Terroir

[JohnL]

Somehow this seems to make sense to me.

[wkl]

not sure i get your point.

what about single vineyard white and red burgundy? no terrior here because they're not blends?

why wouldn't you get the terrior from a single vineyard estate grown temparanillo?

or are you saying the terrior from a region must be a blend, to show all the character of the region. (as oppossed to a vineyard of the region)

[Don Giovanni]

not sure i get your point.

what about single vineyard white and red burgundy? no terrior here because they're not blends?

why wouldn't you get the terrior from a single vineyard estate grown temparanillo?

or are you saying the terrior from a region must be a blend, to show all the character of the region. (as oppossed to a vineyard of the region)

←

No you have to re-read my post and you will see that a single vineyard is referenced and it's site specific Terroir is mentioned .

[JohnL]

I think there is some confusion over "style" and labeling laws and terroir.

One can make a "Rioja" style wine without using grapes that come from Rioja.

Rioja is also defined by the Spanish wine laws as to what it should be or how it must be made.

Unfortunately, terroir is easily defined but how it manifests itself in wine, how it "tastes" is often confusing, especially when variables such as viticulture and viniculture are considered. Also the complexity of wine--all the chemical compounds that create the smells and tastes/flavors are deceptive and often not what they seem to be. For eg--tasters often cite "minerality" as an indication of terroir. It is technically a result of terroir but for eg, a high acid, low alcohol wine will taste "tart" or have a "tanginess" not as result of minerals in one's glass. The taste impression is a result of weather and drainage and how the grapes developed (certainly an aspect of terroir) but not a result of actual mineral content of the soil manifesting itself in the glass.

[wkl]

okay. sorry if i'm missing your point.

your spanish example says no tatse of rioja if the temparanillo is estate grown, but you get the taste of rioja if you blend from different vineyards. i'm still not seeing what you mean. sorry.

[Don Giovanni]

okay. sorry if i'm missing your point.

your spanish example says no tatse of rioja if the temparanillo is estate grown, but you get the taste of rioja if you blend from different vineyards. i'm still not seeing what you mean. sorry.

←

You can make a wine from the grape Tempranillo from Rioja, if this was estate grown then you will not have a taste of the taste of Rioja, of northern Spain area.

Please read the last few words "taste of Rioja, of northern Spain area" So area meaning Region not some plot of land to taste the Terroir of Rioja of northern Spain area, now that doesn't mean that you still did not get to taste Terroir you only tasted a small area if you taste the single vineyard or two.

[tim]

If you can taste it, then the terroirists have won!

Tim

[Rebel Rose]

I think I see what you mean, Don Giovanni, that there are two types of terroir: vineyard specificity, and regional typicity.

(Also, for anyone who was faked out by the transmutation of Don's thread into this one, I apologize. I was in the midst of merging that thread with this one when I was bumped offline.)

[JohnL]

I think I see what you mean, Don Giovanni, that there are two types of terroir:  vineyard specificity, and regional typicity.

(Also, for anyone who was faked out by the transmutation of Don's thread into this one, I apologize.  I was in the midst of merging that thread with this one when I was bumped offline.)

←

That's what I thought he meant.

Typicity is also similarities--shared attributes or commonalities.

If wine were made exactly the same way from the same grapes (blend or single varietal) sourced from two different places then one would have similarities and differences in the resulting wine's flavors. One would think that the farther apart those places were the greater or more easily recognized the differences and possibly the fewer the similarities (beyond the attributes inherent in the varietal (s).

The problem is this situation does not exist much in the real world and even if it did, humans and their perceptive faculties are imperfect enough to render any conclusions questionable at best.

I always go back to the famous (infamous) tasting of 76.

If "experts" can have difficulty discerning wines from grapes grown thousdands of miles apart then where does that leave us mere mortals?

Then again, I have tasted the rieslings of Zind Humbrecht from the Brand and Rangen vineyards from the same vintage and tasted differences that are striking!

[Rebel Rose]

Good comments, John. This gives rise to a thought that perhaps terroir is most easily distinguished when one is comparing vineyards from the same region.

