Terroir story - oh my...

Mark Davis

Mark Davis
By Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- Geologists say wine critics may be stretching things a bit when they talk about the soil giving a vintage a distinct flavor.

KGW file photo

Wine critics often use the French phrase, "gout de terroir" , which means "taste of the soil."

But scientists who met in Portland this week for the annual Geological Society of America conference say much of that taste may be imagined.

The geologists say wines may vary in levels of dissolved minerals, but those variations aren't related to the levels in vineyard soil.

And they say the concentration of minerals in wine is below the threshold of human taste and smell.

"I am not saying that chemistry and geology have no effect on the wine. It may have effects that we don't understand," said geologist Alex Maltman.

"But whatever 'minerality' in wine is, it is not the taste of vineyard minerals," he said.

Debunking mistaken notions about terroir -- how landforms, soils, climate and other local conditions define the character of wine -- was one goal of the scientists during the meeting.

"When people talk about terroir, it all sounds very fancy and all very marvelous and it makes it sound like we really know something. But I guarantee you, we know very little," said Jonathan Swinchatt, a geologist and consultant to several high-end California vineyards.

Swinchatt, however, said he's found subtle differences in soil texture that make a huge difference in grape quality in California's Napa Valley.

One grower told Swinchatt about a "sweet spot" in his vineyard that consistently produced his best grapes. By digging pits across the vineyard to study the soil, Swinchatt found that the sweet spot coincided with a clear geological feature: ancient volcanic debris lay much shallower there than in the rest of the vineyard.

At another Napa site, vines growing on adjacent, similar-looking gravel-and-sand soils produced grapes consistently different in character.

Swinchatt found that the two soil areas had different geologic histories: Floods laid down one, while volcanic debris flows deposited the other.

"Some factors in the geology are reflected in the winemakers' tastebuds," Swinchatt said.

For example, the soil's water-holding capacity can make a difference. Different soils create better or worse conditions for roots and the fungi that help roots extract nutrients. But scientists have barely started to explore these factors in vineyards.

Climate also is shaped by geology. In eastern Washington, the landscape is wrinkled into giant folds by north-south compression of the bedrock. As a result, "there are spectacular differences in climate over small distances," said Kevin Pogue, a geologist at Whitman College in Walla Walla.

Pogue found one site that enjoys on average 65 more days without frost than another just a mile and half away.

In Oregon's Rogue Valley near the California border, climatologist Greg Jones of Southern Oregon University combined information from soil surveys, climate records, zoning and other sources to map areas most likely to produce excellent wine grapes.

Jones found that more than half of existing vineyards are planted on land that is only marginally suitable for growing grapes. Nearly a third of the planted acreage is mismatched to climate: Cool-climate grapes such as pinot noir are growing where it's too warm, and varieties requiring more heat are growing where it's too cold.

Scott Burns, a geology professor at Portland State University who helped organize the session, conducted a test that did little to settle the question. He offered fellow scientists wines made in the same style from the same pinot noir clones on two different soils: volcanic jory versus marine-sediment Willakenzie soil.

In a show of hands for a taste test, geologists picked the Willakenzie 40 to 15. But Burns, who has repeated the test with other audiences, said the running score is close to 50-50.

"Nobody is right," Burns said. "It goes back and forth."
 
Wine critics often use the French phrase, "gout de terroir"
No they don't. Well, maybe in France they do. I don't know.

"When people talk about terroir, it all sounds very fancy and all very marvelous and it makes it sound like we really know something. But I guarantee you, we know very little," said Jonathan Swinchatt, a geologist and consultant to several high-end California vineyards.
That's not really true. We know quite a bit, actually, compared to things we know "very little" about. What we don't know is the precise mechanism/process of it. The science. But we've progressed pretty far into the "here's a phenomenon that's recognizable and repeatable" phase that so often precedes good science. The article itself is rife with examples. This is where the scientists that litter article should be helping out, doing the research, doing the tests, controlling the variables, rather than delivering yet another tiresome lecture about how slate doesn't hang around in the grape waiting to taste like slate in your Mosel.

Thanks for the article, though. I'd love to see the meat of the proceedings, if they were more interesting than the pop-sci AP version.
 
Certain classes of scientists (and journalists) seem to be preoccupied with "debunking" wine. I think if you get past that bias, there is actually a lot of common ground here.

To me, the issue is not proof, it is translation. It is abundantly clear that wine is capable of giving voice to the land; the question is, how do we translate this idea from the language of wine to the language of science?
 
Why would geologists know about the interaction between soil, roots, vines and grapes? This is a subject for microbiologists.

I bet no one in that meeting in Portland had ever heard about Claude Bourguignon...
 
Domaine de l'Ecu "Expression de Gneiss" and "Expression de Granite"

Put 'em side by side: Same winemaker, same grape, same vintage, only variation is the soil. They're different. It may not be scientifically explainable, but it is nonetheless so.
 
originally posted by The Wine Mule:
It may not be scientifically explainable, but it is nonetheless so.
I insist: Bourguignon, the man those geologists have not heard about, has explained it abundantly through microbial action.

