Terroir Wars - Does the Earth Have a Flavor?

[zoramargolis]

The longer I live the more I am sure that most people in the world don't taste things the way I do. I therefore cannot condemn or look down on anyone who does not taste minerality, or menthol, or granite, or anything but the most obvious fruit flavor in any given wine.

The point that Harold McGee's article was making was not that those flavors don't exist in the wine, just that specifically the quality that people refer to as "minerality" comes from certain strains of yeast interacting with the grapes; those flavor elements do not come from rocks in the soil.

[deangold]

That isn't inconsistent with what McGee was saying. Essentially, he is talking about the perception of "minerality" and where that comes from--turns out it is not a direct expression of, say, limestone in the soil, but is probably a product of the interaction of the grapes and the particular strain of yeast used in fermentation. That the yeasts may be local, or traditionally chosen by the winemaker has an impact on the local and specific taste of the wine. So, in that sense of terroir, the traditional view is correct. The way I read it, he's just saying that the idea of terroir has a more to do with nurture and somewhat less to nature than has been embraced as almost a religious sort of precept.

There are experiments in Spain that have shown that site specificity has an effect, one that cannot be attributed to yeast or to winemaking. What McGee is reporting is just that it is not a direct effect of the minerals in the soil being taken up thru the rootstock and getting into the wine.

For example, if a vineyard is deficient in a particular critical mineral, say boron which is present in trivial micro amounts, it will react in a particular, predictable fashion that takes away from the "terroir" of the wine. Add some boron to the soil and the effects go away over a few years. Thus a mineral, which is not taken up and deposited int he grape, has a very real and testable influence on the resultant wine. The minerality of the soil may affect the vines in very complex and ultimately predictable fashion. We just don't understand all the mechanisms yet. Can we call this terroir?

I think that minerality as a tasting term confuses the issue. When I thinkof minerality, I think of the tasteof gravel, of rock. I am not saying that any particular element is in the wine. Just as when I say that a Lagrein has a blueberry flavor, I know that there is no blueberry in the wine.

In the history of science, there are numerous instances of effects being predictable and well understood without the causal mechanism being understood. But then later, the causal mechanisms are discovered, studied and well known.

[deangold]

Because Napa is getting harder and harder for Cabernet Sauvignon. Matter of fact, a whole hell of a lot of places are getting harder and harder for Cabernet Sauvignon. Hey, in another couple of generations, we may live in a world safe from Cab .

Climate and soil-wise, Napa is starting to look more like Minervois than St.-Emilion.

And this isn't happening in Burgundy? Or in Minervois itself? There will always eb a place ofr wellmade cabernet from cooler climats. They may just be coming from the Saar and from Alaska in a few years....

[Wine Guy 23]

And this isn't happening in Burgundy? Or in Minervois itself? There will always eb a place ofr wellmade cabernet from cooler climats. They may just be coming from the Saar and from Alaska in a few years....

continued on the talk of "terroirity" it is with no confusion a true ideal of classsics. there is always a defining mineral one can portray in wines of rootstock base when they are submerged in soils that contain those minerals.. Chalk of chablis, gravel of Graves, Slate of Germany, Iron of RRV.. but the only problem is the way we word our verbage,, to say we taste mineral is a falseness, we feel the mineral as a texture , and the aroma makes us think of it as it drifts up the olfactory line.. the two work with each other right. so together we interchange them, from aroma to palate..

[mdt]

continued on the talk of "terroirity" it is with no confusion a true ideal of classsics. there is always a defining mineral one can portray in wines of rootstock base when they are submerged in soils that contain those minerals.. Chalk of chablis, gravel of Graves, Slate of Germany, Iron of RRV.. but the only problem is the way we word our verbage,, to say we taste mineral is a falseness, we feel the mineral as a texture , and the aroma makes us think of it as it drifts up the olfactory line.. the two work with each other right. so together we interchange them, from aroma to palate..

Yup, we only taste sweet, sour, bitter, and salt. Everything else is a result, as you state, of being deciphered by the olfactory line. When we eat the aromas of the food drift up into the nasal cavities and combine with the information from the taste buds to create the total experience. For example, an orange would certainly not taste like an orange if we could not smell it. I think most people are describing the entire experience when talking about food, and why not, that is the total experience.

[zoramargolis]

we only taste sweet, sour, bitter, and salt.

I thought that in recent years, umami had been added.

[dmwine]

You people are taking all the fun out of wine.

[deangold]

I thought that in recent years, umami had been added.

Umami is well accepted in Japan,not sowell accepted in France which also has problems with the sweet sour bitter and salty paradigm, having some combo flavors like (IIRC) sour salty and sour bitter being two distinct tastes from with sour and salty.

Also the last time I looked at the Umami question,some folk thought it an exciter of other taste buds and some thought it a taste in and of itself. But that was back in 1998 or so. Old news indeed.