After all, when comparing regions that are widely separated geographically, the additional factors of winemaking tradition and meteorological differences come into play. So perhpaps it is always easiest to say, "this vineyard tastes different than that one . . . " when tasting similar/same wines in the same region.

I know this holds true for some of the zinfandel and Rhone vineyards we source from here in Paso Robles. We know that Bella Vineyard, a Sauret clone, always has a tobacco-like profile, and that Alto Pomar Vineyard (grenache, syrah, mourvedre) always has a leathery funk, and Benito Dusi zinfandel always has a lighter, brick-like color but layers of briary pepper.

But when asked to compare any Paso Robles producer to a Napa or Sonoma counterpart, I am always stymied as to where to begin . . . Napa is volcanic soils from North American plate geology, and Paso is calcareous soils from Pacific plate geology. Napa has north-south valleys, Paso has east-west wind tunnels. Napa gets more rain, but the clay soils and shale underbellies have poor drainage; Paso gets less rain, but the calcium-rich soils drain almost too well . . .

So the viticultural and winemaking traditions of each region are entirely different, given the challenges producers face. Are these all aspects of terroir? Surely. But it becomes far more difficult to ascertain where the road forks, and why.

[JohnL]

I think the real problem comes in when people try to take a very complex subject and simplify it.

For eg--we often hear about minerality and fruit driven. Usually someone is trying to make a point about terroir.

It is a fact that especially in white wines, high acid and low alcohol results in a sort of "tanginess." --minerality.

In fact, what the taster is experiencing is not the taste of minerals but rather the result of how and to what degree the grapes ripened.

Now a high alcohol low acid wine with tropical fruit flavors is often described as fruit driven.

I would argue, both wines are equally fruit driven and equally expressive of their terroir. The answer is--climate. Mineral like flavors not flavors from minerals.

Wine is comprised of myriad chemical compounds that mimic flavors we can perceive in the wine. bell pepper does not come from actual bell peppers but from chemicals that result in the wine. The way and degree to which grapes ripen has more impact on what we taste than the transference of actual flavors from rocks, dirt, minerals whatever. Soil impacts water retention and drainage most--also very important.

So terroir exists--it has to. Unfortunately, it is often used in service of some silly argument about Old World or New World styles (say isn't the terroir of places in Spain and Southern Italy more akin to the climate in Napa than the Loire?)

Worse, terroir is often used to justify some poor wine making or high prices.

So when I hear fruit driven or terroir driven I accept that the person using the term is attempting to describe the wine's style and what they taste in the wine. I know they are both terroir and fruit driven!

By the way--I am still trying to figure out how saddle leather notes get into wine--I have sniffed a saddle (don't ask it's completely innocent) but I have never tasted one (and don't plan to). wait--wine sometimes evokes a sense of saddle leather! Those pesky chemical compounds! They not only mimic things we can taste but smells as well!!! (I never really believed somehow saddles were being used in vats by wine makers!

Say there are oak chips to add complexity on the cheap. How about using old saddles all shredded up and....

Wallah! Your crappy two buck Rhone Ranger will have the complexity of ....

[MaxH]

This gives rise to a thought that perhaps terroir is most easily distinguished when one is comparing vineyards from the same region.]

Greetings and I'm glad to hear you come around to that view, because I was thrown by the earlier assertion

According to an earlier poster, French wines will always be superior to Californian because they're, well, French.

Post # 9

pointing to an original (Post 9) where I found the poster commenting only on a theory of

why French wines have more local personality than California wines

(emphasis added). I don't read that comment to claim French wines are "superior to" California wines (nor read the same into your own recent comment above, which isn't inconsistent with Post 9). Post 9 seemed to me, rather, to suggest why a relatively small region, like the Côte de Nuits, has such sharp local differences, even between nearby vineyards with the same grape.

Which it dramatically does: I've had that demonstrated unforgettably when a director of a firm in that same region challenged some American visitors to identify a wine's vineyard (and year) blind, and an amateur who likes the region's wines but seldom plays that "guessing game" even in tasting groups (yo!) did so. No one was more surprised than I (who had never tasted that vineyard's wine from that producer and rarely from any producer). I'd say I've had more trouble identifying wines from far-flung regions I don't know, than from compact regions I do.

