BR: Terroir & Other Myths of WineGrowing by Mark Matthews

Finally....just completed my read of this book. It was a tough slog. Overall, I thought it was a very good book and worth reading by any wine geek. Unfortunately, it covers a lot of territory and it's hard to grasp it all in just one read. This is one of those wine books that I have to read again or a 3'rd time to fully comprehend what he has to say.
Mostly, the book is about bridging the (vast) gap between what Science knows about growing grapes and what is the perceived wisdom that we all "know". He does a very thorough job of going thru the popular wine literature, mostly the oeno-babble of the wine writers. As we say in epee.."easy target". And some of that stuff he cites & skewers is laughably naive. But some of the topics he addresses is also things that all the grapegrowers & winemakers "know" to be the truth. He delves quite a bit into the history of grapegrowing and how many of these myths for old times came to be repeated & repeated until they became common knowledge as the "truth". To his credit, he acknowledges that behind many of these myths lies a certain grain of truth.

1. The first chaptre focuses on attacking the HYLQ (High Yield=Low Quality) and BBB (Big Bad Berries). He even takes on PaulDraper & DaveGates. He delves a lot into the grapevine biology and cites some evidence that this may not be the case.

2. In this chapter, he takes on the issue of "vine balance" and how many regard this as so important to quality grapes to give quality wines. He points out that it's not so simple as reducing yield or balancing shoot growth/leaves to clusters to achieve quality grapes.

3. In this chapter, he takes on the critical ripening period and stressed vines and physiological maturity. He points out that by the time the grapes are ripening, much of their composition has already been established. That the flavor components are not marching in lock-step to the rise in sugars.

4. Finally, Chaptre 4 addresses the "myth" of terroir...easily the most controversial part of the book and what has caused most of the popular wine writers to get their knickers in a knot over his book. He traces the evolution of "terroir" from the olden days (when I first used the term) of "gout de terroir" when it was a pejorative term to describe the earthy/loamy flavors of a underipe wine that was lacking in fruit. And he, rightfully so, skewers the oeno-babble of MattKramer (again.."easy target") on the subject of terroir. Much of the discussion of terroir in popular literature describes how the minerals are transported directly from the soil into the grape (the "chalky" flavor of Chablis), a belief that few hold anymore. He credits the French for successfully transforming the term "terroir" from a pejorative into a successful marketing tool, via the AOC system. I particularly like the quote: "...terroir begins when someone is selling wine". He has a great deal of ridicule for Steiner & BioDynamics (again.."easy target").
So....does Matthews totally deny the existence of terroir. Not in the least. He acknowledges that the growing environment of the grape is crucially important to the quality of the wine. He simply questions some of the more ludicrous claims that are made by the proponents of terroir.

So...all in all....Matthews book is a very good read...a read that you can't wrap your arms around in just one read. It's clear that he, as a scientist, has a great deal of contempt for much of what is written in the popular wine literature. As I do, too. Some of the stuff I read causes me to roll my eyes and think "what a crock".

Does he successfully & convincingly shatter all these myths that we, as wine geeks, know to be the "truth"? I would say not. But it does raise some questions in my mind as to some of these issues that we wine geeks "know" to be "truth". And how bad is that??

I would very much love to hear some of the folks, like PaulDraper/DaveGates and CaroleMeredith, weigh in with their thoughts on Matthew's book.
Tom

Thank you for that review.

Sounds like a book that pretty much has my take on any of the subjects I have formed an opinion on. And it is not just about myth-busting. Not sure whether that means I am more or less likely to get much from it. I'll probably try to read it when I have cleared my current back-log in wine book reading.

Strangely though, some of the "myths" you describe as easy targets still seem to have a lot of traction. I'm thinking particularly about biodynamics, though I'm getting the impression that us Europeans (or should I be saying "them Europeans" now, with impending Brexit?) are more likely to fall for it than Americans.

I am becoming more and more convinced that some of these ideas are myths in a sense that is deeper than just a false belief. They are more akin to stories told to offer a quasi-religious explanation for differences between wines, and society's relationship with wine and viticulture. They are explanations that were never meant to be scientific. I suppose I am mainly thinking about terroir and biodynamics here.

Sorry - all a bit waffly, and my ideas are not fully formed - but hope you see what I am trying to say.

Thank you for that review.

Sounds like a book that pretty much has my take on any of the subjects I have formed an opinion on. And it is not just about myth-busting. Not sure whether that means I am more or less likely to get much from it. I'll probably try to read it when I have cleared my current back-log in wine book reading.

Strangely though, some of the "myths" you describe as easy targets still seem to have a lot of traction. I'm thinking particularly about biodynamics, though I'm getting the impression that us Europeans (or should I be saying "them Europeans" now, with impending Brexit?) are more likely to fall for it than Americans.

I am becoming more and more convinced that some of these ideas are myths in a sense that is deeper than just a false belief. They are more akin to stories told to offer a quasi-religious explanation for differences between wines, and society's relationship with wine and viticulture. They are explanations that were never meant to be scientific. I suppose I am mainly thinking about terroir and biodynamics here.

Sorry - all a bit waffly, and my ideas are not fully formed - but hope you see what I am trying to say.

Steve,
His contempt for BioDynamics, in all its glory, is patently obvious. Mostly based on the quasi-religious aspects of Bio. That's the "easy target" part for anyone w/ a scientific bent. But you & I both know that there are very successful vnyds that are farmed Bio & that you can't argue w/ the results.
Tom

The wines are what the wines are, and many are good. But there are still many arguments and discussions to be had about the extent to which BD per se is responsible for the quality of the wines. Also indeed even what biodynamics is meant to achieve. I am not sure Steiner really had wine quality (is the sense most of us think about it) in mind when he proposed his ideas.

Are there any aspects specific to BD that are not quasi-religious? Composting and reducing the use of chemical treatments do not count - they are encompassed also by organic framing and general "looking after your vineyards"

Tom Hill wrote;
He delves quite a bit into the history of grape growing and how many of these myths for old time’s came to be repeated & repeated until they became common knowledge as the "truth". To his credit, he acknowledges that behind many of these myths lies a certain grain of truth.

That is so true, that could be said about a lot of things (fairy tales about Dragons). Man’s fundamental learning began with observation and trial and error, separating those things that worked and didn’t work. Before the age were one can go to a gardening center and buy root growth hormone liquid, my Grandfather and his father just knew that a piece of gauze and corn kernel worked just as well. Maybe they didn’t understand why it worked but they knew it bettered your chances of a cutting taking roots.

Salute