[ol_ironstomach]

The umami receptor was finally identified in 1999, establishing a reasonably firm scientific basis for umami as a distinct taste. I'm not aware of a specialized receptor for combo flavors though; as you probably know, the recognized receptors are distributed throughout the tongue, but concentrations of certain types of receptors appear to be responsible for the taste-map effect on the tongue.

[deangold]

I htink the alternative interpretation for the combo tastes are not the receptor but what it "tastes" or signals. Thanks fo rthe update on the Umami receptor. As I said my info on Umami was older.

[Pool Boy]

The point that Harold McGee's article was making was not that those flavors don't exist in the wine, just that specifically the quality that people refer to as "minerality" comes from certain strains of yeast interacting with the grapes; those flavor elements do not come from rocks in the soil.

Interesting. But let's look at it like what it is then, if this is the case. If these flavors come from certain yeasts, couldn't one argue that, if at least some of the yeasts used in making wine are the natural ones found on the grape clusters themselves (extremely likely), then the yeasts themselves are imparting the terroir. Right? I think so. The yeasts that naturally occur where they occur must be a part of the area and region that the grapes are grown. And the yeasts must also lay or get attached to the grapes in part by the weather, micro-climate and soil conditions of the particular site.

Isn't that terroir?

[Mark Slater]

Je suis un terroiriste.

[Wine Guy 23]

Interesting. But let's look at it like what it is then, if this is the case. If these flavors come from certain yeasts, couldn't one argue that, if at least some of the yeasts used in making wine are the natural ones found on the grape clusters themselves (extremely likely), then the yeasts themselves are imparting the terroir. Right? I think so. The yeasts that naturally occur where they occur must be a part of the area and region that the grapes are grown. And the yeasts must also lay or get attached to the grapes in part by the weather, micro-climate and soil conditions of the particular site.

Isn't that terroir?

and by that,,, then how would one find 'minerality' in yeast,, a strain of life that is only a mere vegatative life form, not a mineral, or a piece of rock, or chalk, or limestone or oyster shell or clay or gravel.. yeast is a secondary aroma not a pyrazine or a tertiary aroma,, it helps with aromatics beginnigs not there defining origin,,

Romanee Conti does not taste like Romanee conti because it has Romanee Conti yeast, more so than La Tache yeast, or La Romanee yeast or Echezeaux yeast, or Pommard yeast for that matter,,, place defines varietal when the varietal is done right in the place,, yeast is our friend but in todays world sometimes that friend is maufactured to the N-th degree to meet the other 'friends' palate.

this is where the battle for classicism takes place, and alcohol begins its introduction into the modern world of the nonwise and artificial taster... if you are actually interested check out an article and well written argument by MS Mathew Citriglia on

www.winegeeks.com

blind taste sometime and tell us the yeast you taste, instead of the type of soil

[Mark Slater]

Please explain how broccoli is a great source of calcium. Calcium is a mineral.

[deangold]

Again, all McGee's work showed was that grapes grown in a soil high in a certain mineral did not result in wines with that mineral. Other carefully controlled experiements suggest that the mineral content of a soil had a direct effect on the flavor of the resultant wine WHEN CONTROLLING for yeast. So if moneral differences in the soil have a direct and, at least in theory, predictable effect on wine, then we can call that minerality or terroir or taste of place. A predictable effect that has an unknown mechanism does not mean that the mecahanism is not there. In fact, if we see an predictable effect for which there is no known mechanism, it will lead to folk looking for the mechanism and that can lead to great discoveries.

Yeasts are powerful little biggers and have a huge effect on the end wine. But I have yet to taste anything that tastes like a Brunello that doens't come from conditions that are similar, soil and climate. There are 100% Sangiovese from colle Sinese, the very south edge of Chianti Classico and from arrezzo that are quite Brunello like. The soils are similar. The minerality of these wines flows across many producers but is found in producers who are minimalists when it comes to interventional winemaking. (La Selva, Felsina, Terriccio, Mori all come to mind.

[dirtymartini]

IMHO there is way to narrow translation of the word 'terroir' going on here.

Terroir does not simply mean place or land in fact, there is no literal translation. In my understanding terroir means, local conditions including, percipitation(intervals and amount as well as timing) site orientation and angle, slope, drainage, altitude, temprature, and the amount of sunlight and time of day that sunlight occurs. Terroir also includes the local clones, wine making practices, yeasts and viniculture methods. Terroir includes soil type, drainage rate, fertilization (amount and type and frequency). Terroir can also mean local vegatation interactions with the vines, including but not limited to, pollen deposits, mulching and non-vine vineyard plantings. This is not all of what terroir is, anyone could add more.

If you think of wine as a storybook with pictures, with the taste of the wine being the words and the smell of the wine being the pictures, then terroir is the story of a place, and wine, the medium.

[zoramargolis]

Je suis un terroiriste.

Does that make Harold McGee a jihadist in The War on Terroir?

[Mark Slater]

Conan gets a wine tasting lesson

I'm glad the guy didn't demonstrate horse sweat or wet dog.

[The Leaver]

Conan gets a wine tasting lesson

I'm glad the guy didn't demonstrate horse sweat or wet dog.

...or "pasture"