JohnL keeps asserting about "the famous (infamous) tasting of 76. If 'experts' can have difficulty discerning wines from grapes grown thousdands of miles apart then where does that leave us mere mortals?" I don't know where the assumption comes from. My reading of the 1976 Spurrier tasting (especially in years soon after it, when the event was often reported in more nuance and detail than recently) was that it was a straight quality ranking, not a challenge to sort terroir, making the comment a straw man.

[Rebel Rose]

Here's a free tip:

French grapes struggle with bad weather, no irrigation, hungry crows. California grapes are pampered with water, sun, heat. There is no question why French wines have more local personality than California wines.

Hmm. So bad weather, dryfarming and crows only exist in France? Are these the reasons for vineyard specificity? I think not.

Otherwise, Max, I see your point. Perhaps he meant . . . "when faced with equal challenges, viticultural sites will reflect their terroir . . . "?

[MaxH]

Hmm.  So bad weather, dryfarming and crows only exist in France?

I don't take the comment that way at all. I take it to reflect well-known data. Here's one facet, for example:

Geisenheim (Rheingau), 1709 Fahrenheit degree-days annually

Tirer (Mosel district), 1730

Beaune (Burgundy), 2400

Healdsburg (Sonoma County), 2918

Livermore, 3260

Fresno, 4680

(For anyone new to this, it's a basic measure of cumulative annual exposure of grapes to temperatures above the ripening threshold of about 50 deg F. Grapes are sharply sensitive to this, different varieties produce good wines in different degree-day ranges). Those numbers (from a popular book 66 years ago, Schoonmaker and Marvel, with Lichine etc -- same folk who established "varietal" labeling) led to prescient predictions of which parts of California would make the most subtle wines, and warnings that delicate German-style Rieslings, for instance, would prove harder in California because the climates predispose those grapes toward higher-alcohol wine.

The Côte d'Or has ghastly sleety winters and autumn hail, compared to the districts (I know them well, I grew up nearby) producing the most comparable wines in California. All that Mark Sommelier cites is that California is quantitatively easier for wine grapes than some old-world districts are, and I've seen many writings from California saying the same. He then speculates in his upshot that these greater stresses induce sharper local differences. That's all I take from it, anyway.

[Rebel Rose]

these greater stresses induce sharper local differences.   That's all I take from it, anyway.

An interesting theory, and a traditional one. But what is a "greater stress"?

Lack of drainage? Look to clay soils over volcanic hardpan, as in Napa. Too much drainage? Look to steep, calcareous hills like the Santa Rita and Santa Lucia foothills of California. Which are similar to parts of France and Australia, where the Pacific Plate has curled up against a continent, creating marine embayments like the Puget Sound, and then receded, leaving calcareous and limestone rich fossil-studded soils. Early season frosts? Too much rain? Too little rain? Gentle heat and longer daylight as in Washington State and Germany, or less daylight and more intense heat as in central California and the Rhone?

It is a pretense that only France "suffers" and therefore experiences more "character" in her vineyards.

[MaxH]

1. MS, 13Nov03: "French grapes struggle with bad weather, no irrigation, hungry crows. California grapes are pampered with water, sun, heat. There is no question why French wines have more local personality than California wines."

2. RR, 27Mar06: "According to [posting above], French wines will always be superior to Californian because they're, well, French."

3. MH, 12Apr07: "I don't read [comment above] to claim French wines are 'superior to' California wines ..."

4. RR, 12Apr07: "Hmm. So bad weather, dryfarming and crows only exist in France?"

5. MH, 12Apr07: "I don't take the comment that way at all."

6. RR, 12Apr07: "It is a pretense that only France 'suffers' and therefore experiences more 'character' in her vineyards."

I confess. I'm lost here. I'm not Mark Sommelier and I don't argue for him or necessarily agree with him. I do wonder how to get [2] from [1] above, or to read an assertion of "only France 'suffers' " in any of the above, without bringing in assumptions "not in evidence." (As also in the separate case I cited, of turning the 1976 Spurrier tasting into a question of terroir identification.)