For French speakers, an explanation (audio and transcript):

 
As I understand it, what the article questioned was whether the taste of specific geological features of the soil could be tasted in wine: in other words, if you tasted some slate from the soil, that taste would not appear in the wine, or would only do so by accident. Actually, it would be more surprising if the reverse were true since the belief pretty clearly goes back to homologic thinking. They haven't at all disproved, or even, as I read, disputed that specific terroirs impart specific tastes to the wines that come from them. And even that among those tastes will be ones we call minerality.
 
originally posted by VS:
originally posted by The Wine Mule:
It may not be scientifically explainable, but it is nonetheless so.
I insist: Bourguignon, the man those geologists have not heard about, has explained it abundantly through microbial action.

For French speakers, an explanation (audio and transcript):


I'll ask my wife to read it.
 
"I am not saying that chemistry and geology have no effect on the wine. It may have effects that we don't understand," said geologist Alex Maltman.

That may qualify as the understatement of the decade.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by VS:
Why would geologists know about the interaction between soil, roots, vines and grapes? This is a subject for microbiologists.

I bet no one in that meeting in Portland had ever heard about Claude Bourguignon...

Insightful point. I agree...
 
originally posted by The Wine Mule:
Domaine de l'Ecu "Expression de Gneiss" and "Expression de Granite"

Put 'em side by side: Same winemaker, same grape, same vintage, only variation is the soil. They're different. It may not be scientifically explainable, but it is nonetheless so.

Yup...there are countless examples like this, but thanks for pointing it out.
 
Jamie Goode, in "The Science of Wine," which was published in 2005, predicted then that there would be a role for microbiology in the explanation of terroir. He quotes Dr. Martin Bradley of Nottingham University:

"A large amount of work is underway to understand the molecular biology of grapes, and scientists are identifying genes that influence wine flavor. As more grape molecular biology is known, the easier it will be to understand mechanisms of terroir on wine taste."

I'm going to make an assumption that Bourguignon is one of those performing the "large amount of work" that Bradley refers to.

My wife's French is good, but she's not sure she's up to technical language. We'll find out...
 
originally posted by The Wine Mule:
Jamie Goode, in "The Science of Wine," which was published in 2005, predicted then that there would be a role for microbiology in the explanation of terroir. He quotes Dr. Martin Bradley of Nottingham University:

"A large amount of work is underway to understand the molecular biology of grapes, and scientists are identifying genes that influence wine flavor. As more grape molecular biology is known, the easier it will be to understand mechanisms of terroir on wine taste."

I'm going to make an assumption that Bourguignon is one of those performing the "large amount of work" that Bradley refers to.

Jamie may well have made such a prediction (I haven't read his book yet), but the quote you produce does nothing to support that claim. The molecular biology of grapes has nothing to do with the soil ecology of vineyards.

Just sayin'
Mark Lipton
 
There exists a very big difference between that which is not yet known and that which is proven to be untrue. Sadly, in science a lack of investigation of a particular phenonmenon is often mistakenly offered as proof that the phenomenon does not exist.
 
Terroir is marketing bullshit.
Every scientist knows that. Enologists too.
BTW who gives a shit about what scientists and enologists think about wine?
According to my experience mainly scientists and enologists...

Eric
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by The Wine Mule:
Jamie Goode, in "The Science of Wine," which was published in 2005, predicted then that there would be a role for microbiology in the explanation of terroir. He quotes Dr. Martin Bradley of Nottingham University:

"A large amount of work is underway to understand the molecular biology of grapes, and scientists are identifying genes that influence wine flavor. As more grape molecular biology is known, the easier it will be to understand mechanisms of terroir on wine taste."

I'm going to make an assumption that Bourguignon is one of those performing the "large amount of work" that Bradley refers to.

Jamie may well have made such a prediction (I haven't read his book yet), but the quote you produce does nothing to support that claim. The molecular biology of grapes has nothing to do with the soil ecology of vineyards.

Just sayin'
Mark Lipton

I try to read for comprehension, although I am not always successful. I was responding to this:

"I insist: Bourguignon, the man those geologists have not heard about, has explained it abundantly through microbial action."
 
originally posted by Mark Davis:
"I am not saying that chemistry and geology have no effect on the wine. It may have effects that we don't understand," said geologist Alex Maltman.
originally posted by Karen Goetz:
There exists a very big difference between that which is not yet known and that which is proven to be untrue.

As we know,
There are known knowns,
There are things we know we know.

We also know
There are known unknowns.

That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we dont know we dont know.
 
originally posted by Mark Davis:
originally posted by VS:
Why would geologists know about the interaction between soil, roots, vines and grapes? This is a subject for microbiologists.

I bet no one in that meeting in Portland had ever heard about Claude Bourguignon...

Insightful point. I agree...
Why is it a subject only for microbiologists? Microbiology is only one of the processes at work here, and in fact, the microbes need chemical components to provide energy, so it is linked back to the chemical (and hydrological) environment as well.
 
originally posted by Brzme:
Terroir is marketing bullshit.
Every scientist knows that. Enologists too.
BTW who gives a shit about what scientists and enologists think about wine?
According to my experience mainly scientists and enologists...

Eric
Not sure if this is tongue in cheek? Most scientists in fact know nothing about "terroir" one way or the other, so I don't see how you say it is "marketing bullshit".

I was not at the meeting, but from what I can glean from the article, the geologists were merely saying that there is no direct absorption of the minerals into the plant, so the taste imparted by the soil has to be indirect. Any soil scientist or geochemist of course knows this already, so this is presumably just some fodder for the journalists.
 
Back
Top