express a sense of place better than others. Pinot Noir, Riesling and Syrah are good in this respect, Cabernet Sauvignon, Sauvignon Blanc and Chardonnay are not. " Certainly PN and Riesling are usually the first candidates put forward in a discussion of "transparency" (by me, too!). But I think it might be overstating the case to say that Chardonnay is not good about expressing a sense of place. I mean, Chablis vs Cote de Beaune vs Sonoma vs Santa Barbera? For that matter, Puligny vs Meursault? Or even Les Folatieres vs Les Perrieres, or Montmains vs Vaillons.
Similarly, NZ vs Loire vs CA SB (or Sancerre vs Quincy, or individual areas within Sancerre). Hard to say Martha's Vineyard doesn't show a sense of place for CS (or Graves, even in a blend).
It's not that I disagree with his general point, I just think the wording overstates the case a bit.

I like and agree with Jamie Goode’s primary definition of “terrior”. (Note I highlighted the word “wine”).
“Terroir is the possesion, by the wine, of a sense of place.”

Salute

I agree also that little is controversial here, so it was a nice read. Having said that, it was closing that was perhaps more thought provoking. I do not (as of yet) agree with the "potential" use of Typicity. Typicity for me is on average what is the varietal expected to produce. So for me, a typical Cabernet Sauvignon is suppose to be grown in typically warm places of X- definition (yes that in itself is already a bit selective but let say for arguement that something can be agreed with) and when grown in such average conditions, the wine will be expected to perform like, Y with the following characteristics. This allows me to see an average or an expected outcome for the varietal and when the location or "terroir" changes, then the description is about the differences. i.e rutherford cabernet exhibits a certain sense of rutherford dust,...... or cabernet sauvignon grown for Musar exhibits a ...etc,... As such, typicity is meant to be a reduced term of averages and expectations versus being inclusive of terroir and then some.

I'd agree for the most part there's nothing controversial there, and there are good points made by many above.
But there was one statement I found myself robotically nodding along with, as it fits with Conventional Wisdom. but then I started rethinking a bit. "some varieties tend to express a sense of place better than others. Pinot Noir, Riesling and Syrah are good in this respect, Cabernet Sauvignon, Sauvignon Blanc and Chardonnay are not. " Certainly PN and Riesling are usually the first candidates put forward in a discussion of "transparency" (by me, too!). But I think it might be overstating the case to say that Chardonnay is not good about expressing a sense of place. I mean, Chablis vs Cote de Beaune vs Sonoma vs Santa Barbera? For that matter, Puligny vs Meursault? Or even Les Folatieres vs Les Perrieres, or Montmains vs Vaillons.
Similarly, NZ vs Loire vs CA SB (or Sancerre vs Quincy, or individual areas within Sancerre). Hard to say Martha's Vineyard doesn't show a sense of place for CS (or Graves, even in a blend).
It's not that I disagree with his general point, I just think the wording overstates the case a bit.

Very good point. Looking at the transparency issue from the other side, perhaps it's not so much a matter of how reactive a grape is to soil - perhaps they all are equally so - but of how loaded a varietal is with indigenous (i.e., soil independent) characteristics that might interfere with our perception of what comes from the soil and what comes from the varietal (assuming the distinction can be made).

Terroir landscaping, what the heck is next...dynamite!!

http://www.wineterroirs.com/2009/11/lan ... .html#more

Terroir landscaping, what the heck is next...dynamite!!

http://www.wineterroirs.com/2009/11/lan ... .html#more

Fascinating, thanks for the link.

I guess you didn’t read “The Winemaker’s Dance- Exploring Terrior in the Napa Valley” by Jonathan Swinchatt and David G. Howell”. The use of dynamite was fairly common practice where needed (in higher altitude areas where there was very little “topsoil” and the actual bedrock was just inches from the surface) to blast through the bedrock so that the vines root system could penetrate it.

Salute

Terroir landscaping, what the heck is next...dynamite!!

You'd better believe it, Bob. Or how about cannons?

http://www.batterieberg.com/

That's not just fanciful decoration: it celebrates the use of cannons to terraform a hillside. The phrase "it's more common than you think" couldn't be more true.

Mark Lipton

Terroir landscaping, what the heck is next...dynamite!!

You'd better believe it, Bob. Or how about cannons?

http://www.batterieberg.com/

That's not just fanciful decoration: it celebrates the use of cannons to terraform a hillside. The phrase "it's more common than you think" couldn't be more true.

Mark Lipton

When cannon are used to disperse clouds bearing hail in Piedmont, is that interfering with terroir?

David wrote;
Too many other things change to be included for me.

Nature itself is very dynamic. Nothing in nature is really static we live in an ever-changing world.

Salute