Bonus data:

RR, 28Jul05: "Ten years ago, only a handful of California wineries bothered to make vineyard-designate wines."

I checked my wine inventory from 23 years ago. Of 24 California bottlings kept, eight had vineyard designations. A minority (reflected also in the published comprehensive reviews of current California wines in those days, which I also could show you) but not all that rare, and this was much more than 10 years ago.

[Rebel Rose]

"French grapes struggle  . . .

California grapes are pampered."

First of all, I'd like to say that Mark (who seems to be long gone from this forum) is entitled to his opinion. However, this statement is a very good, and clear, example of a misconception that I do take exception to simply because it is still so frequently encountered.

It is true that many Frenchmen envy California. Some have moved here to start vineyards and wineries. But at the same time, Italian and Swiss immigrants chose the central coast regions because of its familiar Mediterranean climate and soils, and this similar climate also presents its own set of growing challenges. French producers who have moved here to pursue winemaking have done so not because the climate is easier, but for the creative freedom.

Is it a valid assumption that California grapes are pampered? Certainly, some vineyards in this huge region are overcropped or overwatered. There's a lot of so-so wine in California. As in France. And there are many excellent vineyards . . . dryfarmed, headtrained, old vine, stress-irrigated, maintained by hand, etc. These vineyards face blistering spring rains and wind that interfere with pollination and fruit set. Killing late spring frosts (a special concern this year). Cold vintages with autumns that shut down ripening. Heat spikes in summer. Wild boars, bear, deer, all types of fruit-eating birds of which the most damaging is the European starling, gophers, oak root fungus, phylloxera, glassy-winged sharpshooter, gophers, syrah decline, mildew, wells poisoned with boron salt, gophers. Earthquakes. If your well pipe has been S-curved, then you know there's now a new fault right below your vines--possibly an air bubble that may kill the roots of established plants. Flooding rivers in Napa that wash topsoil away and destroy swaths of vineyard rows with heavy debris and mudslides.

There are very distinct vineyard and site characteristics here. It isn't the growers who are learning this . . . it's the public--primarily wine writers and sommeliers.

Part of the problem is that many people who have never been to California view it incorrectly. I sometimes get phone calls from people who say, "Yes, I'd like to fly into Los Angeles in the morning, visit a few wineries in Santa Barbara, then stop by your place in Paso Robles, and finish with a few stops in Monterey before heading up to Napa." When I explain that they are looking at a 12-hour drive without stops I hear a gasp.

People wil begin to understand California terroir when they stop comparing chardonnays from Santa Barbara and Monterey, for instance, and focus on comparing wines that are only a few miles, or even feet apart.

[JohnL]

"Pampered"???

By whom? By mother nature?

I think that the concept of terroir is a valid one. Ithink it has been misused and confused.

First, to say that some wines express it and others do not is just wrong.

California has no terroir? Ridiculous. Even if the grapes in California were grown hydroponically there would be terroir.

I recall an interesting quote from a noted grower/wine maker (I believe it was Tom Rocchioli) who noted that he could make a better pinot noir by blending wines made from grapes of his various vineyards but he could charge more for a wine made from a single vineyard--many in the market believing that wines from a single vineyard were somehow better than a wine that carried no such designation.

I believe that the French have had a great impact on how the rest of the world "sees" wine. There are many benefits form this view but also a downside.

terroir has been oversold and twisted to be things that it is not.

Interestingly, with all the terroir talk, the most interesting thing to emerge from blind tastings like the famous 1976 event--IMOP--is that all the proponents of terroir had quite a bit if difficulty in discerning the terroir of wines from grapes grown thousands of miles apart.

It's time to start putting terroir into proper perspective.

[MaxH]

Thanks Mary for that cogent summation. I have the impression that not just "terroir" but terroir controversy is perceived differently by different folks.

