Have you ever wondered why a Vidalia onion is sweeter than onions from most other places? Why the Rio Grande Valley produces the tastiest cantaloupes? Why the best coffee comes from beans grown in volcanic areas? Is climate or altitude the determining factor? Is it something unique in the soil? Or has long experience in growing a certain commodity made man the major influence? Questions like these are fueling the latest and hottest controversy in the world of wine--the influence of place on taste.
The operative word here is “terroir” (terr-war). This is a term adopted from French usage that refers to the special, distinctive characteristics of geography that are believed to be imparted to a food product in the growing process. Terroir flavors are generally described as earthiness and minerality—flavors that are unique to their place of origin. For instance, the tasting notes for Chablis commonly refer to it as “flinty”, ostensibly because of the limestone deposits underlying the vineyards. Do soil, granite, and limestone really go from the earth into the grape and thus into a glass of wine? Some experts answer with a resounding “No”. Writing in the Spring edition of the New York Times Style Magazine (May 6, 2007), Harold McGee and Daniel Patterson take on the concept of terroir as the determining factor in taste. McGee is a world-renowned authority on the chemistry of foods and cooking who has written several books on related subjects. Patterson, a wine expert, is the owner and principal chef of COI, a trendy San Francisco restaurant.
It is important to note that this controversy is part of a wider discussion of the direction of modern winemaking. For more on that, see “Mondovino”, the September 2005 edition of this newsletter which is archived at www.frugalmacdoogal.com/wine-letter-archive.html. Traditionalists and purists believe that mass marketing, and ratings gurus such as Robert Parker and Wine Spectator are changing the way wine is made around the world and destroying the individuality represented by terroir. In their view, preferences for concentrated, fruit-forward wines threaten distinctive, diverse local styles with extinction.
Now the modernists are fighting back by saying that there is no scientific basis for terroir, as it is commonly described. In an ironic twist, they accuse the traditionalists of perverted marketing. It is French landowners who have benefited most from the concept of terroir. The French have codified their vineyards into appellations, and created gradations denoting degrees of quality. These are matters of enormous economic consequence.
Photo of Chateau Beaucastel in Chateauneuf Du Pape France by Nancy Cunningham, 2005
As a practical matter, plants do not interact with rocks, but with soil, which is comprised of broken-down rock and organic matter. Minerals are only absorbed by plants after they are dissolved in the soil’s moisture. McGee and Patterson concede that soil minerals can affect the flavor of a wine indirectly by reacting with other grape and yeast substances, or by altering the production of flavor compounds as the grapes mature on the vine. However, they insist that differences in the wine are due to the flavors of fruit and yeast fermentation and not soil, granite, or limestone. They also agree that different soils can produce different flavors from the same grape. They point to a research project in Spain in which two clusters of rootstock from a single clone of Grenache were planted in different soils 1600 feet apart. One was grown in a mineral-rich soil and the other in a poorer soil. The two clones, which were identical, produced grapes with different flavors. Note: I’ve had this same experience with a vintner that bottles two versions of Pinot Noir from adjacent vineyards. The differences are noticeable.
McGee and Patterson do not say that there is no such thing as terroir—just that they’ve never detected any of the qualities associated with it, and that those qualities-if they exist- stem from causes unrelated to those claimed by adherents. Grapes are affected by multiple factors such as sunshine, drainage, soil depth, temperature ranges, pruning, fertilization, spacing, thinning, orientation, slope, and canopy, among others. The timing of picking grapes is always crucial, and the finished wine is affected by many winemaking processes such as crushing, racking, fining, blending, type of fermentation, length of maturation, and exposure to oxygen. Wines represent a complex melding of tradition, culture, and taste. The writers maintain that wines taste the way they do not because of natural settings, but because winemakers have chosen to emphasize flavors that please them. To them, it is human intervention that highlights natural characteristics.
This controversy matters because believers in terroir claim that it results in unique wines that cannot be duplicated outside that area, even if all other factors are exactly the same. Is this assertion valid, or merely a convenient and self-serving marketing ploy? Is it because of claimed terroir that the French put the place where the grapes are grown on the label instead of the name of the varietal? Is this just a matter of the old world saying to the new: “It’s the land, stupid; we have it and you don’t.” We suggest that you conduct your own inquiry. While both California Cabernet Sauvignon (New World) and French “Right Bank” Bordeaux (Old World) usually have other grapes blended with a Cabernet Sauvignon base, they nonetheless provide an enlightening basis for comparison. Then try a Cabernet from Argentina or Chile and notice the difference. The same taste test can be done with Sauvignon Blancs from New Zealand, Chile, or Sonoma.
The argument over terroir may never be settled definitively, because taste is so personal, individual, and subjective. It should be remembered, however, that the human palate can distinguish only four tastes: sweet, sour, salty, and bitter. Since granite, limestone, and other earthy minerals do not seem to fit any of these categories, we must dig deeper into what we know about wine perception. Wine taken into the mouth is identified by receptors in the nose, and the brain then perceives these smells as flavors. Red and white wine tastes and aromas are described variously in terms of violets, black pepper, orange blossoms, rubber, honeysuckle, or leather; or as nutty, burnt, or “barnyard-y”. Those aren’t elements that came out of the earth into the grapes, but rather flavor perceptions that are triggered by the brain. So, is there such a thing as terroir? If you experience it, there is, but don’t try to defend it scientifically!
For A List of Ed Young's Archived Newsletters >click here<
Are You Getting Ed Young's Newsletters? If you want to sign up for Frugal MacDoogal regular e-mails, including Ed Young's monthly letter, click the button below. Enter your email address in the pop-up form box (if your browser blocks pop-ups, temporarily allow a pop-up for this task please). Once you submit your address, a confirmation email will automatically be sent to you. Once you reply to the confirmation email, you are signed up, and you will begin receiving Frugal emails. You may unsubscribe with a single click at any time. Thank You!