My perception of French terroir view comes mostly from informal contact with winemakers in only one region (Burgundy). Its vineyards have been cultivated for an interval in the low thousands of years, sometimes by the same family for several hundred years. These people express devotion and humility, likening themselves (repeatedly) to midwives. In earlier times they might have said "God makes the wines, we just try to clear the way." Obsessively they fine-tune their cultivation of grapes matched to the land over centuries [1]. History, and perpetual optimization on small land plots, surely contribute to the sense of "place" there which (FWIW) I hear in terms much like yours: "comparing wines only a few miles, or even feet apart."

If Mark were here, he (rather than we) could elucidate his brief comment. It reminded me not of what might be wrong with it, but of expert comments that aren't very controversial and could have underlain it. Bob Thompson examined California vintage history (what's wrong and right in the old industry slogan "every year is a vintage year" there). First citing glaring exceptions, he then mentioned "a climate that ripens grapes for winemaking more reliably than in any part of Europe, including such sheltered districts as Italy's Piedmont, or France's Rhone." Maynard Amerine (hardly hostile to California wine!) punctuated a comparison of old- and new-world growing zones with comments like "Hail is rare in California" and "winter killing of vines is not a problem." 30 years of reading such comments instills sympathy for others consistent with them.

... I sometimes get phone calls from people who say, "Yes, I'd like to fly into Los Angeles in the morning, visit a few wineries in Santa Barbara, then stop by your place in Paso Robles, and finish with a few stops in Monterey before heading up to Napa." When I explain that they are looking at a 12-hour drive without stops I hear a gasp.

Ain't it the truth. Growing up in California (and long appreciating its wines) but living also in other parts of US I am used to distant people projecting, say, New England geography intuition onto a much larger state. Los Angeles and San Francisco are separated roughly like Boston and Baltimore, yet some people suppose them suburbs of each other.

[1] "In Europe, a region and a grape variety are substantially synonymous." -- Bob Thompson.

[JohnL]

Thanks Mary for that cogent summation.  I have the impression that not just "terroir" but terroir controversy is perceived differently by different folks.

My perception of French terroir view comes mostly from informal contact with winemakers in only one region (Burgundy).  Its vineyards have been cultivated for an interval in the low thousands of years, sometimes by the same family for several hundred years.  These people express devotion and humility, likening themselves (repeatedly) to midwives.  In earlier times they might have said "God makes the wines, we just try to clear the way."  Obsessively they fine-tune their cultivation of grapes matched to the land over centuries [1].  History, and perpetual optimization on small land plots, surely contribute to the sense of "place" there which (FWIW) I hear in terms much like yours: "comparing wines only a few miles, or even feet apart."

Allow me to interject a bit of cynicism here. "God makes the wines..."

Really, then one would think these humble servants would abhor the widespread practice of chaptalization! After all, God would probably frown upon someone "sweetening" up his (or her) grape juice for the purpose of making a profit!!! 

How about adding a "touch" of wine from Algeria or Italy?

These folks are also not beyond over cropping that precious soil, requiring government intervention regarding yields etc.

If Mark were here, he (rather than we) could elucidate his brief comment.  It reminded me not of what might be wrong with it, but of expert comments that aren't very controversial and could have underlain it.  Bob Thompson examined California vintage history (what's wrong and right in the old industry slogan "every year is a vintage year" there).  First citing glaring exceptions, he then mentioned "a climate that ripens grapes for winemaking more reliably than in any part of Europe, including such sheltered districts as Italy's Piedmont, or France's Rhone."  Maynard Amerine (hardly hostile to California wine!) punctuated a comparison of old- and new-world growing zones with comments like "Hail is rare in California" and "winter killing of vines is not a problem."  30 years of reading such comments instills sympathy for others consistent with them.

... I sometimes get phone calls from people who say, "Yes, I'd like to fly into Los Angeles in the morning, visit a few wineries in Santa Barbara, then stop by your place in Paso Robles, and finish with a few stops in Monterey before heading up to Napa." When I explain that they are looking at a 12-hour drive without stops I hear a gasp.

Ain't it the truth. Growing up in California (and long appreciating its wines) but living also in other parts of US I am used to distant people projecting, say, New England geography intuition onto a much larger state. Los Angeles and San Francisco are separated roughly like Boston and Baltimore, yet some people suppose them suburbs of each other.

[1] "In Europe, a region and a grape variety are substantially synonymous." -- Bob Thompson.

←

We know that the amount of stress on vines produces better quality wines. I believe that people trying to make a political point often like to compare the best of the old world in counterpoint to the worst of the new world (and vice verse).

Bulk wines made in the fertile soils of California's very hot growing regions are better compared to bulk wines made in the old world, not fine Burgundies.

If one visits the better vineyards in California, one will see vines just as stressed as any in the old world. "Pampered?" by whom? Certainly not nature. try climbing (even with the help of an automobile) the vineyards of Howell Mountain or Chalone or Mt Eden or maybe where Flowers grow their grapes. these are not locations where grapes are "pampered."

Taste a cabernet from the Rutherford bench vs one from the Santa Cruz mountains (or Howell Mt)

and of course one will taste the results of terroir.

Climate is an issue. In Burgundy the wine makers have to battle the fact that often the weather creates less than optimum ripening. In many other places (California) where the weather is not as extreme, wine makers battle grapes that often achieve ripeness too soon.

But this is not an "old world" vs "new world argument. many of these problems are shared by wine makers in Italy and Spain. Why not compare wines from France (Burgundy or Bordeaux) with wines from Spain or Southern Italy? Or even Southern France where a sea of insipid wine is produced? (just as insipid as the bilk wine produced in California--proving just about every country is capable of producing insipid wine!).

The whole "new world" vs "old world" debate in an attempt to make a political case one way or the other is IMOP, tired and never had much validity. I suggest we start looking at warm climate wines vs cooler climate wines. Most everyone would agree that there is a difference no matter which world the wines come from.

[MaxH]

We know that the amount of stress on vines produces better quality wines.

Good: Then we're agreed, concisely.

(My postings quoted above had little to do with Old/New world political games, no one would accuse me of that -- let alone Amerine or Thompson! -- who has gotten what we wrote. My comments were, rather, to the disparate readings-in of possible meanings and motivations of a previous poster's brief comment. As you can see, this is a steady issue.)

Cheers -- M

[Don Giovanni]

Talk Dirt to Me NYT

Grape minerals and mineral flavors are also strongly influenced by the grower and winemaker.

, why have so many brilliant and passionate wine professionals been so eager to attribute solely to nature what is actually the result of hard work by talented winemakers?

Click On Me

On 'Apr 5, 2007' JOHN ZUCCARINO (vindication) wrote:

Terroir thru blending ?

[Mallet]

Superbly written.

We don’t taste a place in a wine. We taste a wine from a place — the special qualities that a place enables grapes and yeasts to express, aided and abetted by the grower and winemaker

[Rebel Rose]

I agree. I think Talk Dirt to Me is a really well-written article on the topic, although I am sure those who insist that you can "actually taste the soils in a wine" will criticize it, having to now defend their previous staunch (and unfounded) opinions.

It's interesting that when (some) people encounter pleasant minerality, like flint, wet stones, etc., they will insist that it is due to the soils. But you never hear anyone attributing flavors of clay or mudstone to the wine . . . yet some of the finest wines in the world are grown on subsoils of clay and mudstone/siltstone. So the concept that the soils somehow travel like like little brown clots up through the vine, into the berry and into the resulting wine, is a nonsensical, romantic notion.

It's the interaction between the soil and the vine that create a particular, recognizable character in a wine. This character can be carefully emphasized, or completely overwhelmed, by viticultural and winemaking choices.

All in all, another pleasantly written, yet definitive essay from Asimov. Sometimes I wonder if people don't take him seriously because his writing style is relaxed and approachable--however when he takes the time to tackle a difficult or highly technical subject I think he does an excellent job of explaining these subjects.

[JohnL]

That is not Asimov.

Though Mr Asimov has written some very fine pieces.

The article linked is by the Food Scientist Harold Mc Gee whose seminal work is

"On Food and Cooking--The science and lore of the kitchen"

He co wrote the piece with Daniel Patterson chef and owner of the restaurant "Coi" in San Francisco who also wrote the book "Aroma" which explores the relationship between food and fragrance.

Edited May 7, 2007 by JohnL (log)